Which agency is officially charged with determining the escapement goals for each salmonid stock in each of the state's major salmonid-producing rivers? How is this figure determined for each system ( and no I am not talking about a dissertation on the Ricker curve and MSY... numerous previous posts have made it clear that the resource must be managed for MSY) and how often is it required to be re-evaluated? I believe this number is a moving target and depends on the quality of the habitat and it's carrying capacity, which also changes over time (sadly, for the worse most of the time).

MSY was born in an age where the "yield" or intrinsic value extracted from the resource was measured strictly in numbers of dead fish brought to market. This antiquated concept of MSY becomes meaningless when you no longer have to kill the fish to extract value (an angler's idea of "yield") from a commonly held public resource. In the case of wild steelhead, that yield is maximized by allowing more fish to swim up the river.

Here's another question. Why is this escapement number a single target rather than a range of escapements that would be capable of producing MSY? A singular escapement goal gives fish managers little or no wiggle room for error in case of a shortfall in the projected return. On the flip side, it also doesn't give them much room for error in underharvesting a strong return. Why not determine what this "escapement range" is for each system, then manage for its midpoint... ie set the seasons and tribal harvest based on current year run projections to achieve that midpoint escapement.

A target "escapement range" would help to minimize issues of under- or over-harvest, and also help to address this goofy "forgone opportunity" allocation problem. If the state were to go to total WSR, there would be no forgone opportunity as long as the actual escapement did not exceed the upper limit of the range deemed capable of producing MSY.


Salmo g, CFM, S malma, Grandpa, Rob Allen.... this one is right up your collective alleys.

I'll give it a shot, Doc.

First, who sets escapement goals? Generally they are set by the State, but if the runs are are subject to the ESA, then it is done with Federal oversight, and if the run is in a tribe's U&A, then it is done in conjunction with the tribe or tribes who fish over those runs.

How are the goals set? Since we're talking about rivers that have tribal fishing, I'll focus on that. Legally speaking, U.S. v. Washington (the "Boldt" decision) defines escapement as being the minimum amount of fish required to spawn that will keep the run just above the extinction level.

Thankfully, I think that the co-managers don't use that definition, rather they set the escapement level somewhere around twice that number.

The numbers are set within the context of MSY, using the S-R models to approximate where the best return/harvest numbers should fall. Stuff like habitat degradation is, as you noted above, generally used to justify a higher harvest rate due to reduced river productivity.

Viewing yield as the amount of fish harvested is wierd when it comes to steelhead, since the two user groups are so differently seated. For the tribal fishers, steelhead is a commercial commodity that is valued by $ per pound. For non-tribal fishers, it is a recreational commodity whose value is created by the chase, rather than the harvest. The monetary value of non-tribal steelhead fisheries is developed by the money spent on gas, food, lodging, gear, guides, etc.

It's shouldn't be too hard to recognize the two very different value types, and let each party recognize the greatest value of their half in their own way.

I'm not really to sure what you mean by a "range of escapements"...the S-R models are created as a continuous range of escapements, and what the returns will be from the different escapements, and MSY is the point where the difference between the two is the greatest. I think you're suggesting that rather than choosing the MSY "point", you're talking about using a range of points to define MSY?

I think you're also suggesting that foregone opportunity would cease to be an issue because we could harvest at the lowest end of the "MSY range", but not be under-harvesting because we were still escaping below the highest end of the range?

It's an interesting idea, but I think that it still concentrates too much on a necessary amount of wild fish that must be directly harvested in order to justify not killing the rest of them. Your observations about redefining "yield" and "value" is a much better direction to go, in my opinion.

At the risk of making a few folks a little defensive, here is how the break down of the "foregone opportunity" believers goes...

1. NOAA/NMFS/USFWS - knows it is not an issue.

2. Wa State AGO - knows it is not an issue.

3. WDFW - knows it is not an issue, but continues the "it might be" myth to maintain management flexibility with the triebes.

4. Treaty tribes - Same as WDFW

Non-tribal fishermen have a range of beliefs, but I don't find most of them to be very well-informed as to the legal/social underpinnings of the doctrine, whatever it is that they believe.

