http://www.knkx.org/post/orca-task-force...ble-dam-removal

Didn't read the details but didn't see much about quick increases in hatchery production? Saw lots about habitat. That takes time. Was hoping for a quick shot in PS arm for a bunch more fish to catch. Final report tomorrow.

It's just breathtakingly stunning that the biggest identified is food TODAY and the proffered solutions may bring more food in a decade. Extinction is not an option, but may be the preferred alternative.

2 things. 1 the only way augmented hatchery production will work is if hatcheries are able to meet their egg take needs for their current program AS WELL AS meet the additional needs to produce more fish. This is unfortunately not always the case. Many hatcheries are already barely making take for certain programs, and this will certainly limit augmentation into the future. 2nd thing, pumping out more hatchery fish DOES NOT correlate directly to more fishing opportunity. Our mixed stock fisheries are dependent upon wild encounters NOT the number of hatchery surplus available to harvest. Because of this our quotas and time on the water in mixed stock areas will still be limited to the SAME amount we have now based on what our allowable wild impacts are. We MIGHT see more opportunity in terminal areas with an increase in hatchery production, but that is a big MIGHT. We have to get agreement on the other side of the aisle any time we want to open new or expanded fisheries, and of late it seems like we have not been able to meet agreeable terms, speaking generally.

I don't know very much about egg take goals these days and how often or not they are met. I do know those goals are far lower than they used to be, due to hatchery affects on wild fish, and any surplus eggs are destroyed over the achieved goals. Also hatchery facility funding and production capacities have been substantially cut over the years. My take is if food is needed now for these Orcus to survive they will come from the resident blackmouth programs that currently exist for the sole purpose recreational/tribal harvest. These programs have also been cut over the years. Open winter seasons have been consistent and if more fish are produced, I can see increased success per rod hr. time regardless of wild encounters. I am disappointed that this draft report fails to emphasize quick production NOW! IMO it will do little to help the current Orca population decline.

The Governor's Task Force on SRKWs would be far better off to watch and listen to the link provided in Eyefish's thread titled, "SRKW . . . the truth." Whale watching bans and removing the lower Snake River dams and increasing hatchery Chinook production won't do diddly squat for SRKWs unless they increase the supply of Chinook during the time and the place where they are presently limiting for the SRs.

GodLovesUgly -


For the major PS fall Chinook hatcheries 18,000 to 20,000 adults are needed for brood stock. In 2017 there was over an aggregate of 100,000 surplus above brood stock needs and in 2018 over 60,000. Yes not all that surplus isn't uniform across the hatcheries but clearly there are surpluses to work with.

I agree that planting additional hatchery fish does not assure more recreational fishing; especially in marine mixed stock areas. It also does not assure that there desired prey for the orcas.



Curt

True! But I will jump on any band wagon and support any task force to produce more fish to catch.

If I were in charge and if the intent of increasing the Chinook production was to feed SRKW then the only fishing on Chinook would be after they pass by the whales as adults. Inner Bay and River.

Fair point Carcassman!

With that thought in mind lets not forget the recent scientific study which concluded that pinnipeds take 7 times what all fishermen harvest and twice what Orca consume.

Exactly why I am scratching my head that this report mentions nothing about predation mitigation.

They’re going to initiate more studies on the issue of pinniped predation. Limited culling at choke points or when smolts are out-migrating would remove identifiable pinniped. Unfortunately, when the MMPA was passed, there were no provisions for what could be done when the populations were recovered. We didn’t have endangered Chinook in the 1970s nor starving orcas.

Nor ESA listed rockfish in Puget Sound also targeted by pinnipeds.

The problem is that we really don't need more studies. What we need is for NOAA/NMFS and our Congressional delegation to press for changes to the MMPA which would provide wide-ranging latitude for managers and preclude the need to go to Congress over localized issues - especially when recovery of ESA listed species is at play.

