Puget Sound Chinook RMP

Here's the summary page and a link to the WDFW staff presentation that will be made tomorrow morning to the Commission on the Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan.

The presentation will start at 10 a.m.



Summary Sheet Meeting dates: January 17-18, 2020

Agenda item: Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan

Presenter(s):Ron Warren, Phil Anderson, Mike Grossmann, Kyle Adicks

Background summary: The co-managers have been working with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) since 2015 to develop a resource management plan (RMP) for Puget Sound salmon fisheries impacting ESA-listed Chinook salmon, and potentially impacting other listed species such as Southern Resident Killer Whales. The RMP addresses the criteria established in Limit 6 of the federal 4(d) rule and, if approved by NMFS, would allow fisheries to proceed under long-term ESA-coverage. The RMP is nearing completion and submission must occur in early 2020 to allow NMFS to complete review prior to the 2021 fishing season. The Commission has delegated to the Director the authority to enter into co-management agreements such as the RMP. This briefing will provide an overview of the conservation and legal environment in which the RMP was developed, summarize the major elements of the RMP, describe the public comment and review process that will likely be conducted by NOAA Fisheries, and review the WDFW communication plan.

Staff recommendation: Not applicable – briefing only.

Policy issue(s) and expected outcome: Not applicable – briefing only.

Fiscal impacts of agency implementation: Not applicable – briefing only.

Public involvement process used and what you learned: WDFW has participated in numerous formal and informal meetings with recreational anglers, commercial fishers, and representatives of multiple organizations. Concerns exist that the RMP will further restrict fisheries and, conversely, that the proposed fishing levels are inconsistent with the conservation and recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Southern Resident Killer Whales. Broad agreement exists that enhanced habitat protection and restoration funding are essential to the future of Puget Sound Chinook and fisheries.

Action requested and/or proposed next steps: Not applicable – briefing only.

Draft motion language: Not applicable – briefing only.

Post decision communications plan: Not applicable – briefing only.


https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/13_fwc_-_pscrmp_jan_2020_final.pdf

Senior staff pitching it hard... Grossman Anderson Addicks and Warren presented a very sobering picture of just how bad things are.

Puget Sound chinook populations after 20yrs of active “management” on the ESA list are at 72% of the levels that precipitated the original listing in the first place.

Yeah.... we suck THAT bad!

NMTA exec fears that under the RMP, mark selective fisheries in Puget Sound are in jeopardy

PSA exec highlights that further fishery reductions alone CANNOT possibly recover PS chinook.

Pat Patillo reiterates state managed fisheries have already reduced wild exploitation by 80%..... more restrictions unlikely to be helpful. Need to level the playing the field at NOF which has become too dysfunctional.

Obviously, either reductions in fisheries have not been enough as the fish continue to decline or all the money spent to date on habitat is wasted as that has not resulted in improvements.

Until the runs IMPROVE you are not doing enough. Or, extinction is the choice in which case we should just accept that and move on.

I think our good buddies at WFC have filed suit against NOAA regarding the lack of progress on restoring SRKWs and PS Chinook. WDFW may be really pushing this Plan to gain a few more years where either the whales go extinct or the Plan fails and we draft a new one to keep fisheries going.

You can't solve this problem by fisheries reductions in areas where a minority of the fish are caught. Cuts in AK and BC will be necessary to make a difference, too bad the politics will never let that happen. . .

Sobering indeed! The stock status info presented in the RMP presentation is the bleakest fisheries report I think I've ever seen. Fascinating that NMFS can come up with a Recovery Exploitation Rate (RER) of 22% for Stillaguamish Chinook, a population known to be unable to replace itself even in the absence of any fishing, coastwide. Similar for mid-HC Chinook. And these are the stocks typically controlling Puget Sound - and now PS tributaries as well - recreational fishing. Phil Anderson indicated he finds some optimism in the report, which makes me think he's still wearing the rose colored glasses. For me, the glaring news is that PS wild Chinook are circling the drain - maybe not Skagit, at least not as soon.

