Category: Reports

December 14, 2021

Science during the year of Covid: The Puget Sound Marine Waters Overview

While Covid restrictions remain a part of everyday life, a lot has eased since the global quarantines of spring 2020. During that time, the coronavirus effectively shut down scientific fieldwork in Puget Sound, leaving huge gaps in data for most facets of the ecosystem, from orcas to eelgrass.

Despite the lockdowns, a new report from the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program offers an assessment of marine conditions during 2020 and paints a surprisingly complete picture of the local environment at that time. This is the tenth year that the group has prepared an annual marine waters overview, and while the environmental conditions measured in 2020 may not have been particularly remarkable — they are described in the report as “somewhat typical in terms of Puget Sound water properties and biota” — the challenges for scientists were extraordinary and historic.

In some cases, during the pandemic, Puget Sound scientists risked their health to monitor endangered species or to conduct research deemed essential by state and federal agencies. Autonomous sampling devices and citizen volunteers also provided much-needed help as many scientists were grounded and research vessels were docked.

Much of this data has been compiled in the annual report, which the authors call “a tribute to the resilience of the scientists and institutions producing it.” Thanks to their efforts and those of dozens of scientists at agencies, tribes and other organizations, the Puget Sound Marine Waters Overview 2020 summarizes what we know about Puget Sound’s marine ecosystem during Covid Year One. The overview examines patterns and trends in numerous categories, including plankton, water quality, climate, and marine life. Technical summaries from the report are also used to inform the Puget Sound Vital Signs, a series of indicators of Puget Sound ecosystem health established by the Puget Sound Partnership.

The following highlights from the report were provided by the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program. The Puget Sound Institute assisted with the preparation of the report.
Conditions in Puget Sound were generally warmer, sunnier, and wetter in 2020 but not extreme.

Coastal deep waters, source waters to the Salish Sea, were cooler than typical as recorded since 2014 and may have been influenced by La Nina conditions. Surface waters returned to near normal, signaling the end of the 2019 marine heat wave.
Though runoff and precipitation were somewhat above normal, salinity in Puget Sound was generally higher than average, suggesting that the longer period of upwelling of cool and salty waters had the predominant influence. Both Puget Sound’s temperature and salinity conditions during 2020 highlight the strong controlling influence of the coastal ocean on these inland waters
Seasonal phytoplankton blooms were evident in the Main Basin of Puget Sound, with diatoms predominating as usual in spring and transitioning to flagellates in summer.
Zooplankton were relatively typical across most of the Sound, but with higher abundance and biomass in northern Puget Sound and Padilla Bay. Species differences can influence the relationship between abundance and biomass. For example, modest abundance of a large oceanic copepod in the north Sound yielded high zooplankton biomass, while record high abundance of a smaller resident copepod in the south Sound resulted in relatively normal biomass.
Overall, there was a small increase in the number of beaches that met swimming standards in 2020 relative to 2019. The highest fecal bacteria concentrations occurred in September through December, associated with increased rainfall.

No fish kills or strong hypoxia events were reported.

Dissolved oxygen (DO), affected by phytoplankton and seawater processes, was not particularly high or low in 2020.
Some seasonal blooms and moderate hypoxia were seen in isolated areas like south Hood Canal, Quartermaster Harbor, and Port Susan.

Ocean acidification (OA) in Puget Sound waters continues as our understanding of patterns grows.

Annual average atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) values over Hood Canal were high relative to globally averaged marine surface air, yet were at the same level as in 2019 rather than showing the expected annual increase, possibly reflecting reduced regional emissions due to COVID-19. West coast wildfires put a definite mark on conditions in September 2020, with reduced sunlight and increased atmospheric CO2 levels on the coast and in Puget Sound.

Biological responses to changing conditions vary – some good news, some bad.

Zooplankton were relatively typical but with higher abundance and biomass in northern Puget Sound and Padilla Bay.
Pacific herring spawning biomass was highest since 1984, but driven by only two successful stocks, indicating a loss in diversity of the herring stock portfolio.
Juvenile Puget Sound-origin Chinook migrating through the San Juan Islands have been eating less forage fish than in 2011-2014.

Seabird abundance and species diversity were typical to low. An encouraging observation is that the rhinoceros auklet breeding effort and reproductive success that, after three consecutive years of anomalously poor conditions had returned to long-term average values in 2019, were stable in 2020.
Next year, the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program will begin compiling a summary of the marine conditions of 2021.

March 2, 2021

Salmon experts predict more wild coho but fewer Chinook in Puget Sound this year

Greater numbers of wild coho salmon are expected to return to Puget Sound later this year, according to forecasts released last week, but threatened Puget Sound Chinook stocks are likely to see another decline.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The 2021 salmon forecasts were announced Friday during an online video conference with sport and commercial fishers and other interested people (TVW telecast). The annual meeting serves to launch negotiations that, when completed in April, will prescribe fishing seasons for the coming summer and fall.
Protecting so-called “weak stocks” from fishing pressure continues to be a challenge. Salmon managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will consult with representatives of area tribes to identify times and places for fishing that will still allow adequate numbers of spawning salmon to get back to their home streams.
Low numbers of salmon predicted for some areas of Puget Sound will force managers to make some tough choices, said Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

