Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tag: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Puget Sound meets 2020 bulkhead-removal goal; new indicators will chart the future

In a turnabout that offers hope for Puget Sound’s nearshore ecosystem, old bulkheads are now being removed faster than new bulkheads are being constructed, according to permit figures provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In fact, officials with Puget Sound Partnership recently announced that the agency’s 2020 goal for reducing shoreline armoring had been reached — just barely — by the end of last year. Specifically, the goal, or target, was to remove more bulkheads, seawalls and other armoring (measured in length) than what was added from 2011 to 2020. One caveat: Not all armoring projects were captured in the permit data.

This old bulkhead on Sinclair Inlet near Port Orchard was once part of a residential property. It was removed two years ago to improve shoreline habitat. Photo: C. Dunagan

Now that we’re past 2020, new targets are in the works along with new Vital Signs and indicators of ecosystem health. Last year, 13 revised Vital Signs along with 34 indicators were approved by the Puget Sound Leadership Council, as recommended by staffers. The Leadership Council oversees the Puget Sound Partnership, the agency responsible for coordinating dozens of public and private partners in the recovery of Puget Sound. Reporting on the new indicators is expected to begin early next year.
Targets, which will define goals for future ecosystem improvements, are currently being developed for a few of the revised indicators and should be available before the end of the year, according to a timetable set by the Leadership Council. Work on other targets will continue through next year.
As for all the old indicators and targets, a final report on progress, or lack of such, over the past 10 years will be a major part of the biennial State of the Sound report, scheduled for submission to the governor next week. The document reports on every target with a discussion about the factors that have led to current conditions.
Many experts were surprised that overall shoreline armoring was reduced enough to meet the 2020 target, given that new construction outpaced removal for five of the past 10 years, based on permit data. In fact, from 2011 to 2013, nearly 2.5 miles of new bulkhead construction was matched with barely a mile of removal. But public efforts eventually kicked in to encourage and fund bulkhead removal while discouraging new construction. Last year, total removal reached 0.71 mile, compared to only 0.18 mile of new bulkheads that were built. (Details can be seen by hovering your curser over bars in the chart.)
Among the concerns with shoreline armoring, experts point out that bulkheads often occupy areas of the beach used by forage fish, which are important food for salmon. Hard seawalls also can reduce natural erosion and concentrate wave energy, leading to a beach devoid of sands and gravels, which forage fish use for spawning. Check out article on effects and ongoing coverage of shoreline issues in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Jeff Cordell and Erin Morgan survey sea wrack on a Puget Sound beach. Photo: Megan Dethier

Bulkhead replacement, rather than removal, still dominates shoreline construction, according to the permit data. Some 1.31 miles of armoring was replaced last year. That’s nearly 50 percent more than the total amount that was removed combined with new construction. Thankfully, experts say, an undetermined amount of that replacement work involved taking out hard vertical bulkheads made of logs, rocks or concrete and replacing them with a more natural “soft shore” design. Such soft-shore construction involves reducing erosion by sloping the beach and placing individual logs and boulders in strategic locations to attenuate the wave energy.
In April, the Washington Legislature passed a law that requires shoreline owners who wish to replace a bulkhead to consider designs that reduce erosion with the least impact to the natural environment. The law went into effect in July, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife intends to involve the public in drafting rules to carry out the new law along with a separate law meant to streamline permitting for habitat-improvement projects.
The long-term goal is to replace hard bulkheads with more natural systems capable of better protecting the environment without allowing damage to shoreline houses and other structures. Where homes are built close to shore on small lots, bulkheads may be the only feasible solution, especially in areas where the sea level is rising dramatically due to climate change. Sea-level rise varies from place to place, even within Puget Sound, depending on long-term ground movement. Waterfront owners are beginning to confront these issues, as described in articles in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
In total from 2011 to 2020, the Department of Fish and Wildlife permitted the removal of 4.85 miles of shoreline armor while allowing 4.71 miles of new construction. Although that meets the target and calls for a celebration, WDFW officials are quick to point out that about 715 miles of shoreline remains hardened, so that a variety of habitat problems remain unaddressed.
These numbers also do not account for unknown shoreline modifications built illegally without permits. Such illegal construction and other compliance issues are now getting increased attention from WDFW.
New efforts seek greater compliance
As new laws and regulations come into effect, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has created a new Compliance Division to make sure people have adequate technical assistance for their projects and that they follow all legal requirements.
Four new compliance inspectors have been hired, three with state funds and a fourth with federal funding to focus on the Stillaguamish watershed in North Puget Sound. The Stillaguamish inspections are a special focus of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, because fishing in both countries has been limited by the low natural returns of salmon to the watershed.
Training for the first compliance inspectors is nearing completion, and they are expected to be in the field in early November. Their responsibilities involve working with property owners and checking on construction in both streams and saltwater shorelines. They will work in conjunction with local habitat biologists (the WDFW officials who sign off on hydraulic project approvals), as well as with uniformed enforcement officers from the agency.
Some new authorities for WDFW came out of recommendations to the Legislature by the Southern Resident Killer Whale Task Force (PDF 2.9 mb). In 2019, lawmakers strengthened civil penalties for violations of the state’s Hydraulics Code and related permits, thus moving the agency away from criminal citations for shoreline violations. The Legislature also allowed new permits to require mitigation for habitat damage caused by shoreline construction.