That would be nice, but they'll have to study the issue first.....

The bill currently in Congress is specific to the Columbia River issue. Looks like ODFW can begin to remove pinnipeds at Willamette Falls.

Haven't they been studying the impact of pinnipeds on salmonids since Herschel and his relatives decimated Lake Washington wild steelhead at the Chittendon Locks starting in 1981?

History repeating itself???

If hatchery production is increased, you ought not assume sport fishers, while we may enjoy slightly more productive angling due to higher numbers of fish being present, will be allocated any additional catch. Lest we forget, this is the Orca Task Force making recommendations; not the Puget Sound Sport Fishing Task Force.

Seems that given the pinniped take far outweighing the biomass of the sporties, commercials and SRKW's combined, any additional chinook production will most likely end up as sea lion schit. Seems like the logical solution is to manage the burgeoning pinniped population rather than given them a free pass under the MMPA....

Link 1

Link 2

This the point that the “plant fish stupid” crowd never gets. For the most part our ability to fish is limited by impacts to wild fish. Anything that is bad for wild fish is bad for fishermen. It does not matter how many fish they plant if we don’t have fishing opportunity.

"Productive angling" is a positive in my mind. After all what is the objective when you go fishing? Action! If I can do it in an hr vs 4, I'm in!
Agreed. We will need "opportunity". I am an optimist. If more fish are present and orca recovery works. I think opportunity will follow.
Latest news:
https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslees-budget-takes-big-steps-to-save-orcas-and-salmon-14d95ff00305

Simple ol' me perceives a win-win opportunity; if the predation in Puget Sound by seals and sea lions is reduced - particularly on smolts - the improved survival will be spread across both wild and hatchery fish. More returning wild fish yields better for us impact numbers which have been the constraining factor in marked selective fisheries.

But, yes, just dumping more smolts into the water will primarily feed seals and sea lions.

Barry Thom - you need to step to the plate on the MMPA.

I was watching a video with the new head of WDFW and he was asked about hatchery production increases and he said they would work on improved efficiency but said no to increased production.

That is not consistent with the preliminary analysis of the Governor's proposed budget. There is money there for increased production. Now, how to do that without them becoming seal food is another challenge. See this morning's briefing to the Commission: https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/dec1418_06_presentation.pdf.

I just don't understand how none of the actions that are being proposed solve today's problem of starvation. 5-10-15-20 years down the road they will be a big help. But, but not feeding them today, we rather ensure that the rest of the activities won't help the SRKW.

Are SRKW's being used as the "next" Big Thing to get salmon recovery to work? Obviously, what we have done since listing hasn't.

I looked through the action item list for the Governor's $1.1 billion orca proposal. I agree with Carcassman that none of it will serve the immediate problem of inadequate forage for SRKWs. And I don't think most of it will ever provide more than a token or very modest increase in effective Chinook forage for the orcas. It's not enough to just produce Chinook, they have to be Chinook, preferably large ones, that are in the right place at the right time in order to feed the orcas. PS hatchery Chinook means Green River fall Chinook. That is the only major hatchery Chinook stock throughout PS. All the new hatchery Chinook will be available in the same places and same times as the existing hatchery Chinook production. And they now average 12 pounds at maturity, and they are relatively concentrated in time and space such that they are available to the SRKWs for a short time, relative to their dietary need.

The Governor's proposal is a feel good product, more about political optics than saving orcas.

You have certainly focused on the practical consideration - thank you!

Despite all of the sniping it has remained apparent to me that the most effective way to put more Chinook in front of SRKW in the shortest time frame is to reduce the pinniped population.

While waiting for the start of yesterday's session of the WDFW Commission meeting turns out I was sitting next to a person who was there to testify against culling of pinnipeds. She was adamant that such action would not solve the problem and stated that there numerous instances of cullings that did not achieve the underlying goal. When I asked her what she recommended she said removal of the Snake River dams. Well, that simply won't feed the bull dog (or in this case SRKW) in time. If the SRKW are truly in the dire distress as purported then timeliness is a critical factor.