Fish on...

Todd

I think you summed up the jist of the concept I was trying to get across very nicely, Todd. A range of points is indeed capable of producing MSY.... I just have this suspicion that fish managers currently prosecute the fishery based on achieveing the lowest possible MSY escapement .

I see your point about forgone opportunity as it relates to this concept. The other avenue of redefining "yield" is a much better one to pursue.

However, I still believe issues of under- or over-harvest are better addressed by managing for an escapement range as opposed to an escapement point. That's how Alaskans manage fish runs in their most contentious and fully-allocated fisheries.

FishNDoc -
In much of western Washington under federal court orders the management of our steelhead and salmon resources is a co-manager effort between WDFW and the local treaty tribes. The escapement goal is one that has been agreed to by the co-managers. Federal court orders and WDFW wildlife commision policy require that those goals be at MSY though the parties can agree to larger goals if both parties agree. Those goals are typically set based on the best information available at the time. As new information is developed we periodically see the goals reviewed and if needed new ones established.

You are correct in that there are a variety of escapements that would be at MSY depending on survival conditions. When survival conditions are poor the escapements that would produce maximum harvests is lower than when those conditions are better. Generally the established MSY goal would that point that produces the most harvestable fish under average conditions - approximately mid-point between the extremes. Not much different than what you proposed. An example - recent work with Skykomish chinook show that over that last 35 years the average MSY escapement level was about 6,000 spawners. Under the low survival conditions seem in that time period the MSY escapement level was about 3,600 fish and under high survival conditions it was about 10,000. Under the best conditions harvest rates could be as high as 80% while under poor conditions the rate maybe only something like 30%.

Often in todays management the managers also consider what they can management imprecision - how sloppy their management is. In this case the harvest number is reduced by some factor depending on estimates of the amount of past management imprecision.

Another common management strategy today is to use exploitation rate management models rather strict harvest numbers. It is often easier and more accurate to structure exploitation rate fisheries. Most sport anglers are familar with this type of management as most sport season are of this type - a season of X length will catch Y portion of the run.

The management of wild coho fisheries in Puget Sound illustrate another iteration in the management scheme. In this case the managers looked at the productivity at MSY of the stocks in question at a variety of survival conditions. At poor conditions/returns a low harvest rate is used, at good conditions/returns a higher rate is used. A typcial example would be if returns are expected to be in the "low range" perhaps the allowed fishing rate would be 40% while if it was in the "high range" the rate might be 60%.

Something to keep in mind - except for us wild steelhead fanatics much of the angling public and society as a whole view steelhead as just another salmonid and would consider a management scheme that allowed some extraction of the resource to be acceptable.

Hope I haven't creat more questions than answers.

Todd -
I believe that federal courts have interpretated escapement goals under Boldt to be at MSY level rather than minimal viability level (Puget Sound Salmon Management plan).

I certainly hope that your assessment of "foregone opportunity" is correct. I for one am not sure how a federal court would rule if that issue was place in front of it.

Tight lines
Smalma

FishnPhysician -
While you posted your questions/comments ont he WSR management questions thread I'll reply here.
1) Review and adjusted of escapement goals is not done on a regular bases but rather as new information is developed. While in an ideal world your suggestion would be nice it would require resources (time) that is in limited supply.

2) Reagarding lower MSY levels with lower survivals - while this maybe be scary it is how the biological world works. Remember if the MSY escapement level drops due to lower productivivity the number of harvestable or the allowable harvest rate also drops. Clearly this confirms the need to protect and restore our river system's habitats as the top priority in maintianing wild fish abundances. It is an unfortunate reality that the carrying capaicty for most species today on most river systems is lower than MSY levels a century ago - in some cases much lower.

3) Regarding management imprecision - not sure I understand your question -typically if there is a escapement goal it is based on the best estimate under "average conditions". What it attempted to point out was that is now common to leave a "fudge factor" in setting harvestable numbers to help cover the management imprecision. It is for this reason that on stocks that consistently produce harvestable fish the average escapement is commonly greater than the escapement goal.