This year, other changes were made to require that replacement bulkheads, as well as new bulkheads, be designed to cause the least damage to the shoreline environment. The favored option is to remove a failing bulkhead and restore the beach to a more natural condition. If a shoreline structure is needed, natural (“soft”) materials are preferred over solid retaining walls. When solid walls are necessary, they should be located upland of the existing bulkhead wherever possible.
To help shoreline owners understand their options, experts have created a technical document called “Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines” along with a less technical booklet called “Your Marine Waterfront” (PDF 12.2 mb). Another change this year is to allow a streamlined process for habitat-recovery projects. A pilot program is getting underway to establish a revised permitting process for habitat improvements.
Randi Thurston, who is managing the new Compliance Division, said the incoming compliance inspectors, supported with the increased legal authorities, will provide “boots on the ground” when it comes to checking on permitted projects, investigating reported violations and launching patrols to locate and take action against construction done without permits.
At the same time, the Legislature has built upon the success of an older pilot program that provides financial and technical support to property owners who wish to remove shoreline armoring or work on other habitat-improvement projects. Originally developed in 2014 with federal funding, the Shore Friendly grant program continues to work at the local level throughout Puget Sound, operating through six county-based organizations along with the Northwest Straits Foundation, which serves six counties.
Shore Friendly is now funded by the state’s Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, which also continues to fund competitive grants for individual projects. The Legislature this year has enhanced ESRP funding with $15.7 million directed toward three dozen prioritized projects (PDF 148 kb).

For further information about efforts to protect and restore nearshore habitat, check out WDFW’s webpage on Puget Sound recovery. For technical reports about the effectiveness of grant-funded projects aimed to improve nearshore habitats and other ecosystem conditions, check out Puget Sound Institute’s synthesis reports.
Strategic planning with new shoreline indicators

As the old indicators and their 2020 targets are phased out, new indicators are being designed to better describe ecosystem conditions. For that reason, the shoreline-armoring indicator — which measures construction and removal of bulkheads rather than habitat condition — has been removed from the list of future indicators.
The old indicator — net change in permitted shoreline armoring — may still be reported as a so-called intermediate measure of progress, but other habitat measures will be used to describe changes in shoreline conditions, according to Nathalie Hamel, who heads up Puget Sound Partnership’s Vital Signs reporting program.
It is important to understand that state permits don’t capture all shoreline construction taking place, Nathalie told me. In addition, the “replacement” of shoreline armoring can represent a wide variety of habitat changes, all lumped into one category. For example, replacement of a concrete wall with the right type of “soft shore” protection could bring a major habitat improvement. But if one concrete wall is replaced with another, the result could be no improvement at all. For these reasons, the measure of armoring construction, removal and replacement should be modified in some ways if it is to be retained, Nathalie said.
Despite the measure’s shortcomings and the newly approved indicators, reduction in shoreline armoring is still considered an important goal. That’s one reason that strategies to reduce armoring were retained in an updated Shoreline Armoring Implementation Strategy (with links), completed this past July.
The revised indicators (PDF 131 kb) of shoreline habitat, now listed as a Vital Sign called “beaches and marine vegetation,” still include an indicator for the total area of eelgrass in nearshore habitats. New indicators include:

  • Extent of forest cover in nearshore marine riparian areas,
  • Floating kelp canopy area,
  • Percent of feeder bluffs in functional condition, and
  • Short and long-term eelgrass site status.