I think I'm a conservationist first and angler second. But when restricting fishing cannot possibly recover a salmon population, managers must look at other alternatives if recovery is truly the desired outcome. Restricting fishing will not and cannot recover Stilly Chinook or mid-HC Chinook. I've posted quite a bit about Stilly Chinook previously. Mid-HC Chinook should be removed from the list of Chinook stocks in the PS ESU. We were making some noise about this at NMFS 5 or more years ago. The logical reason for removal is because Chinook spawners in mid-HC tributaries (Dose, Duck, Hamma) are George Adams hatchery strays, or the uncommon offspring of GA strays. That means they are part of the ubiquitous Green River hatchery Chinook. What fish biologist would be surprised to learn that GR hatchery Chinook are mal-adapted to natural reproduciton on eastern OP tributaries? But, you say, where are the native wild mid-HC Chinook? They were wiped out by fishing by the end of the 1960s when HC was managed for wipe-out commercial fishing on hatchery Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. WDFW can crank the handle on the machine that is supposed to recover wild Chinook in the mid-HC tribs out of GR hatchery Chinook for decades, but that doesn't mean it will happen. If one wants to win the war, one shouldn't expend too many resources on a losing battle.

And of course, closing gamefish seasons (summer steelhead & sea run cutthroat, mainly CNR fly fishing) on the Stilly won't recover a single damn Chinook either. WDFW and the Tribe should be on the same side of the table persuading NMFS, by strong arm if necessary, to forget about any near term recovery of wild Stilly Chinook and focus on conservation hatchery measures to keep the stock in existence for some future time, likely far in the future if ever, working on habitat recovery meanwhile. Taking off the rose colored glasses would mean using Californial condor-like conservation measures for an indefinite period of time.

On a positive note, it appeared that some staff and Commissioners recognize that continuing to close or restrict recreational angling isn't going to recover any of the ESA-listed populations. They all appear to feel that the annual piggy-backing on the BIA permit after NOF is not a sustainable course of action. They haven't figured out the solution yet, but at least I got the feeling that they are now looking for one. That's a partial relief. I say partial because they aren't saying they won't close gamefish seasons under the pretext of Chinook conservation this year or next, even though everyone in the room now seems to understand such closures won't do a damn thing to conserve the threatened Chinook. Clearly we still have a ways to go.

Just for a clarification, when you say "restricting fishing will not and cannot recover..." do you mean all fisheries or just recreational fishing?

The fishery restrictions that are needed are beyond the control of WDFW; AK and BC. It's not just the salmon fishing. It is the pink and chum hatchery releases, it is the fisheries on food fish and anything lower in the food chain. It is not having fisheries on pinnipeds.

And, it is the inability to restore habitat in large enough chunks and then PUT FISH INTO IT.

Recovery is simply too societally and politically expensive. So, we put the sports on the beach.

Fishing restriction or even fishing elimination are not likely to recover PS Chinook. The current recovery paradigm is broken and will not achieve recovery. The only remaining question is whether after the next 5 year status review due in 2021 or the 2026 review the ESA status of PS Chinook will be upgraded from threatened to endangered.

Perhaps there is no better indication of the habitat recovery failure than the Stillaguamish summer Chinook. For the 20 year period (1990 to 2009) the average escapement (NOR and wild brood stock HOR) was 1,500 spawners. Those spawners on produced on the average only 933s NOR the next generation; less than 2 recruits for every spawners. From memory I think there were only 3 years that recruits/spawner exceeded 1.0 with the largest about 1.25 recruits per spawner. Keep in mind since that 20 period of data the Oso slide has happen further degrading the spawning habitats.

Slide 19 (Mid-Hood Canal) may be the most alarming in regards to future marine water mixed stock fisheries. While it appears that still is not co-manager/NMFS on allowable exploitation rates the Slide says NMFS recommended rate is 5%. Most years a 12% mid-Hood Canal has been the most constrain stock. If that nearly 60% reduction in allowable exploitation were to come to past it will be the death nail several mixed stock fisheries.

Depressing but not unexpected news.

Curt

Even more SHOCKING to me is the RER (recovery exploitation rate) of 22% assigned to Stillaguamish.

You've got a critically endangered run of chinook, where each generation of adult spawners is incapable of replacing itself.... and the brain-trust believes that killing more than one in five of those struggling recruits is the path to recovery?

YGTBFKM, right?

If I read Curt right, Stilly fish have an R/S less than 1. The fisheries can't be reduced any more, as this won't increase the R/S to above 1.0 . The habitat restoration hasn't worked, as the R/S and total run continue downward.

The run, then, by the best measures we have, extinct. Just admit it and move on. We have had 20+ years of doing the "Best Science" to have the fish runs decline by 30%. They're extinct.