“If every salmon run across the state was healthy, our jobs would be easy,” he said in a news release. “But the unfortunate truth is that some stocks just won’t be able to support fisheries and are likely to impact fisheries even for healthier runs. We’ll work hard alongside the co-managers to stay within our shared conservation goals while still offering chances to get out and fish this year whenever possible.”
Some 246,000 wild coho are expected to return to Puget Sound this year, up about 51 percent from last year but still 15 percent below the 10-year average, said Chad Herring, a fishery policy analyst for Fish and Wildlife. In contrast, hatchery coho are expected to increase by 8 percent.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

While fishing opportunities could come from the increased coho run, managers must be careful to protect wild Chinook, which remain at risk of extinction. This year’s total Chinook run size (hatchery and wild, not including spring Chinook) is estimated to be down 11 percent from last year’s forecast of 233,000 fish and 2 percent below the recent 10-year average. Keep in mind that the recent 10-year average for wild Chinook is 24 percent below the 10-year average recorded when Puget Sound Chinook were placed on the Endangered Species List back in 1999 — so things are not looking good for Chinook.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife recently began increasing production of Chinook at some hatcheries in an effort to help the Southern Resident Killer Whales, which frequent Puget Sound and consume a lot of salmon, primarily Chinook. The result of that increased production could be seen in coming years, although the effects on wild Chinook have been hotly debated.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Wild Chinook make up just 12 percent of the total run size, with hatchery Chinook making up the remainder, so one strategy for increasing fishing opportunities while protecting wild fish is to shift fishing efforts to “terminal areas” closer to the hatcheries during carefully timed periods.
To protect wild Chinook and coho, anglers may be allowed to keep only hatchery fish while releasing wild fish. Young hatchery Chinook and coho are typically marked by removing their adipose fins before release. During the COVID-19 pandemic, marking equipment housed in special mobile units went into operation around the clock to get the work done while limiting the number of staffers working in confined spaces, according to Kelly Cunningham. director of the Fish Program for WDFW. The marking program successfully handled between 140 million and 160 million juvenile salmon with no delay in their scheduled release, he said.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Chum salmon, largely taken by commercial fishers, have been in a general decline since their historical peak in 2002, research biologist Mickey Agha said during Friday’s conference.
“Last year, I noted that in 2019 we had the lowest Puget Sound return since 1979,” Agha said. “Unfortunately, preliminary estimates for 2020 are revealing a return only slightly higher.”
The graph showing the chum forecast, shown on this page, includes a year-old forecast of a higher run last year, because the hard data about the actual run size are still being compiled. That goes for the other species as well.
“As many of you in the chum industry are aware, it was a rather poor year fishing for the limited opportunity that was available,” Agha said. “South Puget Sound and Hood Canal returned poorly, as compared to the long-term averages. Nevertheless, there were some bright spots where we met conservation goals head-on and reached our escapement goals (for the number of spawners reaching their home streams). That was along the coast for a few populations and for a few populations in the Central to North Puget Sound.”

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Chum returns to Puget Sound this year are expected to be only slightly better than for 2019, one of the worst years on record. Hatchery fish make up roughly half the run size of fall chum salmon. The total run size this year is estimated at 526,000.
Meanwhile, 2021 will be a “pink year,” as it is called, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of pink salmon spawn in odd-numbered years. The past decade has been a period of both boom and bust for pinks, which are almost all wild salmon. This year, about 2.9 million pinks are expected to return to Puget Sound, vastly outnumbering chum. That return would be similar to 2019, following a very low year in 2017.
Elsewhere, anglers online for Friday’s presentation heard some welcome news about coho in the Columbia River. The forecast calls for 1.6 million fish among the early and late runs, a dramatic increase from last year’s 363,000, according to estimates.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Although that big number is encouraging, there is a need to protect other at-risk stocks in the region, said Kyle Adicks, intergovernmental salmon manager for Fish and Wildlife.
“All of our forecasting indicates a strong coho return to the Columbia, but a lot can change between now and when the fish start to arrive, including out in the ocean,” Adicks said in a news release. “We’ll be keeping a close eye throughout this year’s salmon-season-setting process on stocks of low abundance.”
Fishing along the Washington Coast is expected to be a mixed bag, with some stocks up and others down. Poor returns anticipated for the Queets and other coastal rivers could limit fishing off the coast, despite the large numbers of coho returning to the Columbia River.

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

All these forecasts are based on computer modeling that factors in many variables, from the number of juvenile salmon that leave the streams to the number of adult salmon returning in the previous cycle to the number of “jacks” that return a year before they are due. Also considered are ocean conditions, such as temperature, which have a major influence on the movement of salmon and their food supply.
Higher surface temperatures in the ocean off the West Coast in recent years are believed to be a major factor in the decline of salmon, which tend to do better in cooler waters. Global warming can affect salmon through every life stage, from the stream where they hatch out of gravel to the Pacific Ocean where they grow and mature.
Making things worse is a recurring patch of warm ocean water nicknamed “the blob” by Washington State Climatologist Nick Bond. Sometimes stretching from California to Alaska, the highest temperatures since 1982 were recorded during a period from 2014 to 2016. (See map at top of this page.) Last year, the blob’s reappearance brought temperatures nearly as high.