4) Exploitation rate management - As I understand it your concern is that if runs are smaller than expected less people will fish. From the fish's point of view this how it should be. There would be less fishing/harvest on runs poorer than expect and more on runs higher than expect - exactly the direction of errors that should occur if one wishes to error on the side of the fish.

5) Regarding over-escapements - In the past it was common to consider that managment of a run that had escapements larger than its goal to be considered to be a management failure. Genreally today that is not the case. Most would consider goals to targets to match of exceed.

6) I believe the MSY goal for the Quillayute steelhead is 5,900. The fact the several years the escapement has consistently been over 10,000 belies your concern that the management is designed to catch every last harvestable fish.

7) It would be one heck of a steelhead river that could sustain 5,500 steelhead entering the river on each tide for any period of time.

Do you really expect that the number of steelhead returning to a river the size of the Samish to be the same as that to the Skagit?

Something folks tend to loss track of is that the abundances of various salmonids in a given system is a reflection of the types and abundances of various habitats found in that system. One system may be have a large steelhead population while another of comparable size but with a differrent habitat mix have a small steelhead population but a large coho or pink or cutthroat population.

Tight lines
Smalma

OK, I got a little carried away with my 5500 fish per tide comment. Maybe for salmon, but not steelhead. Sorry, that was a gross misrepresentation.

And no, I don't mean to imply that escapement goals for one system are interchangeable with the next.

I am encouraged to hear that overshooting the escapement goal is no longer considered a "failure" by fish managers.

But let's look at the recent trend of 10,000 plus escapements for the Quillayute system. You have conceded that over-escapements are not a failure, but at what point would it be considered a failure? 30% overescapement, 40%, 50%... what? Here we have a specific example of a system that is 80% plus "over-escaped"... is that a bad thing?

I would think not. Perhaps the actual return per spawner may be less in these "over-escaped" brood years (relative productivity of the brood year on a per capita basis), but the absolute numbers of returning fish might actually be higher (absolute productivity of the brood year in aggregate). Does that make sense?

It seems to me that the system is not truly in any danger of over-escapement until the actual carrying capacity of the habitat is exceeded. I doubt there is any immediate danger of that happening.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason the Quillayute runs have been so strong lately is because 10,000 plus spawners are seeding the river gravel each year, with the vast majority of them contributing to the nutrient biomass that sustains the next generation? Might the addition of 3500-4000 more carcasses actually help to improve the productivity of the system?

FishnDoc-
Is the success of the steelhead population on the Quillayute due to the 10,000 spawners and the nutrients they bring to the system. I doubt it. Rather the excellent steelhead population on the Quillayutte system is most likely due to near ideal steelhead habitats whose headwaters remain virtually intact.

If all it took to have health steelhead runs was lots of carcasses the steelhead on the Cedar river would be in excellent shape - after all there are 100,000 to 350,000 sockeye spawning there annually - however the steelhead returns to the Cedar in recent years has been less than 100 adults. On the Snohomish in 2001 the escapement 1.1 million pinks and in 2003 1.3 million, average coho escapements for the last decade has been averaging 150,000 yet the wild run of steelhead has declined in the last decade to less than 3,000 even though the parent escapement of steelhead has been 5,000 to 7,000 fish.

You asked how much "over-escapement" who I consider to be a failure. The real question is what would you consider a failure. It really boils down to what the manageent objectives are. To achieve a significant "over-escapement" are you willing to close all fishing?

On allowing escapements going to the actual carying capacity. The carrying capacity varies with survival conditions just like the MSY escapement levels. There are a number of examples where current populations at near current carrying capacity but well below their current escapement goals - examples include chinook on the Nooksack and Stillaquamish, winter steelhead on the Stillaguamish and Snohomish systems. The winter steelhead escapement goal on the Snohomish is 6,500 fish however current run sizes with no fishing and parent escapements at the goal have been less than 3,000. Here the under-escapement is near the carrying capacity. What you would suggest for management in those cases?