C'man, yes wild Stilly Chinook are functionally extinct. As one of those Pollyanna optimists I'm not ready to throw in the towel. First, let me say, they are awesome Chinook, on parr with Skagit summer Chinook, just far less numerous. I want to try to preserve the stock with aggressive conservation hatchery measures, up to and including captive broodstock. I think it's worth a try. If it fails, then we can move on, confident we did all that was humanly possible in our time.

{/quote}Slide 19 (Mid-Hood Canal) may be the most alarming in regards to future marine water mixed stock fisheries. While it appears that still is not co-manager/NMFS on allowable exploitation rates the Slide says NMFS recommended rate is 5%. Most years a 12% mid-Hood Canal has been the most constrain stock. If that nearly 60% reduction in allowable exploitation were to come to past it will be the death nail several mixed stock fisheries.

Depressing but not unexpected news.

Curt [/quote]


I am pretty sure the 12% rate used for recent management is a ER rate ceiling in preterminal So. US fisheries. THe NMFS rate of 5% is in all fisheries. The December 2017 PS Harvest Plan shows that In recent years the ER in AK and BC fisheries was approximately equal to the So. US fishing rate. So strict compliance to a 5% ceiling rate would require essentially shutting down all US fisheries which isn't going to happen.

darth baiter -

A good catch on a very important detail. I have to wonder how NMFS squares that 5% ceiling rate with the recent US/Canada salmon treaty; that is how would that agreement meet ESA requirements?

I agree there will be some adjustment to that ceiling rate that will be driven at least as much by "political" considerations as biological. That said it is hard to imagine that we will not see some downward adjusted to the critical rate SUS PT 12% rate. The 2020 NOF process is going to be interesting with some very tough decisions required.

Curt

Salmo g-
I agree that historically the Stillaguamish summer Chinook are were indeed a special fish. Have seen fish in excess of 50# and recently the tribal staff reported stilling seen some fish in excess of 40#. Fish that would be ideal forage for the SRKWs.

There has been a wild Chinook brood stock program where annually fish are captured in the North Fork and transported to a tribal hatchery facility for at least 35 years. It is likely that without that program those Chinook would indeed be functionally extinct. In the recent decade of available information (2009 to 2018) the natural spawning summer Chinook have been more or less equally divided between HORs (401/yr) and NORs (405/yr). Since the beginning of that brood stock program its contribution to the natural spawning population has been increasing.

The excessive sediment loading and stream bed instability is clearly a major factor limiting Stillaguamish Chinook. You will appreciate the based on smolt trap information the Stillaguamish Chinook egg deposited to migrant survival is roughly 25% of that of the Skagit (average of 4% compared to 16%.

Curt

The easiest way to remove that bedlam sediment, as has been demonstrated on the Fraser, Kennedy Creek, and S Paririe Creek, is to flood the watershed with pink and chum. The amount of sediment that spawning salmon transport downstream is tremendous. Obviously, we are having issues with excessive pink and chum in N Pacific (thanks to the AK hatchery programs) but if sediment is such an issue, let the fish move it out. If Chinook are that important, stop killing the pink and chum.

Thanks for that tidbit Curt. 4% egg to migrant simply cannot replace itself. I think that corroborates my opinion for focusing on salvaging Stilly Chinook with a complete conservation hatchery program. The sooner the agencies focus on that and off of trying to solve the problem with fishing restrictions, the better.

After posting yesterday I thought about the PS Chinook genetic profiles. If my memory serves, Stilly Chinook are the closest genetic link to Skagit summers in PS. Makes sense, given that the Stilly is right next door to the Skagit.

C'man, spawning salmon are good gravel cleaners, but I don't think they are up to the task of cleaning the NF Stilly. I large hunk of Mt Higgans fell into the river almost 6 years ago, and similar, although smaller, slides have occurred over the past couple centuries. Movement of that quantity of sediment requires flows equal to the 2-year flood or greater many, many times to leave a channel bed of clean gravel. This is bigger than the DeForest Creek slide that occurred on Deer Creek back in the mid-80s. It took years to move that material out, and it added a lot of new real estate in the upper end of Port Susan. And not killing so many pink and chum is a good idea for a whole lot of ecological reasons.

I've got pictures of SPC pinks digging though 6+" of silt just to hit gravel. It would take time, but there really aren't other options. And, the overall ecological benefits are there, too. Since managers won't put them on the grounds for ecological benefits maybe they would do it for Chinook recovery; especially if they could keep Chinook fishing.