Lower-than-average sea surface temperatures have prevailed near the equator during February, portending better conditions for salmon in the Northwest. Map: NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center

Since then, ocean temperatures have declined to more normal conditions, which should benefit salmon, according to Marisa Litz, research scientist for Fish and Wildlife who spoke during Friday’s meeting. Other good news is the current mountain snowpack of between 95 and 150 percent of normal, which should help provide adequate flows of cool water during the critical spring period for young salmon, she said.
The Pacific Ocean currently remains in a cooler phase called La Niňa, which has resulted in below-normal ocean temperatures from the west-central Pacific Ocean to our region along the coast, according to a report released yesterday by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (PDF 3.3 mb).
“In the last week, negative anomalies strengthened across most of the equatorial Pacific Ocean,” the report says, providing additional atmospheric evidence of La Niña conditions.
The federal forecasters say there is a 60-percent chance that our current ocean conditions will transition by June to neutral — that is more average conditions midway between the cooler La Niña and the warmer El Niño. These more normal conditions are likely to persist into fall, according to most models.
These cooler ocean temperatures should help with the growth and survival of salmon that return to Puget Sound in the next couple years, although many other factors also play a role in the lives of salmon.
The latest salmon forecasts, a list of upcoming public meetings, and other information, can be seen on the North of Falcon webpage on the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s website.

March 2, 2021

Salmon experts predict more wild coho but fewer Chinook in Puget Sound this year

Graph: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Lower-than-average sea surface temperatures have prevailed near the equator during February, portending better conditions for salmon in the Northwest. Map: NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center

October 1, 2020

Do we know enough to do anything about all the seals and sea lions in Puget Sound?

Scientists have known for years that Chinook salmon are important to southern resident orcas, but Chinook are not the only fish the whales eat. At the moment, chum salmon are returning to Puget Sound, and recent orca sightings suggest that the whales may now be feeding on chum.
Harbor seals also eat Chinook salmon, but also chum, coho and other fish. They seem fond of smaller fish like herring and juvenile salmon. Oh, what a tangled food web we weave… Can we really say that seals are stealing the lunch from killer whales?
Southern resident orcas are considered endangered. Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead are threatened. Harbor seals seem to be everywhere, hardly struggling to find food, at least as far as anyone can tell. So is it time to bring the powerful influence of humans into the equation by forcefully reducing the harbor seal population in Puget Sound?

Harbor seal skulls helped to reveal something about seal diets years ago.
Photo: Megan Feddern

It’s a question that people have been pondering for years, but I’m not sure we’re much closer to an answer. A new report, which I will discuss, offers some options for the Salish Sea.
Meanwhile, a recent permit will allow more than 700 salmon-eating sea lions to be killed on the Columbia River, but that has nothing to do with Puget Sound. Before addressing the problem of seals in the inland waterway, some key questions need to be answered, as discussed in a story I wrote last month for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Some of the most important questions surround how much salmon the seals are actually eating and how they fit into the complex food web that involves all kinds of fish and marine mammals. We can’t forget, for example, that transient killer whales eat a fair number of harbor seals, so it’s not a one-way street.
A recent study examined the bones from harbor seals that died years ago to determine if today’s seals are eating higher or lower on the food web. It’s a fascinating study involving stable isotopes from amino acids found in the bones. I believe I was able to explain simply enough the basic techniques. See Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, Sept. 8, 2020.
On the experimental front, a new acoustic device is being tested as a deterrence for harbor seals and California sea lions that have been feasting on threatened salmon and steelhead coming through the Ballard Locks on their way into Lake Washington.

Researcher Laura Bogaard of Oceans Initiative installs speakers used in a new experiment on harbor seals at the Ballard Locks. Photo: Laura Bogaard

The device mimics the sound of a killer whale slapping the water with its tail. The idea is to startle the fish-eating pinnipeds and move them away from the fish ladder, where they often pick off fish trying to make it over the dam. For details, listen to the story by KUOW reporter Eilis O’Neill, or check out the news release from Long Live the Kings, one of several organizations partnering in the project.
A new report released in September offers a list of actions that could be taken to reduce seal and sea lion predation in the Salish Sea. The technical report (PDF 4.4 mb) summarizes the discussions from a November workshop attended by 75 U.S. and Canadian experts.
Author M. Kurtis Trzcinski of the University of British Columbia divides the suggestions into four categories:
Vary hatchery production:
Salmon and steelhead hatcheries should experiment with releasing young fish all at once or over longer periods of time to see what is most effective at reducing seal predation. Larger releases might “flood the predator field” so that more of the fish get away. Fewer fish coming out of a hatchery at any one time might attract less attention and increase survival.
One could also change the release location to see if there are places where the hatchery fish have a better chance of surviving. One could also hold the fish for longer or shorter times in the hatchery to see whether larger fish survive better or worse than smaller ones.
Another idea related to hatcheries is to produce forage fish, such as herring, with the idea that an abundance of forage fish might provide an alternate prey for seals and sea lions, thus reducing predation on salmon.