Tight lines
Smalma

I agree that intact habitat is the main reason that the Quillayute population is so healthy, but it certainly doesn't hurt that 4000 plus additional spawners are helping to seed that wonderful habitat to its highest and best use, or that an additional shot of spring fertilizer is added to supplement the fall fertilizer supplied by the salmon.

That's not to say that carcasses are the only ingredient required to produce more fish. More carcasses in a badly degraded habitat could just as easily result in fish-choking algal blooms.

The examples you cited of steelhead populations where the parent escapements are not even capable of replacing themselves is a sign of a system terribly out of balance, especially in the face of such strong salmon returns.

Might the main problem in those systems be that abundance-based management revolves around a celebrity salmon species, while other salmonid populations take a distant back seat? As an example, there are major watersheds up and down the West Coast where managers have worshipped at the feet of enhanced sockeye populations to the detriment of wild chinook, coho, and steelhead stocks. Two that come quickly to mind are the Skeena system in BC, and Alaska's Cook Inlet. Could something analagous be occurring in the Snohomish or Cedar River?

This is a great thread. Keep it going guys. The rest of us need to read it and keep our emotitions from polluting and killing it.

Let's not overlook some other factors that I think are important:

1) Not only do you have the additional steelhead seeding the river, but thousands and thousands of coho carcasses from the Sol Duc hatchery are dumped in the Quillayute system every year.

2) The upper ends of these rivers have been under selective fishery rules now for a while.

3) A hifgher percentage of anglers along the entire length of river are releasing their catches ... fortunately, as we have seen the shift in traffic to these rivers as other runs fall by the wayside, this fact has allowed the actual harvest to not increase in the smae proportion.

4) Mother Nature keeps these river unfishable for both sporties and nets for failry long stretches here and there ... helping to ensure a number of fish make it up to where they need to be.

While the habitat is certainly in better shape than many other watersheds in the state, I would also like to point out that two of the watersheds along the coast with perhaps the least amount of human impact (Hoh & Queets) have struggled to even make minimum escapement goals for some time.

Lots of exceptions to the rules and lots of finger pointing ... just goes to prove that these runs are difficult to manage and we ought to be more conservative than in the past given the track record of current management strategies.

If we do we don't harvest "enough", who wins? The fish!

Smalma,

So...if:

and...

and...

and...

...how much more time or resources is required to adjust these escapement goals to reflect the actual in-the-river conditions? Or, rather, would it be more precise to ask, at least in the case of the Quillayute, how much politics vs. science is used to set escapement goals?

It certainly doesn't seem that the Quillayute's e-goal is set on either the best available information or has it been periodically updated as more information has become available. You noted above that having escapements of around 10K, with an e-goal of 5,900, belies Doc's concern that harvest is where the management policies start and end, but what other reason could exist for maintaining such a low escapement level, with a corresponding high harvestable component, in the face of consistent escapements at a level higher than what the rivers "should" be able to handle?

Also, what is the reason for the assessment that the Skykomish escapement is set well over carrying capacity? What has changed, habitat-wise, that significantly in such a short time? I don't know the breakdown of mainstem spawners vs. tributary spawners in that system, but it seems to me that the N.Fk. has maintained pretty good conditions, and that miles of good spawning territory has been added to the system by the use of fish traps and truck passage over the falls on the S. Fk..

Lastly,

I don't think the federal courts interpreted escapement under the Boldt decision that way, I think that the co-managers agreed to not define it that way in the PSSMP, and that the feds signed off on that aqreement as being allowed under the Boldt decision.

As usual, thanks for your time.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Have you heard the latest news with the SIRC and the Steelhead Heaven slide?

Todd --
Regarding that current carrying capacity belowing lower than the escapement goal.

Remember that the 6,500 escapement was set as an attempt to estimate the MSY escapement level under AVERAGE environmental conditions. In addition when any assumptions were needed to make that estimate managers choice values such that any errors would be in favor of the fish. Meaning that the goal of 6,500 likely is substantially above MSY levels at average conditions. When survival conditions for steelhead are well below average such as we are currently experiencing both the MSY and carrying capacity levels are greatly reduced. Since for the lass 5 years or so escapements ranging form 5,000 t0 7,000 fish are producing runs of less than 3,000 the population must be every near to capacity (ignoring harvest for the moment).