I understand that, prior to the eruption of Granite Peak 5 or 6K years ago that the Skagit exited through the Stilly. The massive lahar moved the Sauk and Suiattle into the Skagit so the fact that stocks are rather close should not be surprising.

Looking back at the geologic history of PS since the last glaciation shows a lot of movement of rivers between major watersheds.

I wonder if this project will be of any help those offspring of the Stilly chinook that actually make it out of the river.
SF

https://vimeo.com/366614933?ref=em-share

I wonder if a better option would be to divert most of the Stilly north through Stanwood and out Deception Pass instead of south through Port Susan and Puget Sound. It would help the Stilly fish avoid some predators and the slough is already there. It would also protect returning adults from the Tulalip Bubble fishery which is WDFW's whole point of closing the Stilly to gamefish. Right? Just thinking out loud and probably wouldn't be enough in the end anyway.

C'man, I think it's just the Sauk that flowed down the Stilly, not the Skagit. But yes, that probably goes a long ways in explaining genetic similarity.

I heard that, for a long time, the Skagit was actually below the Baker. Some sort of block there.

I would really like to see a good post-glacier changes in drainages. Here is what I have heard of, mostly from geologists.

S Fk Nooksack went down Friday Creek to the Samish.

Upper Skagit, Cascade, Sauk, Suiattle, Whitechuck all went to the Stilly.

White (and of course Cedar) were Duwamish Tribs.

White, previously, went down S Prairie.

Crescent Lake and Sutherland were one and flowed into the Elwha.

I know other small creek movements, but those were the biggies that I have heard of and am sure there were more.

I guess the biggest, from the perspective of genetics, evolution, and stock formation is that 15,000 ybp Puget Sound did not exist; it all flowed out the Chehalis. As the glaciers retreated , fish moved in but no PS stock is "older" than 15K years.

I believe it is the case that when the Sauk made the turn to the west at Darrington to flow down the North Fork Stillaguamish valley the Suiattle portion of the Sauk continued to flow to the Skagit.

CM-
No doubt that the mass spawning salmon -pinks, chums, and sockeye can move a lot of fine sediment. I don't think increased numbers pinks would help the Stillaguamish Chinook. The conditions on the Stillaguamish are such there is more or less steady stream of material moving downstream. With every freshet the redds are re-buried by fine sediment and with every flood event there is significant bed load scour; both minimizing egg survival. I remember 20 years ago during the spring watching the pits of steelhead redds filling with sand in matter of a few days.

The stream bed of the Stillaguamish has been so altered that currently there is a huge over-lap between the pink and Chinook spawning areas. During pink years as soon as a Chinook begins spawning it is immediately joined by dozens to hundreds of pinks. Guessing that the pinks are attracted to the disturbed gravel. Again 20 years ago while mapping Chinook redds on 16 mile section of the North Fork Stillaguamish on non-pink years weekly surveys are more than adequate to identify each Chinook redd; nearly every redd would still have a active spawning or broom tail female on it. Those females would typically remain on the redd for 10 days or so. On pink years it was necessary to survey 3 times a week to catch a chinook female on the redd. On big pink years there would be so much pink spawning on top of the Chinook redds that the only chance of being sure of identifying a Chinook redd was to catch the female on the redd. During those pink year's doubt that the female Chinook redd resident time was 3 days. The constant pink harassment would lead to exhaustion and death for the Chinook in that time.

Curt

The question should be whether the pinks benefit Chinook by cleaning the gravel rather than making surveying harder. I suspect that the carcasses are still available and could be marked.

If the use of spawning salmon to remove the sediment is too difficult and causes too many conflicts then what is the next best way to get the sediment out and clean the gravel to improve egg-fry?

CM -
My point was that the habitat changes had simplified the habitat. Historically we would typically find Chinook spawning in deeper, faster waters with large substrate. The pinks more typically along the stream edges and up on the bars in shallower waters with slower flows. With the massive bed load inputs common on the Stillaguamish that sort of selection for separate spawning areas/habitat types between the two species is reduced.

My other point was the massive pink spawning with the Chinook alter the female Chinooks behavior and significantly reduced the time she guarded her redd site. Typically changes from the normal behavior has some associated survival reduction. Something similar was seen on the Cedar river in the Chinook/sockeye interactions. It may not be an accident that as the sockeye numbers decreased the Chinook production increased.