A harbor seal catches a salmon at the Ballard Locks.
Photo: Laura Bogaard, Oceans Initiative

Enhance fish survival
Leaving aside seals and sea lions, these ideas relate to habitat efforts to increase survival of salmon and steelhead in the streams and estuaries. Improving stream flow and assuring proper temperatures could be critical factors, along with enhancing habitat for better food and protection for the growing fish.
Enhancing habitat to increase survival of other species, such as forage fish, could help with salmon and steelhead survival.
Non-lethal removal
Discouraging seals and sea lions from eating salmon and steelhead could take the form of harassment, removing or relocating haul-out areas, or requiring marinas to build structures to keep pinnipeds off docks and floats.
Harassment with noise or physical disruption could be scheduled at key times, such as during salmon out-migration or return to the streams. But workshop participants gave the idea a low chance of success.
Preventing seals from hauling out, especially near salmon migration routes, might work in one area, but it probably would move the animals to another location with uncertain effects.
Another idea was to inject the animals with a contraception to control the population, although a project involving the handling of thousands of seals and sea lions would be immense.
Lethal removal
Killing seals and sea lions could be accomplished through hunting, which would require the hunters to use the animal for food or other purposes, or culling, which means killing the animal for the sole purpose of reducing the population.
Some experts proposed running an experiment by reducing the population through culling and then measure the effects on fish populations. Others suggested removing all the seals in one area and comparing the effects to a similar area where seals were not removed.
Preliminary estimates say it would take the lethal removal of 50 percent of the harbor seals — or about 20,000 animals in the Salish Sea — to push Chinook and coho salmon toward recovery. In addition, about 3,000 animals would need to be killed every year to maintain a stable population.
Uncertainty of such actions is high. Some say that other predators might need to be removed as well to keep them from simply eating the fish saved by eliminating seals. Birds, otters, raccoons and large fish are among the predators that could become a concern.
Officials in both the U.S. and Canada are considering their next steps, including an action plan that would probably include research to improve our understanding of the food web.
Related articles from the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound:

August 3, 2020

Safe hiking and other outdoors activities could improve mental health in pandemic

Outside seems to be the answer, in more ways than one.
Virologists tell us that, aside from isolation, we are less likely to be infected with COVID-19 if we go outdoors and stay away from crowds. Psychologists have known for decades that getting out in nature can improve our mental health, something that many of us need at this time.
Taking a hike can be a great cure for cabin fever. But to maintain safety in a pandemic, we must be careful not rush out to the most popular locations where crowds are on the rise, especially on weekends.
On Saturday, for example, people were waiting in their cars for up to an hour and half just to get into Mount Rainier National Park at the Nisqually Entrance. In Olympic National Park, the parking lot at the Hurricane Ridge Visitors Center was full by 10 a.m.
The answer to the dilemma is simple: If you want to visit popular locations, go on weekdays. And, wherever and whenever you go, have an alternate location in mind should you encounter crowded conditions with parking lots at or near capacity.
For this blog post, I thought I would provide some hiking tips compiled by experts for this unusual time in our history. Then I will mention some new studies about the economic value of outdoor recreation in Washington state, based on pre-COVID sales and jobs. Finally, I will offer some information about an evolving “Human Dimensions Protocol” — the integration of people into the ecosystem, from the enjoyment of nature to the very survival of plants and animals in our region.
How to remain safe on the trail

A coalition of outdoors experts in Washington state, called the Recreate Responsibly Coalition, came together with the help of Washington Trails Association to develop suggestions for enjoying the outdoors during a pandemic. They were able to boil down their ideas to six tips for safety, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health guidelines. Visit the webpage for details about these suggestions:

Know before you go: Use WTA’s Hiking Guide to plan your outing. Pick a couple backup trails in case your first choice is crowded.
Plan ahead: Go to less traveled trails, have alternates in mind, and make sure you have the right gear and supplies. (See the list for details.)
Stay close to home: For now, stick to trails you can get to on a single tank of gas to protect residents of smaller communities from the virus. See “WTA Hike Finder Map.”
Practice physical distancing: Try to maintain a six-foot distance by stepping off the trail if necessary. If not possible, cover your face with a mask. Communicate and be kind to fellow hikers.
Play it safe: Avoid risky activities, so as not to increase the risk of disease for search-and-rescue teams.
Leave no trace: Take home everything, including trash, leftover food and pet waste, because most places have no trash service.
Build an inclusive outdoors: Help make the trails safe for people of all identities and abilities.

Again, WTA offers a nice Hiking Guide and Hike Finder Map with instructions to find a hike that suits you.
The latest information about traffic and crowded conditions, as well as general information during the pandemic, can often be found on the Twitter feeds of national and state parks:

Mount Rainier National Park
Olympic National Park
- Alerts and conditions
- Twitter
Washington State Parks and Recreation
- Novel coronavirus: Guidelines for responsible outdoor recreation
- Twitter

Health benefits of nature
Hiking, biking, walking and other outdoors activities can often improve both physical and mental health, experts say.
Even before the pandemic, nearly one-fourth of adults reported having some form of depression, and nearly 63 percent of adults were considered overweight, according to a study by two University of Washington Researchers.