Another way of looking at this aspect of population dynamcis is to consider a hypothical population that has smolt carrying capacity of say 100,000 smolts. Studies have shown that we would expect to see a 15% smolt to adult survival under average conditions. Thus at capacity we would expect to see a wild run size of 15,000 adults (under average conditions). Such a population might have a MSY escapement level of say 7,000 fish.

Let's look at what happens under very poor survival conditions - say a smolt to adult survival of only 3%. In this case the population at capacity would produce a run of only 3,000 adults. This is the type of situation I believe we currently are seeing on the Snohomish. Of course if conditions remain constant for another few years and the returns stay constant at the 3,000 fish level we'll know with certainly that we are at capacity for these conditions. I for hope that things turn around before that point.

Also remember that we are talking winter steelhead here. The steelhead using the habitat above Sunset Falls are summer fish - no steelhead truck after mid-December of so.

Regarding the nutrients from steelhead carcasses. Remember that unlike slamon many of the steelhead do not die immediately after spawning so there isn't near as much nutrient enhancement from steelhead. Much of the mortality of the steelhead seems to occur after they drift downstream to the ocean.

If the placement of salmon carcasses was likely to tip the balance in the favor of steelhead survival then the Snohomish steelhead should be doing well. A local sports group has been placing 5,000 to 10,000 coho carcasses in the system. In addition I quickly reviewed the average wild salmon escapement for the basin and using typical average size for the returning adults an average of more than 4,000,000 pounds of salmon have been spawning in the system.

As WDFW (then Department of Wildlife) was developing their escapement sitting methods in the early 1980s the bios looked at the steelhead parr densities in a number of habitats thought to be "fully" seeded. What was found was the a stream's gradient and flow were important factors in the amount of parr that they could support. Higher gradient streams support more fish than flat sections and medium size water supported higher density of parr than larger water. The Quillayute has more of those kinds of habitats that just about any other steelhead streams around - which was what I meant about near ideal habitat.

Tight lines
Smalma

Hi, my name is Beezer and I am a first time caller on this thread, cluck cluck.

Just kidding, great topic, and discussion; both threads.

Quick question about carrying capacity for Smalma. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that carrying capacity is the maximum amount of juveniles, parr/smolt, that a system is capable of producing. You have said that you believe that the reason for the current decline in returns of Snohomish system winter run steelhead adults (and I have no reason to disagree with you) is occurring after the smolt leave the fresh water habitat. Why do you then say that the carrying capacity for the Snohomish system is lower? Assuming no drastic change in habitat isn't the carrying capacity still the same? The system should still be able to produce the same amount of juveniles however there just are not enough adults returning to "seed" the system. The way I see it, the escapement goals that were supposed to provide protection for severe negative environmental conditions have failed.

Beezer--
You are correct in that the potential capacity for smolt production on the Snohomish has not changed much. However the degree to which that potential is realized is dependent on the survival conditions that the offspring of spawning steelhead find.

In the example I used above when the marine survival of the smolts fell to the low level of 3% we were getting only 3,000 adults back to the system. This is not enough to fill all the potential rearing habitat so the fry tend to use the best habitat but end up producing a smolt production less than 100,000 which produces adult return of less than 3,000. If those survival conditions persist eventually the population will reach equalibrium at a low level of less than 3,000 - this is the carry capacity at that low survival conditions.

The potential capacity has not changed it just that survival conditions do not allow the population to take full advantage of that potential.

It remains unclear to me whether the current returns to the Snohomish (around 3,000) are at equilibrium or they will continue to decline if the recent survival conditions continue. Continue to have my fingers crossed that not only has the population crash stablized but that the survival conditions will improve in the coming years.

Hope that helps - if not I'll try again.

Tight lines
Smalma

I think the Quileute numbers are a conspiricy!!!

I wont believe them untill a nutral party does the counts.