Now, is Orca recovery actually a ploy to achieve salmon recovery? I don't believe it is that overt but efforts to achieve Orca recovery can certainly have positive impacts both in the short term and long term and the further out on the time line the more blurred the goal and results (habitat restoration). But in the short term if reducing pinniped numbers and their predation impacts results in more wild origin smolts surviving to adulthood and returning to spawn that is a good thing for the fish and prospectively for our recreational fisheries. Think of the Stilly returns and how that impacted the initial salmon management plan (edit) which is now under re-write.

And he included $750K to study aspects of Snake River dam removal. Time for a reality check....what are the chances of that happening in the first place let alone in a time frame to "Save the Whales?"

Interesting your observations about Green River stock. I think it is Bush Bear who has Dept of Fisheries stocking records indicating Green River fish were stocked for years throughout Puget Sound rivers so those genetics are not just tied to current hatchery production. Oops, "Houston we have a problem."

Do you have any suggestions to get around the realities you presented especially in the shortest practicable time frame? White River spring Chinook? Or???

Larry. Are you saying that increasing smolt prroduction will just feed an ever increasing population of pinnepeds without reducing their numbers? Will increased smolt production further the proliferation of pinnepeds too then? Therefore ultimately increasing the competition of the SRKWs.

I will reiterate that the absolute fastest way to get food to the SRKW's is for humans to stop killing the food they eat and stop killing the food of the food they eat. The second fastest would be removal of the smolt-eating pinnipeds. Kill them, and in 3,4,5 years more adults might come back if fisheries don't kill them first.

Although the most obvious, pinnipeds eating adult salmonids may not be a great issue for the SRKW's because the salmon have passed the whales by; the pinnipeds eat fish that the whales don't/won't access.

But, getting the Save the Whales group onboard for habitat issues brings more power to the battle. Won't save the whales, but may get rid of reasonably useless dams.

There is no doubt that predation by an increasing number of pinnipeds in Puget Sound has had a significant impact on returning Chinook. The most recent scientific studies bear that out. It was interesting that yesterday's presentation to the Commission included a PowerPoint slide showing two scenarios related to an increase in smolt production - one where all of those made it past the gauntlet and returned and a second where other predators simply ate up all of that additional production yielding no increase in Chinook for the SRKW. I point that out to show that even the experts don't have a firm answer; what we got was a range of numbers (a SWAG).

But to your question. My layman's opinion is that any modest increase in production (all other factors remaining the same) will be subject to the same pinniped mortality rate currently being experienced. Yes, there would probably be some improvement to SRKW but when you crunch the numbers the increase will be minimal compared to needs. It is also possible that increased production could result in an increase in all predators over time. Conversely, in that presentation there is another slide which shows the number of seals that would have to be removed (both one time and then annually) to effect certain increases in returns. Unfortunately, all of that is academic given the limitations set forth in the MMPA - unless Congress were to pass an amendment to the MMPA to make it easier for managers to deal with pinniped issues currently being experienced or like at the Ballard locks starting in 1981.

Here is the link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/dec1418_06_presentation.pdf.

+1

It sounds like Orcas could be a gateway to a carbon tax?

Here is an interview with Gov. Inslee about the $1.1 billion orca proposal and only a hint of climate change proposal to help the orcas. He calls it “the one-two punch” being introduced to the legislature this next session to help orcas.

https://q13fox.com/2018/12/13/inslee-proposes-1-1-billion-plan-to-save-southern-resident-orcas/

It is going to get very, very expensive if passed.

Politically, I am not sure that the salmon predators (pinnipeds, birds) will be meaningfully controlled in the short-term.

I may have brought this up before, but if the Snake dams come out the justification for the Snake Mitigation Hatcheries disappear. So, fewer smolts and more predators so even if they get out of the Snake.........