If anyone needed evidence that getting outdoors is a step toward better health, Sara Perrins and Gregory Bratman of the UW College of Forest Resources compiled information from existing studies under a grant from the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office.
“Research supports an abundance of benefits from biking including improved heart and lung fitness, fewer cardiovascular risk factors, fewer deaths, and less coronary heart disease, cancer risk, and obesity,” they wrote in their report titled “Health Benefits of Contact with Nature” (PDF 1.1 mb). “Walking and hiking require minimal special equipment and skills and offer numerous health benefits including improved cholesterol levels and protection against chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.
“While biking and walking in particular may take place off trails (for example, cycling at the gym or walking around town), research suggests that additional benefits may occur when these activities are done in nature, adding support for the benefits of trail-based physical activity,” they say.
They go on to document benefits from nature among low-income people and children, in part because of improvements in their mental state.
The researchers also found that developing a “sense of place” has emotional benefits for all people and generally increases stewardship of the land and protections for wildlife. It’s a very readable report.
Benefits to the economy
The pandemic has upset Washington state’s economy, and the current economic condition of the outdoor industry is unknown. Still, it is worth reflecting on data from last year, knowing that people may seek even more escape to nature in the future.
Two recent reports describe the economic forces related to outdoor activities.
“Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State” (PDF 10.3 mb) by Earth Economics documents a $26.5 billion industry in Washington state, the result of spending by residents and tourists on outdoor recreation trips to local parks, state parks, national forests and national parks along with spending for fishing, boating and outdoor-recreation gear.
In 2019, 264,000 jobs were involved in this outdoors industry in Washington, on par with the state’s aerospace industry (237,000 jobs in 2017). That’s 10 jobs for every $1 million spent on outdoor recreation
In this state’s diverse economy, 6 percent of all jobs are related to outdoor recreation, with an average income of $44,000 per worker. Including secondary (multiplier) effects, total spending rose to $40.3 billion, according to the report.
Another recent report, “Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits of Recreational Trails” (PDF 18.8 mb) by EcoNorthwest suggests that physical activity related to trail use results in $390 million per year in savings from potential health costs. See also RCO’s web page on the subject.
“In addition to recreational-use value, other social benefits considered in this report include increases in property values and quality of life attributable to trails,” the report states. “Quality of life improvements also attract business activity to the state that then results in additional economic activity.”
Human Dimensions Protocol

Puget Sound Partnership, which is overseeing the recovery of the Puget Sound ecosystem, has long considered the essential role of humans in the ecosystem, as required by the Legislature upon formation of the agency in 2007. The people of Washington not only benefit in many ways from a healthy Puget Sound, they also represent the strongest political force in funding the recovery effort.
A new “Human Dimensions Protocol” (PDF 1.5 mb) has been developed to help teams of experts develop and carry out “Implementation Strategies,” which are individual plans for reaching the various ecosystem-recovery targets established by the Partnership. The document also can help people understand the complex interactions between humans and the natural environment.
“For the regional recovery community, including Implementation Strategy teams and other key partners, the protocol offers a concise, yet comprehensive resource to help address many social science and human dimensions questions or needs,” lead author David Trimbach of Oregon State University says in a blog post.
“This resource,” Trimbach continues, “reflects the wealth of human dimensions work, notably social science, within the region. This resource also exemplifies the Partnership’s continued push and innovative progress within ecosystem recovery.”
The protocol begins with simple questions, such as “What is social science?” and “Why does social science matter?” The document goes on to describe how human factors can be included in ecosystem-recovery planning with specific tips for working with community members who have special interests and expertise.
For example, technical workshops focused on human dimensions can inform the recovery process “by integrating interdisciplinary experts, whether they be community outreach specialists with practical expertise, tribal community health professionals, and/or social scientists with specializations … like governance, local foods, economic vitality or sense of place.”
See also “Social Science Research and Efforts” by the Puget Sound Partnership and Trimbach’s latest paper “Whose Puget Sound?: Examining Place Attachment, Residency, and Stewardship in the Puget Sound Region” published in Geographical Review.

June 23, 2020

Puget Sound Leadership Council revises list of ‘Vital Sign’ indicators

It was ten years ago this summer that the Puget Sound Partnership first established what it called Puget Sound’s ‘Vital Signs,’ 25 indicators of Puget Sound health ranging from levels of toxic chemicals in fish to the abundance of Chinook salmon and southern resident orcas. Those indicators have now been revised and expanded, setting off a new chapter for Puget Sound recovery efforts.
The Vital Signs and their indicators have been central to Puget Sound policy since their inception in 2010. They were designed to help scientists and policymakers measure the health of something seemingly unmeasurable: A giant estuary the size of a small state with thousands of different species and more than a thousand miles of winding shoreline.
Scientists knew it would be impossible to measure every aspect of the environment— Puget Sound was just too complex — so they began looking for ways to track what might be considered the ecosystem’s most vital components. In much the same way that a doctor will take a person’s pulse to see if that person’s heart is healthy, scientists began looking for the pulse of Puget Sound. Could an abundance of forage fish indicate the overall health of the food web? Could cleaner water and healthier beaches translate to more and healthier salmon? Tracking these indicators would help officials tell the public how their work was going, but it would also be used to direct funding and other resources. From the beginning, however, there was a debate about which and how many indicators to include.

Chinook salmon are among the original Vital Sign indicators established by the Puget Sound Partnership. Photo: Michael Humling, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

“In my experience, there has always been a lot of tension about whether you can pick just a few things and be specific or whether it is such a large ecosystem that you need more measures,” says Scott Redman, the Partnership’s science and evaluation program director. Some scientists argued that more measures would be more accurate while others argued that too many would be unwieldy.
Some of the tension grew out of the Vital Signs’ dual purpose to both inform the public and to inform the recovery efforts themselves. “This is what drives what you do,” says Ron Thom, the Partnership’s senior science advisor who called the process of picking the Vital Signs “pretty darn critical.”
From a communication perspective a smaller number of indicators was seen as easier to explain and understand. While some in the region called for more than a hundred — something similar to recovery plans for other large ecosystems such as the Great Lakes — others, including members of the Leadership Council, advocated for as few as ten. Eventually, the Partnership landed somewhere in the middle, identifying the 25 biophysical indicators that have become familiar on its Vital Sign wheel and addressed every two years in the agency’s State of the Sound report.
But debate over the number of indicators persisted. Some indicators proved hard to measure and there were gaps for certain key species. Not all salmon were included, for example, just the endangered Chinook, causing some disconnects with the region’s other salmon recovery work. In 2012, the Washington State Academy of Sciences (WSAS) recommended that the agency take another look at the Vital Signs, prompting a nearly eight-year process of re-scoping and evaluation by the Partnership.
Earlier this month, on June 10^th, the review process concluded with the unanimous approval of a revised set of Vital Signs by the Partnership’s Leadership Council [view related materials]. The scientists involved with the revisions say the new indicators focus more on ecological function than specific pressures and more closely align with the recommendations from the WSAS.