Curt

Interestingly, the Salmon Creek chum had differential stream life. In years of large escapements the stream life was about half that of low escapements (even/odd).

This fish evolved, in the Stilly, with huge pink runs and the Chinook evolved together. In the Cedar, where there were no sockeye (but there were pinks pre-diversion) the Chinook may not have had to deal with the competition.

The Cedar is also benefitting by now having Chinook spawning above Landsburg. The habitat may be better up there.

Just corroborated that. How interesting.

http://faculty.washington.edu/dbooth/Chap_2_Restoration_book.pdf

The last glacial ice sheet had Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait locked in ice between ~18K and ~15K years ago. The meltwater from the southern flank made its way to the Pacific down the Black River valley into the Chehalis and Grays Harbor.

Once the next Vashon ice sheet wipes out all of humankind in Pugetropolis, mebbe Puget Sound salmon can finally make a victorious comeback.

Pretty much what it'll take!

Doc, the fact that all of PS drained through the Chehalis is why that mainstem is now viewed by hydrologists as way "undersized". It used to carry a lot more water. Was one of the "ahah" moments to realize just how much things have changed in a short time. And how plastic and invasive salmon are.

We are now seeing the same thing in the High Arctic and Pacific Salmon invade the north slope of Canada. Eventually, will they cross the continent and move into the Atlantic? Will Grey Whales do the same and restore the Atlantic Greys?

Looking at the tidal ChehaIis from say Montesano down, I've always thought it was an underfit river with lots more capacity.

But to think of all the south-face Puget/Vashon glaciers draining thru the tiny Black River really stretches the imagination. Current flows are a trickle in comparison.

Speaking of current flows, imagine what the Chehalis volume looked like back then. Modern society has built so close to the entire river corridor. Hard to imagine how big the historic flood plains were 10-15K years ago.

And we're all up in arms about modern day "flooding"... J F C!

It wasn't the Black, or just the Black. The nose of the glacier, at it's maximum was probably towards Teninio. Remember, Black Lake, at the time, was likely under ice. I think there were multiple outlets. Plus, there were some lakes downstream of the nose.

This is the reference I found...

"As the ice sheet retreated from its maximum position, meltwater drained into the axis of the Lowland but could not follow what would become its modern drainage path north and west out the Strait of Juan de Fuca, because the strait was still filled with many hundreds or even thousands of meters of ice. Instead, meltwater was diverted south along the margins of the retreating ice sheet, coalescing into ever-broader rivers. Channels and locally broad plains of the Vashon recessional outwash now form much of the landscape in these ice-marginal locales and recessional river valleys. These landforms can be traced downstream to their glacial-age spillway out of the Puget Lowland, south through the valley of Black Lake near Olympia and then along the valley of the modern Chehalis River west to the Pacific Ocean."

It is hard to imagine if you just look at the current size of the Black River (Creek?), but if you just look at the topography of the area between Black Lake and the Chehalis River, there is plenty of room for a lot of water to move through. There kinda has to be.

We also need to remember that when the glaciers were retreating there was a pretty good lack of trees. Another aspect is that sea level was maybe 100m lower so the rivers have filled a lot of the valley.

At the same time did the land rise as the weight of the ice was removed as occurred in Iceland? It would be interesting to see an animated portrayal of those geological forces at work over time for, say, the Chehalis valley.

Meanwhile back at the RMP....Stilly is not only problematic at constraining to 22% for wild fish in all fisheries, but at low hatchery forecasts, the RMP has an additional constraint kicking on the hatchery fish in SO. US fisheries. Currently the hatchery fish are ad clipped and tagged as part of a PSC ER monitoring program. Since the hatchery fish are ad clipped they become the "target" in MSFs and consequently MSFs become the bad guy and not a way of protecting fish from exploitation. Not a sunny future on several fronts.

The lengths we'll go to to protect mixed stock salmon fishing in WA, the least conservative style of stock management. But that's OK, we'll save Stilly Chinook by closing the summer gamefish season for steelhead and cutthroat that are pursued mainly by fly fishermen. Gee, the Stilly has been closed to fishing for Chinook my entire life, which is quite a while. If that was gonna' save Stilly Chinook, it shoulda' worked by now.

The Stilly will probably just be closed permanently before one of the idiots in charge of everything spends 5 seconds actually considering any other idea. I think they would rather save the money for enforcement and waste it somewhere else. And they need to let people kill any Stilly chinook that might be caught at the Tulalip Bubble.