While these conditions are generally measured as part of an agency’s ongoing work, some refinements are needed to report numbers and trends. Also, definitions of “functional condition” and “site status” may need to be clarified.
Other indicators that could be helpful in describing habitat conditions but still needing considerably more work include:

  • Drift cells in functional condition,
  • Miles of intertidal beach in functional condition, and
  • Understory kelp abundance and condition.

(Drift cells, by the way, refer to sections of a shoreline where sands and gravels move naturally in the same direction.)
At the larger scale, the revision of Vital Signs has retained six Vital Signs that report on biophysical measurements: birds, estuaries, freshwater, marine water, orcas, and toxics in aquatic life.
Just as “shoreline armoring” was converted to a Vital Sign called “beaches and marine vegetation,” the Vital Sign for “land development and cover” was converted to “forests and wetlands.” New indicators were added for every Vital Sign, as described in an 87-page report titled “Revisions to Puget Sound Vital Signs and Indicators” (PDF 11.9 mb).
Since human-related Vital Signs and indicators were developed after extensive studies before the latest update, no immediate changes were proposed to the Vital Signs for the statutory goals of “Healthy Human Population” and “Vibrant Human Quality of Life.”

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.

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.

Controversy flares up over proposed policy revisions for state salmon hatcheries

UPDATE: NOV. 10, 2020
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is seeking comments on a slightly revised draft of a new Hatchery and Fishery Reform policy. For details, please read the news release issued yesterday.
—-
A state policy revision that could boost salmon production at fish hatcheries in Washington state has raised red flags among scientists and environmental groups worried about potential damage to wild salmon runs.

State-owned fish hatcheries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Click for details)