Kelp has been added to the revised list of Puget Sound Vital Sign indicators. Photo: Brian Allen

The number of biophysical indicators has increased from 25 to 36, with 17 more indicators under consideration for future adoption. Most previous habitat, water quality and species Vital Signs were maintained. The more recently established Human Wellbeing Vital Signs were not considered in the revision process and also remained intact.
“By working with the expert community, we really came to the conclusion that if we wanted these to be the shared measures, we needed to add more,” says Redman. The fact that most of the indicators were maintained also “affirmed the decade ago selection in almost every case,” Redman says. “It’s not like we made bad decisions in the past. We have just added more indicators.”
Some areas of the Vital Signs were also recategorized or combined. Notable changes include:

A new “beaches and marine vegetation” Vital Sign, which combines eelgrass and shoreline armor removal as well as pocket estuaries into a single category. The new marine vegetation category will continue to include eelgrass but will allow for the inclusion of other critical species such as kelp.
The Chinook salmon category will now include all of the region’s salmon species.
Overall, the number of species and food web indicators was expanded to include groundfish, benthic invertebrates, forage fish and zooplankton.
The category for measuring toxics in fish became ‘Toxics in Aquatic Wildlife’ to be more inclusive of other species.
The indicator for onsite sewage was removed.

The new Vital Sign indicators also more directly address the impacts of climate change and rising CO_2.The Water Quality Vital Sign now measures river and stream temperatures, a significant factor for spawning salmon. The Habitats and Water Quantity category now has an indicator for frequency of flood events, and an ocean acidification indicator has been added to the category for Marine Water Quality.
One of the most significant changes coming out of the revision process will not be seen in the indicator list itself, but in the way that the indicators are measured. Sandra O’Neill, a research scientist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife who has been advising the Partnership on the Vital Signs revisions since 2013, was enthusiastic about the adoption of what are known as “intermediate progress measures,” which she called “the missing link” for the adaptive management cycle. She said some indicators such as the numbers of southern resident orcas don’t typically change quickly enough for managers or scientists to know if recovery work is having an effect. Vital Signs and indicators are meant to describe “ultimate outcomes,” according to the Partnership, but if some of those goals take many years to achieve, that may not be a helpful measure for day to day recovery efforts.
The new system will now include better ways of measuring progress in the short term, O’Neill said. Instead of simply focusing on a recovery goal of 94 orcas, for example, scientists could also measure conditions that benefit orcas along the way, such as diminished ocean noise or measurable increases in food supply. These sorts of intermediate goals have not yet been established, but “this is the first time that the process has really been formalized,” O’Neill said.
The Partnership says the next step in the revision process will be to bring in more scientists to monitor the indicators and to evaluate where assessment and reporting will be needed. The Partnership will start reporting on the new indicators after monitoring of the old Vital Signs is completed in 2022.

May 15, 2020

New steelhead strategy would include increased fishing and more hatcheries

Strategies to keep steelhead fishing alive while restoring steelhead populations to rivers in Puget Sound are spelled out in the “Quicksilver Portfolio” (PDF 2.3 mb), a document unveiled today before the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.
After three years of study, the Puget Sound Steelhead Advisory Group announced that it was ready to solicit public and political support for an experimental approach that includes monitoring the effects of fishing and increased hatchery production as part of a steelhead-recovery effort.
“Together, we can conserve wild steelhead, restore fishing opportunities, provide economic benefits to our communities and create a future in which the rich tradition of steelhead fishing is continued and passed on to future generations,” states a memo from the group (pdf 127 kb), consisting mostly of steelhead anglers.
Some of the major ideas include:

Maintaining the catch-and-release sport fishery on the Skagit River in North Puget Sound and adding C-and-R fisheries on the Samish River in North Puget Sound and the Elwha in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Building broodstock hatcheries to boost populations of wild steelhead in the Nooksack River to the north and the Cedar River in Central Puget Sound, while maintaining the newly constructed steelhead hatchery on the North Fork of the Skokomish River.
Operating “segregated” hatcheries to boost independent winter steelhead populations, which can be harvested in catch-and-keep fisheries, on the Snohomish (north), Dungeness (Strait of Juan de Fuca) and Quilcene (Hood Canal).

Andy Marks, a member of the advisory group, said it might seem problematic that those who want to fish for steelhead are the ones leading the way to save them. But there is nobody more passionate about steelhead than a steelheader, he said. Furthermore, steelhead are not harvested commercially under state law, he noted.