Fishing in saltwater always trumps freshwater.

The salt is where the $$$$ is.

At least until those saltwater fisheries dry up too. Then WDFW will be scratching their heads wondering why they can't sell a fishing license. They better double down on razor clam digs while they can.

I imagine that will happen one day. Then in a fluke, an individual run on a specific river will have a robust return in which an in river opener would occur. Then the river fishery will have trumped the salt.

Bycatch of Chinook will keep it closed.

WDFW is in the reality show business now.

Get current folks.

Actually, I believe the correct way to put it is:

WDFW is in the Unreality show business...

Truly, they spend an awful lot of time, money and effort putting on the Public NOF Meeting shows!

Global warming is what drove the changes described above.

A real life example was recently witnessed in real time in Alaska/Yukon. A litle less water makes its way 3000 miles to the Bering Sea. Instead it drains due south to a much more direct and expeditious path to the ocean.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017...-climate-change

Not sure how I could have missed it.

The drainages and changes just since the last glacial maximum are very interesting and very different from today.

Not sure how long ago but I think that at one time Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molokai we had one island; Maui Nui.

The recent changes are rather amazing.

Interesting thing about the genetics of SE-AK transboundary chinook populations... Stikine and Taku have genetic concordance with Yukon kings as their closest relatives. How could this possibly be the case when they enter the ocean a world apart?

This modern-day river piracy on the Alsek is evidence that perhaps water flowing into the Stikine and Taku at one time drained northward thru BC and the Yukon Territory into the Yukon River, coursing 3000 miles thru the entirety of interior Alaska to drain into the Bering Sea.

Another aspect might be timing. There are two summer/early pink runs in PS; Nooksack and Dungeness. They probably survived the glaciation in the same refugia while the other pinks may have survived somewhere else. But, like you note, river capture helps.

The Fraser used to come down the Columbia. It would be really interesting to see how all the rivers on the Pacific Coast moved during that glaciation and its retreat.

Climate change caused the high elevation Slims River to be diverted in 2016 to a new outlet to the ocean, bypassing 3000 miles of its original outflow northward and westward in a sweeping arc thru the Alaska Interior via the Yukon into the Bering Sea... now flowing directly southward into the Gulf of Alaska via the Alsek River.

In yet another hydromorphologic chapter of climate change, the lower mainstem Alsek is now poised to be diverted to a new outlet to the sea as the coastal Grand Plateau Glacier continues its progressive retreat.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/will-dry-bay-lose-the-alsek-river.htm

We're as close to making that a reality as we've ever been!

Gee... I wonder what's in store for 2023?

Less fishing........

You natering nabob of negativism!

(Remember that one?)

I remember Nattering Nabob of Novelty. While I can't remember who that was in reference too, it might have been an organization I belong to. E Clampus Vitus. "In vino veritas".

Salmo

I actually searched for the sources.

Negativism came from that very ethical VP Spiro T Agnew. I would prefer not be be associated in any way, shape, or form with him.

Novelty came from the Leland Stanford Jr. University Marching Band. Now that's an organization to be mentioned in in the same breath with.

'Twas indeed Mr. Agnew, who was forced to resign due to a scandal I've long since forgotten. Sorta' like his boss later on. I didn't know about the novelty alternative.

Here's to hoping that the Stilly Tribe lets WDFW open the river for gamefish species this year!

Do the Stilly's have a Rez? Maybe they could open on-Rez to recs for CT (with decent Chinook protections) and let WDFW twist in the winds for not getting the river open.

Not on the river that I know of. I don't think Tribal leadership has any interest in NT recreational fishing. If WDFW worked for its constituents, it would just leave the river open as it always did - closed for Chinook and tell the Tribe to go pound sand. It's a fly fishing river. Only poachers target Chinook. WDFW has to do whatever the Tribe tells it or give up fishing time in marine waters. Ergo, WDFW will throw trout and steelhead fishing under the bus to save a few days of mixed stock salmon fishing in PS.

I know Salmo. I was figuring that a Tribe could do some recreational eye poking since WDFW is only interested in marine-caught chrome cod.

Situation sounds a whole lot like wild LCR tules. Adult recruitment incapable of replacement... wild tules functionally extinct were it not for oodles of hatchery-origin strays swamping the gravel.

Curious what in your mind makes one more worthy of saving than the other?

Yes! Who issues gold stars around here?