One of the unintended consequences of reducing hatchery releases (for whatever reason-budget, genetics, religion) is that predation on the remaining ning wilds goes up.

I am not really convinced that society wants to save the SRKW's or salmon.

Using the as presented assumed marine survival rate of smolts on the additional 18.6MM smolts we would see a range of additional returns between a low of 93,000 (.5%) and a high of 186,000 (1.0%). Is that meaningful in terms of augmenting the current number of Chinook smolt (wild plus hatchery) and meeting the immediate needs of the SRKW?

Crunching the numbers the current Chinook smolt number used in the presentation was 46.1 million (41.6MM (90%) hatchery and 4.5MM (10%) natural) with a median seal predation at 12.2MM or 26.5%. Pretty dramatic numbers from my perspective.

If one combines the current 46.1MM current smolt number with the proposed 18.6MM the total rises to 64.7MM. Assuming all other factors remain the same and applying the 26.5% predation rate on smolts by seals we lose 17,145,500 smolts.

Again, using all of the presented rates if one were to decrease the number of seals by half the number of smolt lost to seal predation would drop by 50% or to 8,572,750 thereby saving 8,572,000. Applying the presented current range of marine survival (.5% to 1.0%) the return on investment (that is, 50% decrease in seals) would be 42,864 to 85,728 adults. Would that reduction in number of seals also raise the marine survival range? I'd think so.

There were lots of concerns expressed about unintended consequences of reducing the numbers of seals (and other pinnipeds) but one needs to continue to ask how much risk is society willing to entertain to save the SRKW? An additional 85,728 each year seems significant to me. Now, whether those additional fish really augment the SRKW needs given the concerns expressed by CM and SG is another matter.

One more observation. I noticed that the budget proposal tied to Orca recovery includes a line item for WSDOT ferries:

$117 million to begin converting two of the state’s Jumbo Mark II ferries from diesel to hybrid-electric and to begin constructing two new hybrid-electric ferries.

Are those going to be used to transport smolt past the Hood Canal bridge and the Tacoma Narrows? It is that type of apparent abuse which taints the whole recovery initiative.

I am discouraged to the extent that I have to agree with SG's final comment.

Larry asked, "Do you have any suggestions to get around the realities you presented especially in the shortest practicable time frame? White River spring Chinook? Or???"

Like Carcassman I think the short term need for forage can only be fulfilled by AK and especially BC backing off the marine water interception of Chinook. The other fast action (would require a Congressional MMPA exemption) that would boost Chinook abundance is to reduce pinnipeds by 50%. Smaller removals just don't offset enough Chinook loss. As the presentation to the Commission illustrates, seal diet is only 1% Chinook, so the only way to make a significant difference is to remove a large number of seals.

The next step was suggested a while ago by Smalma. Hatchery fish culturists need to spawn the largest returning Chinook in hopes of cultivating the fastest growing members of the stock. SRKWs prefer larger Chinook, so selective breeding might bring about a fairly short term improvement.

Culturing more White River springs could probably help. They too have become smaller, but increasing the supply of PS and Salish Sea Chinook certainly won't hurt the orcas.

I should point out that the PSF presentation linked in "the truth" thread, indicates that if the Harrison and SF Thompson Chinook, mainstays of SRKW forage, don't rebound, the SRKWs may be screwed, regardless of any other actions taken by any state or provincial or federal authority.

To add to what Salmo said, enhancing Fall Chinook, especially Green Rivers, to benefit SRKW's is close to a waste of time. They need Springs and Summers, probably more than Falls as there are a reasonable number of Falls around. In order to reduce impacts to wild Springers and Summers we would need to concentrate in areas where they aren't. Samish Hatchery, Quilcene, Bernie Gobin, even the Cedar River Sockeye facility might be options. They each have terminal areas where uneaten fish could be harvested.