A juvenile steelhead trout // Photo: John McMillan, NOAA

It is important, Andy said, that his children and grandchildren be able to fish for steelhead, or at least to know them. “My biggest fear,” he added, “is that one of my grandkids will climb up on my lap and ask me what a steelhead was. That is a very real possibility.”
In 2007, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service listed Puget Sound’s population of steelhead trout — the official state fish of Washington — as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
“At one time, rivers, streams, and estuaries along the shores of Puget Sound teemed each year with steelhead returning from the Pacific Ocean to their natal spawning grounds,” states the “ESA Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Steelhead,” which was issued by NMFS in December. “These runs played an integral role in the lives of Indian tribes that lived in the region, as well as for many of the people who settled in the area.”
In recent years, the steelhead population has declined to about 6 percent of its historical size, and nothing done so far has reversed the downward trend toward extinction.
The causes of decline are identified as all manner of human activities: culverts under roads, dams, agricultural practices, development, timber management, water supplies (and altered streamflows), hatchery effects, over-harvest and climate change.
Strategies outlined in the federal recovery plan address each of the major problems outlined, yet hatchery production is not mentioned as a solution. On the other hand, the 2008 Statewide Steelhead Management Plan does incorporate hatchery operations as a recovery strategy — provided that hatcheries are operated from an “ecosystem perspective” with careful monitoring to measure the outcome.

Andy Marks said the committee covered all relevant issues, from scientific to regulatory. “I know more about steelhead genetics that I ever wanted to know in my life,” he said. Members believe that that their “QuickSilver Portfolio” does not conflict with the federal steelhead recovery plan nor any other official plan dealing with steelhead.
Essential to the effort is scientifically credible monitoring to ensure that the effort is helping and not hurting the steelhead population, he stressed. Volunteers can be expected to assist state biologists in the effort, and the work can get started with few changes to the budget for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which manages steelhead.
Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Jim Anderson of Buckley in Pierce County observed that today’s presentation by the group included nothing about Puget Sound tribes, which are legally “co-managers” of the salmon and steelhead resource.
Marks responded that the strategies will be reviewed by the congressionally established Hatchery Scientific Review Group, of which the tribes are a part. Also, projects for specific streams must be approved by tribes in that area. Since the strategies are designed to be compliant with existing approved plans, he expects minimal conflict as each idea undergoes further scrutiny from scientists, policymakers, budget officials and the Legislature.
Commissioner David Graybill of Leavenworth said he would like to move forward on the proposal.
“We are looking for you, the creators of this document, to recommend a pathway forward,” he said. “I’m very eager to see some guidance on where we can start as a result of the hard work you have done.”
The Fish and Wildlife Commission agreed to further discussions about how to engage the broader public and other interests in the plan. Left hanging is the question of whether the steelhead proposal requires a motion of support from the commission, a change in policy by the department, or some other action.
Meanwhile, one member of the Puget Sound Steelhead Advisory Group does not agree with the concept as presented to the commission and is writing a “minority report” to argue against the plan. I will link to that report here when it becomes available.
Jamie Glasgow of Wild Fish Conservancy said the state needs to fulfill its earlier commitments of properly managing existing hatcheries before embarking on a new hatchery program. So far, a lack of funding has kept state biologists from collecting the data needed to show whether existing hatchery and fishery programs are complying with established objectives.
“Now is not the time to experiment with hatcheries to increase fishing pressure,” Jamie told me in an email. “The state’s ongoing shortcomings on understanding and managing hatchery impacts on wild fish recovery are also evident in the review of hatchery reform science (a document issued in January of this year).”
Jamie, whose organization has sued the state over steelhead hatchery operations, detailed his concerns in a letter to fellow members of the Puget Sound Steelhead Advisory Group before the report was completed. His letter concluded, “As an advisor, my advice is, let’s get it right with the steelhead hatcheries we’ve got before adding more… I believe that when more recreational fishers are reliant on the health of wild steelhead populations to provide the privilege of angling, WDFW will then be more motivated to find the will and the resources to more fully benefit wild steelhead recovery for sustainable fisheries.”
The text was changed from its previous version to recognize that segregated hatcheries allow anglers to take home their catch.

May 15, 2020

New steelhead strategy would include increased fishing and more hatcheries

Maintaining the catch-and-release sport fishery on the Skagit River in North Puget Sound and adding C-and-R fisheries on the Samish River in North Puget Sound and the Elwha in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Building broodstock hatcheries to boost populations of wild steelhead in the Nooksack River to the north and the Cedar River in Central Puget Sound, while maintaining the newly constructed steelhead hatchery on the North Fork of the Skokomish River.
Operating “segregated” hatcheries to boost independent winter steelhead populations, which can be harvested in catch-and-keep fisheries, on the Snohomish (north), Dungeness (Strait of Juan de Fuca) and Quilcene (Hood Canal).

A juvenile steelhead trout // Photo: John McMillan, NOAA

March 7, 2020

Harvest managers setting this year’s salmon seasons struggle to find ways to help orcas

As state, tribal and federal salmon managers work together to establish this year’s fishing seasons, they have not forgotten about the needs of Puget Sound’s endangered killer whales.
In fact, new documents related to the southern resident orcas describe an investigation looking to find ways to reduce fisheries at certain times and locations that might get the whales more food. And yet it appears that nobody has figured out a way to help the whales by reducing salmon fishing.

