Beam Reach

U.S. Navy starts 2016 by pinging in the pool

With transient killer whales in the area and the whereabouts of J and L pods (and their many newborns!) unknown, we were concerned to hear that active sonar was utilized late in the morning on Wednesday, January 13, in Haro Strait — critical habitat for species in both Canada and the U.S.  At the same time, military training activities were planned or taking place on both sides of the border.  This is what it sounded like underwater along the western shoreline of San Juan Island —

Complex sonar sequence recorded in Haro Strait on 1/13/2016 via the Orcasound hydrophone (~5km north of Lime Kiln State Park).

When the sonar was heard and recorded by members of the Salish Sea Hydrophone Network the Canadian Naval vessel HMCS Ottawa was observed (via AIS) transiting Haro Strait in U.S. waters about 10-20 km north of the hydrophones.

This juxtaposition led us to initially assert that the Ottawa — a Halifax class frigate which carries active sonar — was the source of the sonar pings, reinforced by the activation of the test range (area Whiskey Golf off Nanaimo) on 1/12 and 1/14.  However, a proactive call to Beam Reach on 1/14/16 from Danielle Smith, Environmental Officer for Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, suggested that the Ottawa was not the source.  Specifically, she stated that active sonar use was not in their plan when they last departed.  She also said she spoke directly with the Ottawa’s Commanding Officer who confirmed with the crew that the transducers were not lowered, and that therefore there was no way their SQS-510 (medium frequency search sonar system) could have transmitted (e.g.  sometimes calibrations underway go unreported).  Finally, she communicated that their senior sonar techs were confident that the recorded frequencies were not consistent with the Ottawa’s 510 system.  When asked, she confirmed that the sonar system had not been upgraded since it was last recorded during the 2012 vent in which the Ottawa disturbed and possibly damaged the endangered Southern Resident Killer whales.

Other sources of information also suggest that the U.S. Navy may have been the source of the sonar pings.

First and foremost, the sonar pings are distinct from the active mid-frequency SQS-510 sonar used by the Ottawa in February, 2012.  Instead, they sound similar to, but are more complex than the SQS-53C pings emitted by the U.S. destroyer Shoup on May 5, 2003.  [They were also coincident with many individual broadband pings spaced about 6.6 seconds apart.  Were these made by the vessel with the active sonar, or a different one?]

Furthermore, comparison of the times of the recorded sonar pings and available AIS tracks suggests that the sonar was recorded when the Ottawa was located between the north Henry Island and Turn Point at the northwest tip of Stuart Island.  If the source was the Ottawa, why would it have utilized sonar only while within U.S. waters (about 1-2 km east of the International Boundary).  During this period, the Ottawa was about 8-16 km north of the recording hydrophones.  Pending computation of the calibrated received levels, the qualitative intensity of the received pings suggests that the source was closer than the Ottawa’s AIS positions allow.

Smith’s statements and these observations raise a key question:  were U.S. vessels in the area emitting these sounds that are similar to those emitted by the US destroyer Shoup in 2003?

This possibility is alarming because the U.S. Navy has refrained from training with active sonar within the Salish Sea since the Shoup sonar incident of 2003 (which disturbed endangered Southern Residents, as well as a minke whale and harbor porpoises).  (The U.S. Navy has tested sonar since the Shoup incident: during the San Francisco submarine event of 2009 and the Everett dockside event in 2012.) Also, the U.S. Navy more recently has agreed to minimize the impacts of its mid-frequency sonar.

Portending a worrisome trend, at the start of 2016 news surfaced that the U.S. Navy planned operations in the Pacific Northwest that might include “mini-subs” and beach landings beginning in mid-January, 2016.  No recent AIS tracks of US military vessels have been archived by marinetraffic.com, suggesting that the Navy vessels’ AIS transceivers may have been turned off based on their mission.