The proposed hatchery policy (PDF 264 kb), under review by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, could derail a 20-year effort to implement critical hatchery reforms, opponents argue. Major concerns revolve around threats to the future of wild salmon populations — including declines in genetic diversity and increasing competition from large numbers of hatchery fish.
At the same time, a variety of sport and commercial fishing groups have thrown their support to increased hatchery production, saying that policies to protect wild salmon have reduced fishing opportunities while doing little to save wild salmon.
The proposed policy was to be the subject of a public hearing before the commission this week (meetings schedule), but the discussion was postponed until later.
Hatchery science principles
The proposed policy does not directly advocate greater hatchery production, but it opens the door to it by eliminating sound scientific principles approved in the original 2009 policy, according to Jamie Glasgow, director of science and research for Wild Fish Conservancy, an environmental group. In fact, he said, the policy under review contradicts advice from the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s own experts, who issued an extensive report on hatchery policies in January.
“Science is something that policymakers should consider,” Glasgow said, “but they feel they have the authority to ignore it based on their own agenda. Making hatcheries great again is not a formula for (salmon) recovery.”
I was impressed with the well-written report titled “A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in Washington State,” written by Joe Anderson and other research scientists with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and reviewed by the Washington State Academy of Sciences. If you would like to learn how hatcheries can affect wild salmon, this could be your short course in hatchery management.
The document describes both the benefits and threats of salmon hatcheries and how a well-run program can effectively produce fish for harvest while protecting wild runs — including populations of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ch7-MCfFcNY”%5D
On the positive side, hatcheries can allow for increased fishing with accompanying economic and social benefits. That includes fulfilling legal and cultural obligations to Indian tribes, which maintain a treaty right to fish in perpetuity. Hatcheries also can temporarily boost populations of wild salmon on the verge of extinction as people work to reduce problems that caused the decline.
On the downside, hatcheries produce fish that can compete with wild salmon and impair the recovery of affected stocks, the report points out. When fishermen go out to catch hatchery salmon, they inadvertently catch wild fish, which may not survive even if they are released.
Another issue — more difficult to explain yet key to understanding why wild salmon are worth protecting — is genetic diversity, the variety of inherent traits accumulated in a population. Over time, wild salmon become a reflection of the watersheds where they live. Genetic diversity allows salmon to adapt to both short-term and long-term environmental changes, and that’s especially important today, given the increasing pace of climate change.
“Minimizing fitness loss by managing gene flow between a hatchery population and its companion natural population has been a fundamental focus of hatchery reform,” the report states.
Hatchery-reform efforts
A key to hatchery reform in Washington state has been to decide if a specific hatchery run is to be “segregated” or “integrated” from the wild population. In a segregated hatchery, the goal is to reduce mixing between hatchery and wild salmon. That includes keeping the hatchery run distinct by establishing separations in time and location while carefully managing the fisheries.
In an integrated hatchery, the goal is to make the hatchery stock as similar as possible to the wild stock. That means spawning a fair number of wild fish for hatchery production while controlling the number of hatchery fish that enter streams to spawn with wild fish. One concern is that salmon adapted to hatchery conditions generally have less genetic diversity. Such “domesticated” salmon may not survive as well in the wild.
In the state hatchery system, producing fish efficiently and maximizing hatchery releases are among the reasons that we have seen a decline in fitness among wild salmon and steelhead, according to hatchery experts.
“Hatcheries have potential for large magnitude ecological impacts on natural populations that are not well understood, not typically evaluated and not measured,” the report states. “We recommend a more rigorous, consistent and intentional evaluation of cumulative hatchery effects across multiple hatchery programs operating within a geographic region.”
The report on hatchery reform was commissioned by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2018 as part of an effort to rewrite the 2009 hatchery policy to “allow for some flexibility in hatchery production” and to increase the number of salmon for Southern Resident killer whales. In fact, several hatcheries have already boosted salmon production in response to a recommendation from the governor’s Southern Resident Orca Task Force.
The proposed hatchery policy (PDF 264 kb) places an increased emphasis on the “multiple purposes” of hatcheries. The document says individual hatchery plans “should reflect a balance between the need to minimize genetic and ecological risks to coincident wild populations and providing for the ecological and societal benefits of hatchery-propagated salmon and steelhead.”
Comments from the field
One of the first moves by the Fish and Wildlife Commission after deciding to write a new hatchery policy was to suspend the first three guidelines in the old 2009 hatchery policy. The first guideline, now suspended, called for following the recommendations of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG), a panel of scientists that conducted formal reviews on more than 200 hatchery programs in Washington state.