Photo: James Mead Maya, Maya’s Legacy Whale Watch / mayasimages.com

Annual negotiations to establish seasons and quotas for commercial, tribal and sport fishing are now underway in what is called North of Falcon process, so named because it involves fisheries north of Cape Falcon in Oregon.
The killer whales are on everyone’s mind “in every step throughout the North of Falcon process,” said Carrie McCausland, spokesperson for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The salmon managers are fully aware that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service will scrutinize fishing proposals to protect threatened and endangered species, including the whales, she added.
This year, the managers have a new “risk assessment” report (PDF 3.4 mb) that analyzes how fisheries may be reducing the number of salmon available to the whales along the coast and in Puget Sound. The report, considered part of interagency “consultation” under the Endangered Species Act, focuses mostly on Chinook salmon — the primary prey of the southern residents.
The analysis, conducted by 20 experts (mostly fisheries biologists), examined statistical relationships between the abundance of salmon at certain times and in general locations and how that corresponds to the well-being of the whales, as measured by their survival, birth rates and body fitness.
The statistical analysis is complex, but the overall picture came out as expected: When salmon are more plentiful over all, survival and birth rates tended to increase, with some lag time factored in. But when salmon were less plentiful, fitness of the animals declined, as measured by the observation of “peanut head,” which is caused by a loss of blubber near the blowhole.

Determining the effect of fisheries on the whales is a more complex problem, especially considering that fishing has had less influence on the survival of salmon in recent years, as fishing seasons have been reduced to protect Chinook, listed as a threatened species.
“The whales are declining even in recent years when total salmon abundance has been at or above medium term average … and similar to abundances during periods when southern resident killer whales were increasing or stable over the 1992-2016 period examined,” the report says.
One reason could be that factors beyond salmon abundance may be playing a greater role in orca survival, birth rate and fitness than in the past, states the report. Such factors could include contaminants in the food web, noise around vessels, ship strikes, disease, competition from other marine mammals, inbreeding, more males being born, and behavioral changes.
While it would be reasonable to assume that a higher abundance of salmon in specific areas at specific times could improve the outlook for the whales, the statistical analysis found no specific areas or seasons associated with improved survival, birth rate or body condition, according to the report.
The analysis, presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council, is expected to be followed up by a new round of discussions and specific recommendations from the experts.

In responding to the report, some environmental groups argued that, given the acknowledged uncertainties, it is not enough to maintain current fisheries management based on an inability to find a statistical relationship between fishing and orca well-being.
“In light of declining southern resident killer whale population and concerns about SRKW genetic diversity, a precautionary approach would require evidence that the status quo is not harming SRKWs, rather than requiring a high degree of confidence in the precise assessment of harvest’s effect on SRKW demographics,” states a letter signed by Nick Gayeski and Josh Rosenau of Wild Fish Conservancy (PDF 694 kb).
Gayeski and Rosenau call for more analysis on the abundance, size and age structure of Chinook salmon wherever the fish go — including areas beyond those managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, including Canada and Alaska.
“As the authors observe, SRKW are not only Chinook specialists, they are specialists on large Chinook…,” they wrote. “SRKW evolved in a context where Chinook weighing over 100 pounds were commonplace in the Columbia River, Elwha River and other major Chinook rivers of origin.
“It is not hard to see that it would take many times more energy and time to catch 100 pounds of 10- to 20-pound salmon than it would have taken to feed on a single 100-pound salmon then,” their letter continues. “Nor is it hard to envision the effects on SRKWs complex social structure when so much time must be taken away from social interaction simply to maintain caloric intake.

“It would hardly be surprising to find that this decrease in social interaction makes it harder to maintain pregnancies and sustain newborn orcas. The status quo of harvest management has driven this decline in Chinook sizes, and harvest management will be key to restoring SRKW prey quality, as well as quantity.”
They call for salmon management plans to include a threshold for Chinook abundance below which fishing for Chinook would cease.
Wild Fish Conservancy is preparing to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service for allegedly allowing the overharvesting of Chinook in the Southeast Alaska troll fishery, which catches Chinook that originate in areas to the south where the orcas feed. See WFC news release.
Meanwhile, it isn’t clear how the fisheries managers will use the report as they set salmon seasons, but the annual “guidance letter” (PDF 1.3 mb) from the National Marine Fisheries Service calls on them to take extra steps to reduce fishery impacts when Chinook runs are low.
“We reiterate our concern about the severely depressed status of the SRKW population,” states the letter from Barry Thom, regional administrator for NMFS. “We are particularly concerned about years with critically low Chinook salmon abundance throughout the whales’ geographic range because of the potential effects to the whales’ energetics, health, reproduction, and survival.
“Intuitively,” he added, “at some low Chinook abundance level, the prey available to the whales will not be sufficient to forage successfully leading to adverse effects (such as reduced body condition and poor reproductive success).”
The guidance letter calls for increased conservation measures, such as time and area restrictions, to reduce fishing pressure on the Chinook when the North of Falcon abundance is equal to or less than the average of the seven lowest years of abundance. Those years are 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2007.
NMFS officials must approve any fishing plans adopted by state and tribal managers through the North of Falcon process.
At the annual North of Falcon kickoff meeting last week, officials with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife reported that their forecasts of this year’s Chinook returns will be slightly lower than last year’s forecasts for Puget Sound stocks and somewhat higher for the Columbia River. A video of the presentation is available on the WDFW North of Falcon website.
This week, fisheries managers are meeting with the Pacific Fishery Management Council in Sonoma County, Calif. A major agenda item is to discuss numerical targets for salmon fishing, with three options scheduled for approval on Monday.
While fishing certainly can affect the abundance of salmon throughout the range of the southern resident killer whales, it is important to keep in mind the entire salmon life cycle, which can be affected by habitat in streams, Puget Sound and the ocean; weather and climate conditions; competition from other species; and the effects of disease on the entire food web.