Juvenile Chinook use pocket estuaries near natal rivers

Eric Beamer, Juvenile Chinook salmon use of small non-natal estuaries  in the Whidbey Basin, eastern Admiralty Inlet, and the San Juan Islands

Most of our juveniles are coming from the Skagit, accumulating early in the year (feb-may, some years as early as december, often associated with floods).  Pocket estuaries are safer places (most fish are too small to eat fry) and maybe better (warmer?) places to grow.  Abundance (e.g. 1000s of fish/hecatre in Skagit Bay) is higher than in adjacent nearshore environments.  On outer (W) Whidbey island pocket estuaries, juveniles are smaller and arrive later (may/june).

San Juan Islands

  • fry-sized Chinook: spencer spit; third lagoon; jackson’s lagoon (only July); False Bay (April, but probably released from within the creek)
  • some other salmon seen, but not much higher use than adjacent environments

There are lots of other fish in these pocket estuaries: juvenile smelt, shiner perch (birthing), sculpins.

North Kitsap Nearshore Fish

Paul Dorn, Preliminary Results of Beach Seine Sampling in 2007 and 2008.

Unmarked coho dominated our seines, particularly in may/june.  Coho size about 120-140cm, larger if from hatchery.  Lots of juvenile chum in apr/may/june (many more in 2007 than in 2008, probably due to Dec 07 floods).  2008 pink salmon (may/june) show this is part of the pink highway for fish leaving Puget Sound.  Shiner perch in 07, 08.

Large vessel wakes are like winter storm events during the summer on the calmest of days.

Nearshore distribution and size-structure of juvenile salmon and forage fishfrom the observations and modeling on watersheds, marine waters, and marine biota. These talks will focus

Elisabeth Duffy*, David Beauchamp

Juvenile salmon are moving through Puget Sound (PS) from April-July.  By end of July most have made it to the deep ocean.  Percent of fish from hatcheries is about 50% in N PS and 90% in S PS.

Nearshore fish comunity: herring and perch up north, hatchery salmon dominate in the south; salmon are 30-130mm, herring 130-160cm, sand lance 100-130cm; north diets dominated by insects, south diet by crab larvae, euphausids; predators drive early mortality and salmonids dominate (cutthroat target smallest juveniles)

Overall, marine survival has been really low, and lowest during pink years.  The bigger the fish are in July, the better their marine survival.

Where do we go from here?

  • synthesize data across Salish Sea
  • Prey supply (zooplankton) is a big data gap

Forage fish spawning habitat selection

Theresa Liedtke et al focuesd on 2 forage fish species: Pacific sand lance and Pacific herring

Initially focused on Liberty Bay (Poulsbo, WA; today’s data) with non/urban coastline; now working at Possession Point (s Whidbey Island) to get higher wave action and feeder bluffs.  12 sand/sediment samples, 500ml samples preserved eggs.

Findings: 40k eggs in Liberty Bay, 83 per sample; predominantly surf smelt (94%), sandlance and rock sole remaining; >60 eggs/sample called “high egg count” sample and included in a regression.

High egg counts associated with: shell fragments, high position on beach, and proximity to sediment source (eggs moved by wave action?).  If you had all 3, you had 82x chance of finding eggs on that beach.  Not associated: armoring, shade, freshwater input, upslope development.

Thus far, no eggs at Possession Point.

K. Dodd: dynamics of Port Madison fish

Data from N end of Bainbridge and repeat trawl survey from Tom Quinn’s UW class (~20 trawls/year from 1991-2008, over 2nd weeend in May, 4 depths (10-70m)).  Time series started just after 1989 fish closure, so expected increase in catch rate over time, but that wasn’t the case.

Catch anomaly shows an actual catch that is higher than expected (based on number of trawls completed compared with historical average for that depth and location).  Catch anomaly decreases for rockfish and slendersole, but increased for english sole.  Some species show up episodially: 1990 pulses of shiner perch, mid90s pulse for Pacific hake, big tomcod pulse in 2000, and 2003-4 for walleye pollock.  No trend in ratfish.  English sole was most abundant overall.

It’s unclear why these declines have occurred.  WDFW has sometimes seen increases for the same species and years in other parts of Puget Sound.

Alejandro Frid: rockfish & predation risk theory

Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center

Focusing on quillback rockfish and interactions with one of their prey, 3 genera of demersal shrimp which show strong spatial association.  An example from 8 reefs in Howe Sound and adjacent Georgia Strait, depths 14-25m, daytime, 10 Jul – 18 Nov, 2008

Lingcod are the main predator of quillback rockfish.  Estimated biomass in Strait of Georgia down 90% in last 100 years, majority in Howe Sound are <75cm.  Smallest quillback should have strongest avoidance of encounters with lingcod at the expense of access to the shrimp.  Counts per minute (CPM) of small quillbacks rise with shrimp and fall with lingcod.  Large quillback CPM also rises with shrimp, but doesn’t alter with rising lingcod.

If we control for structural complexity of the habitat, then shrimp CPM decreases with rising activity of rockfish.

Predators should be managed not for demographic persistence alone, but for the maintenance of risk-driven ecological processes.

Eric Eisenhardt: Efficacy of bottomfish recovery zones

We have a great op in the San Juan Islands to compare marine reserves set up in ~1990 (mandatory) with bottomfish recovery zones (BRZ) were established ~7 years later (voluntary).  Overall, regulations have changed over time, essentially getting more restrictive.