It is my understanding that age at adult is inherited, so if we selectively bred the toads we would still have to not fish on them to let the kids reach the older ages.

A fly in the ointment of going bigger fish is that in AK, size at age is going down. This is not a fishery-related size reduction but food related. And, the larger fish are dieing on the return migration as, with warmer water, they can't consume enough calories of the lower-quality food to maintain life. They starve on a full stomach.

Thank you both for your responses. I specifically asked you in light of the emergent Task Force recommendations, Governor's related budget items (but ferries???) and Friday's Staff presentation to the Commission.

I specifically mentioned White River springs because their existing recovery efforts will be consolidated at the renovated Puyallup hatchery with a publicized production goal of 800K fish and they represent a significantly different return timing. Feasibility of increasing that number at that location? It seems that WDFW has a space limitation at its current, operational facilities. What facilities do they currently have in mothball status which could be brought on line with minimal investment?

New production facilities? There is roughly 5 million gallons of ground water available daily at Pierce County's property at Chambers Bay (north side) and an unspecified amount at the site of the former paper mill on the other (south) side of Chambers Creek estuary. That property is current for sale.

Anyway, just thinking via keyboard.

Edit: Rhetorically.....where is NOAA/NMFS on the pinniped predation issue and conflict between MMPA and ESA? Is Barry Thom leading from the rear???

They could do White Rivers at Icy Creek in the Green and perhaps Palmer. Nice cold water. They used to do Springs (WR) at Hupp Springs (on Minter) so that is another option. There are lots of options.

Springers seem to show the best results on yearlings, so you are going to need a water supply that is very strong in the summer in terms of both flow and low temperatures. Springs were also done at Hood Canal. I don't think it was a big program and I don't know just how successful it was but you could reduce the chum program to do Springs.

We'll never achieve a substantive increase in the large fish phenotype without curtailing the rape of the nursery in the northern killing fields. The fish genetically programmed to become older larger chinook never get there because they are disproportionately exploited by the marine harvest machine.

Well, yeah. It keeps getting back to BC and AK marine mixd stock fisheries which is one place that managers really don't seem to want to go.

I think the Nisqually could also support spring Chinook. Cold water, etc. Also, a beefed up late release for blackmouth might help. The very south of Puget Sound used to have a good blackmouth supply years ago. Now, not so much. Percival Cove stopped their program, and McAllister closed.

Graph the increase in seal population over the decrease in success in the blackmouth fishery. It is impossible to not see the inverse relationship and also conclude there is a cause and effect relationship. One might say it was the increasing population of seals feeding year around on those juvenile Chinook which effectively killed that program.

Something that rarely discussed is the fact this seal/salmon problem is a symptom of ecosystem failure.

A recent harbor seal diet study found that during the spring (smolt migration period) only 1 to 2% of the diet were juvenile salmonids. Yes given the number of seals and the length of time the smolts are vulnerable that can add up to a lot of fish the fact remains the smolts are not necessarily the preferred food item.


The various cod (hake, Pacific, and Pollock), herring, anchovies, shiner perch, staghorn sculpins, etc. are all eaten at much higher rates than Chinook smolts. I would find it interesting to learn what is limiting the historic harbor seal forage base. Is it being limited by the seals themselves or some other factor. Are there actions that could be taken to increase that forage base?

The whole salmon and orca recovery discussions consistent lack a general holistic approach to required actions.

Curt

Smalma, when discussing the impact of pinnipeds in general and seals specifically to Chinook returns the use of the word "only" when describing a 1-2% of their entire annual diet is misleading. Being highly mobile and opportunistic predators they will go "where the livin' is easy" to quote from a song's verse. As I recall the seals' recent impact was estimated at just over 26% of outbound Chinook smolt against an estimated Chinook smolt population of over 46MM. Do the math.

However, I do agree with you that with Chinook smolt representing only 1-2% of annual diet those seal numbers are probably not being limited by Chinook smolt but, rather, by those other prey species you mentioned not the least of which is forage fish.