With regards to what Doc says, we (the Royal We) need to publicly hold folks accountable. Keep boats away from SRKWs? In 5 years how many more will we have? Sunset the law/rule if it doesn't work. Give me an estimate of the increases in Stilly Chinook generated by the CT closure? Don't meet it? Fish CT. Want money for dam removal? Give me a 10-year future estimate of populations? Don't make it? Pay whomever funded the removal back. Apply the same to homeless, gun issues, infrastructure. We need to demand quantifiable results.

Doc, intrinsically neither is worth more than the other in terms of ecosystem values. However, as a fish snob, a quality I expect that you identify with, Stilly Chinook are genetically very similar to Skagit summer Chinook. And they are fat dripping delicious! (I've never eaten a Stilly Chinook.) So for ecosystem and ESA purposes, Tules should be maintained via hatchery supplementation ideally, replacement practically, so that the genotype is not lost. Unlike Stilly Chinook, where even the hatchery program struggles with replacement recruitment, LCR Tules fortunately don't have that problem in the foreseeable future.

Salmo

You mention the loss of ecosystem function when we manage for hatchery fish and over harvest the wild.

Starting with LCR Tules why not manage each hatchery stream for a combination of ecological and hatchery needs. Use, say, 1kg of spawner per square metre of stream and then add on the number needed to meet program. That way you can produce the hatchery fish, have high harvest rate fisheries, and still meet the ecosystem need for nutrients.

I would add to that a proposal that every fully blocking dam in the anadromous zone (let's start with Coulee) that we pass a million Chinook to meet the fishery needs of natives (whose right to fish is geographically fixed), other people, and the ecosystem. No need to have downstream passage as the goal is ecological replacement of adults.

C'man, That's another idea that should work with Tules. If Tules can't recover, then continuing the hatchery program for harvest and ecosystem benefits would be a win for those species that can sustain in the lower tributaries (cutthroat and steelhead, and just maybe coho.).

A million Chinook upstream of GC? First we gotta' get a million past B-10. Then a million past Wells. Then a million is how many truck loads of adult Chinook? Not saying it's impossible, just that it's a mighty big job.

Salmo,

In another forum you suggested cutting tule releases altogether so that in four years they would be gone and no longer a constraint on whacking wild Brights. Which is it?

""Hmmm, here's another thought. Just stop releasing hatchery tules altogether. I postulate that lower river tule habitat is degraded to the point that naturally self-sustaining tules don't and cannot exist. So in four years the river will be barren of tules, and fishing forecasts and seasons can be set according to the abundance of the Chinook we actually want to fish for and catch. How, pray tell, does this not work?""

Options. Either go balls to the wall with hatchery tules and more or less ignore the wilds or let the wilds go extinct with no hatchery fish to mess it up. Choices. But either **it or get off the pot.

But, Salmo, if it was a requirement that dams need to mitigate the ex=cosystem losses as well as the catch losses the managers could figure it out. Couldn't they?

Good catch Darth. In the first instance I was just thinking of a solution to the immediate issue of pretend conservation for recovery of Tules. If NMFS demands ESA recovery actions for Tules when thoughtful ecologists understand the futility, then it would make sense to simply stop raising the hatchery variety to empirically demonstrate that futility. If the impossibility of recovering natural production Tules were acknowledged, and the parties agree that hatchery Tules provide both harvest and ecological value, then yes, go ahead and rear and release them provided they are not used as an ESA constraining population. Is this good enough?

C'man, I believe effective mitigation is an ethically (and legally) bound duty. And it is with non-federal, FERC licensed dams. But astoundingly - to me - it's optional with federally owned dams, like the Corps and BoR dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. So yes, project owners and fish managers can figure it out, with the understanding that in-kind mitigation is sometimes impossible.

In my fantasy world it is not that hard. We already manage to a number for escapement. Just make the number bigger. I am also looking at (for dams) mitigating the lost catch and lost ecosystem values. As such, this does not require downstream passage.

I know this damages/destroys the wild run in those streams but I seriously doubt there is any meaningful recovery/sustainability for purely wild anadromous fish above a dam because of losses in the reservoirs.

So we triage. The tradeoff for the Columbia River hydrosystem is no hydro in the anadromous zone in WA and OR outside of the Columbia watershed. The rest is wild fish.

But, my view the world is apparently a very warped and minority view.

True on both counts, but you're in good company.

Very good company.