The second suspended guideline called for specific standards to reduce genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery releases. The third suspended guideline related to developing watershed-specific plans to reduce the impacts of harvest and to improve habitat for local salmon and steelhead stocks.
The suspension of those three guidelines brought an immediate response from 77 fishery and environmental scientists, including 21 PhD scientists.
“It is not only a dangerous precedent regarding the management of our state’s fish and wildlife, it is as short sighted as ignoring the science of climate change,” states their letter to Gov. Jay Inslee (PDF 678 kb). The group asked for the governor’s help in reinstating the three guidelines while launching an independent review of the HSRG principles.
Nothing specific came from the letter, but the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office is among those expressing concern about the new policy. In a letter to the commission (PDF 277 kb), Erik Neatherlin, executive coordinator of the Salmon Recovery Office, asked that language be reinstated to “ensure compatibility between hatchery production and salmon recovery plans … “
The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, a regional salmon-recovery group, offered detailed comments on the proposed policy.
“Given the original focus on recovery, the expansion to include fishery benefits, without prioritization, is concerning,” the board said in a June letter (PDF 433 kb). “This could lead to hatchery programs being justified solely on the need to support fisheries, with potentially less emphasis on implementation of hatchery-reform actions supporting recovery …
“The long-term focus and emphasis should be on restoring ecological benefits by returning natural-origin salmon and steelhead to healthy and harvestable levels,” the board added.
Types of hatcheries
Under the new policy, the longtime designation of hatcheries as “integrated” or “segregated” would be changed to “conservation” and “fishery supplementation” with the addition of “mitigation” hatcheries to make up for damaged habitat.
“It is recognized that there may be hatchery program initiatives that may serve more than one designation category,” the proposed policy states.
An integrated, or conservation, hatchery could be programmed to produce more than enough salmon to fully utilize the available stream habitat. In that case, the excess could help feed killer whales and provide fishing opportunities under the proposed policy. In the past, fishing has rarely been targeted on depressed stocks during the rebuilding phase, and opponents are skeptical about how mitigation hatcheries would fit into the picture.
Ron Warren, director of fish policy for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the commission has not been talking about major operational changes during the policy review.
“I don’t believe we are trying to change the overall approach,” he said. “We are still trying to pay attention and prioritize those populations that are conservation-driven. We certainly don’t want to lose that genetic material and have a population go extinct.”
Ron said he expects some revisions to be offered before the proposed policy is put to a final vote, possibly in December. One likely change would be to add back language making hatchery plans more consistent with salmon-recovery plans, as called for by many people commenting on the proposed policy.
Written comments (PDF 7.1 mb) submitted on the proposed policy have been posted on WDFW’s hatchery reform policy website.
Several sport and commercial fishers have written letters and testified at commission meetings in support of the proposed policy. They say efforts to restore wild salmon runs have failed miserably, despite previous cutbacks in hatchery releases.
“HSRG along with other past deplorable salmon policies have been failures that have resulted in highly significant reduced salmon fishing opportunity and seriously depleted the ‘economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry’ that the commission is now addressing…,” states a letter from Dale Beasley, president of Coalition of Coastal Fisheries.
“Our Washington iconic salmon will continue to decline unless we address the full range of decimation,” he continued. “Without crucial hatchery production increases, the rest will not be able to put Washington salmon back on our dinner plates for all our citizens to enjoy, nor will the starvation of the orcas … be abated.”
Need for monitoring
One of the deficiencies in Washington’s hatchery program is a lack of scientific monitoring to determine the effects of hatchery fish on individual runs of wild salmon, according to research reports. A study designed to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of hatchery reform could not be completed as designed, because data was not available for 159 hatchery programs.
“While steady progress in hatchery reform implementation has been achieved over the last 10 years, more work is needed in all areas,” states the February report titled “WDFW Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy Implementation Assessment.” “Lack of quantifiable harvest program goals and a comprehensive statewide monitoring and evaluation program are areas of special concern.”
While research is considered critical to operating hatcheries without harming wild salmon, money for monitoring has never been adequate. When salmon programs face budget problems, monitoring is often the first thing to get cut. One idea would be to require, by law, that a certain percentage of the budget going to hatcheries be set aside for monitoring and analyzing both local and cumulative effects of hatcheries.
We need such studies so that we don’t kid ourselves about the effects of hatcheries and the status of wild salmon populations. It is perfectly fine to consider social, cultural and economic values. Perhaps a cost-benefit study or environmental impact statement would be helpful to policymakers. But if our actions ultimately drive wild salmon to extinction, we need to consciously decide if that’s a consequence we can accept.
Further reading:
Wild Fish Conservancy writes that the hatchery-policy-review process has failed to follow state environmental laws. Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020.
From the Hatchery Reform website and the Hatchery Scientific Review Group:

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.

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.

New fishing rules increase limits on warm-water fish to indirectly help orcas

In an effort to protect young salmon from predation, new fishing rules will allow anglers to double their catch of some warm-water predatory fish found in 77 lakes across Washington state.
Reducing the population of salmon-eating bass, catfish and walleye is one of many ideas promoted by the governor’s Southern Resident Orca Task Force, which considered various strategies for increasing the number of Chinook salmon. Declining numbers of Chinook — a primary prey of the endangered orcas — is considered a leading cause of the dwindling population of southern resident orcas.

Smallmouth bass // Image: Duane Raver, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Largemouth and smallmouth bass, channel catfish and walleye are not native to Washington state, having been brought to this region starting 200 years ago. But all eat young salmon, and that’s considered a problem.
Whether increased bag limits on the predatory fish will lead to a noticeable increase in salmon has been debated since last year, when the Legislature implemented task force recommendations by passing a new law requiring the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to address the issue. The one-paragraph section of House Bill 1579 (PDF 180 kb) calls for the commission to “liberalize bag limits for bass, walleye, and channel catfish in all anadromous waters of the state in order to reduce the predation risk to salmon smolts.” The new rules, adopted in December, went into effect this week.
The new fishing rules, in effect for 77 lakes (PDF 109 kb) change the number of fish that can be retained by sport fishers:

  • Largemouth bass: Increase the daily limit from five to 10 fish, keeping only one fish over 17 inches. Release all fish from 12 to 17 inches.
  • Smallmouth bass: Increase the daily limit from 10 to 15 fish, keeping only one fish over 14 inches.
  • Channel catfish: Increase the daily limit from five to 10 fish with no size restriction.
  • Walleye: Increase the daily limit from eight to 16 fish, keeping only one fish over 22 inches.

Largemouth bass // Photo: Coex Aquarium, Seoul, Korea, via Wikimedia Commons

For rivers, streams and beaver ponds, all size restrictions and daily limits are eliminated for these four species of fish.
Other “housekeeping” rule changes can be found in a news release, which reflects the specific language in the “freshwater recreational gamefish rules” (PDF 1.1 mb).
Opposition to the changes was expressed by a sizable number of anglers, including groups of bass fishers who prefer to release the fish they catch, so that the fish can be caught again by others. Warm-water fishers don’t want to see their fishery destroyed in an effort to protect a small fraction of juvenile salmon that might eventually make it to saltwater.
Hernandez Ruffin, president of the Washington State Bass Federation, pointed out that scientific support for the changes has been lacking. In testimony before the Fish and Wildlife Commission, he questioned whether removing warm-water fish will have any real effect on the salmon population. Other predators, from seals to birds, are just as likely to eat the juvenile salmon that survive, he said.
Also, he noted, it is well known that smallmouth bass consume northern pikeminnows (commonly known as squawfish), a major predator of salmon. Removing the bass will boost the population of pikeminnows, which will then have a negative effect on the salmon.
Channel catfish // Image: Duane Raver, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Several members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission said the arguments in support of the warm-water sport fishery convinced them that a balance was needed. An original proposal to eliminate all limits on 144 lakes was reined in as a result.
The 77 lakes are those that contain salmon, whereas the original proposal would have applied to non-salmon lakes as well. On the other hand, a proposal to limit the change to 14 lakes containing Chinook salmon was rejected as not conforming to the legislative directive.
Commissioner Don McIsaac said the commission is bound by the legislation to address all lakes that contain salmon in a meaningful way.
“I would like to send a message to those people who are very very concerned about orca that we do care about salmon protection for the purpose of enhancing orca prey,” McIsaac said during the December meeting. “Our action here has done something reasonable, but what we’re looking at is … such a small part of the whole thing that a large benefit to orca … is not very likely.”
Steve Caromile, manager of the warmwater fish program for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said data on fish populations in lakes is fairly limited, but the removal of catch limits on large Columbia River reservoirs so far seems to have had no appreciable effect on the number or size of fish caught in fishing derbies.
Walleye // Illustration: Timothy Knapp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The result could be different for the latest rule changes, he said, because it may be easier to affect smaller fish populations in the 77 listed lakes — which are generally smaller.
“You can say that it is known that these (warm-water) fish all consume salmon as part of their diet,” Steve told me. “You can make the leap to say that there could possibly be an increase in juvenile salmon survival with these rule changes. Whether that would be a measurable effect is hard to say.”
No specific studies have been implemented to determine the effects of the new rule changes, but Steve said he would try to find a way to measure changes in fish populations in at least some lakes.
“Bass are fairly long-lived,” he noted. “To really see a change in the fish community, it is going to take at least six or seven years.”
Increasing the catch limits for bass and other warm-water fish is just a small step, Steve noted, but everyone recognizes that increasing the Chinook salmon population — and helping the orcas survive — may require many small steps.