At the Commission meeting on Friday I sat next to a young woman who was there to testify against seal culling as she said she had proof that culling in other areas did not achieve the intended goal. I responded with the "Okay, if not predator control then what?" Among her suggestions was increasing forage fish habitat. But would that really solve the problem? Would an increase in forage fish shift seal predation away from Chinook smolt or would it result in increasing the carrying capacity within Puget Sound for all of those predators for which forage fish is the limiting factor thereby allowing an increase in the total numbers of those predators to include seals. And if the total number of seals is increased would that result in an increase in their current 26% impact on Chinook smolt?

Basic biology. If the pinnipeds are increasing, they have enough food and habitat. When the populations stabilize, they have reached capacity. Increase stuff they eat, and they'll increase.

Another little interesting tidbit from the Staff's presentation is the slide which indicates that NOAA/NMFS has not established an Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) for harbor seals.

In an article entitled Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99 by Harriet Huber and Jeff Laake as published in the AFSC Quarterly (Oct-Nov-Dec 2002) there was the following:

"Status Relative to OSP
Although the evidence is not strong, the growth models of both stocks agree with the speculation that MNPL is in deed greater than 0.5 K (Table 3). The predicted population size for 1999 is very close to K for both stocks (Table 3), and none of the bootstrap replicates predicted a 1999 population size that was below MNPL. These results provide overwhelming evidence that both stocks in Washington are above MNPL and meet the guidelines for OSP. These stocks could decline or be reduced by 20% and they would still be above MNPL with a high degree of certainty (Table 3). The coastal stock recovered earlier than the inland stock as evidenced by the status of the stocks in 1990 (Table 3)."

In that article they had five geographical areas covering what the Staff presented as three inland areas - I point that out to avoid any confusion. The combined total population of harbor seals for those inland areas east of Tatoosh in the last year presented (1999) was 8,949. If you reduce that number by 20% you would arrive at 7,159 animals.

Compare that to the Staff's cited three year average (2013, 2014, 2015) total number of 19,029 for that same area and you would be able to reduce the population by 11,970 animals or 62.4%. Is there any doubt that such a reduction wouldn't have a significant positive affect on Chinook returns all other factors remaining the same?

Note: This post has not been peer reviewed and if there is an error I welcome any (polite) corrections. It is a starting point for discussion given the vacuum created by the absence of an OSP in the presentation to the Commission.

The conundrum we have is that the pinnipeds are way above a sustainable level and the SKWs and Chinook aren't. Wonder if the fact that we stopped killing the seals has any impact on their recovery.

They live in the same water, they eat many of the same foods. It's the argument I make that FW can't be all that crappy because searun cutthroat and native char (anadromous) seem to be rebounding. They use the same FW and Chinook and steelhead, they o into the same Sound. I know it's simplistic to say that the only problem;em is killing the fish, but it is the one we won't deal with. That, and killing pinnipeds.

Seems if we can't take the necessary actions to get SRKW fish now (close fisheries, kill pinnipeds) then we just aren't going to get there.

Being a similar straight line thinker the clear answer is YES. Fiddle with the numbers but there is no denying the evidence.

And I will add that when the issue of pinniped predation was raised as a factor in rockfish recovery NOAA folks opined that seal scat studies in the San Juans indicated a very small percentage with rockfish DNA and that the rockfish DNA had not been identified by species (see, speak and hear no evil). They further indicated that since those listed rockfish were generally found in deeper water than where seals forage there wasn't an issue. Then when they tried to justify MPAs they said that the MPAs needed to run to the beach to provide sanctuary for juveniles of those same listed rockfish species - and therefore be susceptible to seal predation. (Left hand meet right hand.)

And that doesn't even address the increasing population of California seal lions and Stellar sea lions which forage at much deeper depths and are known to eat rockfish.