Methods: 300 dives since 1997; transects to compare recovery zones with paired (nearby) reserve

lingcod length: bigger in reserves (2001-2002), but not significantly differnt in 06-07.  Same results with copper rockfish.

populations declining over this period 01-07, except black rockfish which have increased in population and size.

Why aren’t BRZs working better?

  • Using substrate maps, we can see that BRZs have similar areas to the the reference sites and actually have proportionally more rocky habitat.
  • Fishing effort is pretty even over all (e.g. along the west side of San Juan Island, Pile Point and Lime Kiln are about the same as Eagle Point)
  • Compliance issues may be the problem, or the size of the BRZs may be too small

It’s been 10 years.  What shall we do next?

  • Change nothing
  • One larger BRZ?
  • Make BRZs mandatory
  • Make them larger and mandatory

Anne Beaudreau on lingcod in the San Juan Islands

What are the interacting relationships between rockfish, the lingcod that eat them, and the fishers who take lingcod (and rockfish)?  In reserves we can look at predatory role of lingcod without fishing pressure.  We can also look at differences in lingcod population structure and feeding between non/reserves.

Most samples from central San Juan Channel in rocky habitat.

Body size:

  • non-reserve: 35-80cm, mean ~45cm
  • reserve: quite a few large females, 80-120cm.

Catch rate: in reserves we had many more days when we caught >3 lingcod/hour.

Acoustic telemetry synopsis

  • Limited movement: 8/9 tagged lingcod never left reserve
  • Diet composition: rock fish are 20% of diet in reserves, only 5% in non-reserves (maybe because there are more rockfish in reserves, or maybe larger rockfish in reserves eat more rockfish, or maybe there are habitat differences)
  • Estimated rockfish consumption (modeled): consumption of rockfish in reserves may have been 5x non-reserve, with implications for how to recover rockfish!

Conclusions:

  • Pop structure differs between non/reserves
  • diet variations suggest local diffs in fish communities
  • there are unexpected ecological consequences of creating reserves…
  • match scales of research and management (got to get down to pretty small scales!)

John Calambokidis PSGB’09 talk

Changes in marine mammal populations of the Salish Sea: What will the future look like?

Pinnipeds

  • Harbor seal populations have stabilized — probably at historical levels —  in all areas of Washington after rising from lows of the 70s and 80s, often generating (old) conflicts with human fishers…
  • Many haulout areas were actually dynamited, so artificial areas are often used.
  • CA and northern sea lions: Conflicts at Ballard Locks and more recently at Bonneville dam due to human-made structures that were meant to help (not concentrate for predators) threatened fish species

Cetaceans:

  • Grey whales: abundance about 20k up from ~10k in ~1970; seasonal resident whales have been in conflict; ’99-2000 mortality/stranding events was prey-related, but there are ship-strike issues and entanglement questions
  • Fin whales: 2002 four were struck/found in Salish Sea (probably hit on outer coast)
  • Harbor porpoise: common in PS prior to 1950s; virtually eliminated; on the rise; 2007 three strandings with evidence of entanglement.
  • Humpbacks: dramatic recovery off US west coast 600 in early 1990s, to 1500 now, increasing at 7.5%/yr; used to be whaled in BC, but now we’re getting sighting in inland sea; SPLASH (’04-’07) showed extreme site fidelity, North Pac pop estimate of ~20k.  Since 1990 prey has switched from krill to fish, partially because of more coastal habitat use.
  • Blue whale: Jan 2009 first confirmed sighting in 50yrs.

What will future look like?

  • Protection does work: PCB ban reduced levels in seals; ESA listing has helped many populations, e.g. greys
  • Challenges remain: emerging contaminants; conflicts with fisheries (KW-Chinook link); vessel traffic and development
  • Many populations could reach carrying capacity like the seals
  • Conflicts with shipping, development…

Lynne Barre PSGB’09 talk

Implementation of the recovery plan for SRKWs

Section 7 consultations: Looking at Federal actions (funding, permiting, regulating) that might affect hydropower (hatchery production), water treatment plants, sewer outfalls, in-water construction, upland projects, habitat restoration, research, tidal and wave energy, etc.

Recovery plan implementation: started in 2003 really with funding before plan was final (research, enforcement support, education); broad approach to address all threats; adaptive process.

Prey: coordinating with ongoing salmon recovery efforts,  starting to inform their process as we learn more about what KWs eat.

Contaminants: Puget Sound Partnership put KWs on the cover!

Vessel impacts: we want to minimize disturbance

  • monitor vessel activitiy around whales
  • continue evaluation of voluntary measures
  • evaluate need for regs or restricted areas

Back in March, 2007 we made an Advanced Notice of Propsoed Rulemaking

Another step was to write a draft environmental analysis of proposed rules:

  • economic analysis and regulatory impact review
  • many cooperating agencies: WDFW, DFO, Coast Guard
  • internal review on-going, some delays (due to administrative turn-over?) before published in Fed Register

Oil Spill Response Plan

  • Action in recovery plan and recovery criteria: effective response plan in place
  • Oct 2007 workshop to discuss tools
  • Draft Response Plan for workshop and public review.  It was recently submitted by WDFW as appendix to Northwest Area Contingency Plan

Coordination

  • A big part of the Recovery Plan requires coordination with DFO, Canada.  SRKWs listed under SARA; helped develop U.S. recovery plan
  • KW listed in WA state: state vessel regulation in 2008; WDFW particpated in developing recovery plan

Outreach partners

More at nwr.noaa.gov or via orca.plan@noaa.gov