Visual observations demonstrate that U.S. Naval ships were active on 1/13/20016.  At least one U.S. Naval ship, possibly a frigate, was seen departing Everett around mid-day by Orca Network.  Slightly earlier, between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m Howard Garrett of Orca Network saw two Navy ships transiting northward up Admiralty Inlet about 15 min. apart. The first one looked like the Shoup, complete with the cannon on the bow; the second looked more like a supply ship.

(1/17/16 update: A citizen scientist observed two Naval ships southbound in Haro Strait between Turn Point and D’Arcy Island at around 10:45 a.m. — roughly coincident with the sonar heard on the nearby Orcasound hydrophone.  1/19/16: Navy Region Northwest has confirmed a U.S. Naval ship was “in the area…”)

Update 1/22/16: Navy Region Northwest Deputy, Public Affairs, Sheila Murray stated in an email to Beam Reach,

“A U.S. Navy DDG was transiting within the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the U.S. side of the waterway (not in or near the Haro Strait). The DDG confirmed sonar use consistent with recordings on the Beam Reach Facebook page for a brief period of time, approximately 10 min. There were trained lookouts stationed during this event. No marine mammals were sighted during the activity and no marine mammal vocalizations were detected by passive acoustic monitoring. The ship was briefly operating its sonar system for a readiness evaluation in order for the ship to deploy in the near future.”

It is not clear whether the DDG (Guided Missile Destroyer) was one of the Everett-based ships — the Shoup or Momsen — or if it was based elsewhere (e.g. one of the 15 destroyers stationed in San Diego).  [Update 1/25/2016: Navy Region Northwest has, however, re-directed a question from Beam Reach regarding the procedures followed by the ship to the Third Fleet (based in San Diego) suggesting that the DDG may have been based in California.]

Update 2/4/16: Lt. Julianne Holland, Deputy Public Affairs Officer Commander, U.S. Third Fleet responded to a question posed by Beam Reach,

Below is the response to your question: Did the DDG obtain permission from the Commander of the Pacific Fleet in advance of this use of MFAS in Greater Puget Sound?

The Navy did not anticipate this use within the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The use of sonar was required for a deployment exercise that was not able to be conducted outside of the Strait due to sea state conditions. The Navy vessel followed the process to check on the requirements for this type of use in this location, but a technical error occurred which resulted in the unit not being made aware of the requirement to request permission. The exercise was very brief in duration, lasting less than 10 minutes, and the Navy has taken steps to correct the procedures to ensure this doesn’t occur again at this, or any other, location. The Navy also reviewed historical records to confirm this event has not occurred before and was a one-time occurrence within the Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Navy reported the incident to NMFS and NMFS determined that no modifications to the Navy’s authorization are needed at this time.

Below is a chronology of events, wildlife sightings, and acoustic analysis that we hope will help document the event, including the source of the sonar and any impacts on marine life of the Salish Sea.

Key events (local time, PST):

Tue 1/12/16 14:30 PST: Ottawa in search pattern all afternoon and night (1-7 knots, east of Constance Bank)

Wed 1/13/16 09:00 PST: Ottawa moves north into Haro Strait

Wed 1/13/16 10:00 PST: Ottawa enters U.S. waters between False Bay and Discovery Island, proceeds north

Wed 1/13/16 10:45 PST: Intense sonar pings recorded on the Orcasound hydrophone (originating from a U.S. destroyer in the Strait of Juan de Fuca)

Wed 1/13/16 11:00 PST: Ottawa leaves U.S. waters near Turn Point, Stuart Island

Detailed Chronology (public Google spreadsheet):

Acoustic recordings and analysis

8 minute recordings from Lime Kiln and Orcasound

Jeanne Hyde provided 2 recordings — each about 8 minutes long — of a sequence of sonar pings. The first is from the Lime Kiln lighthouse hydrophone (but we believe there is some drift in the time base, so this recording should not be used to assess event timing, like sonar initiation, duration, or ping intervals) —

Lime Kiln 8-minute recording (10:41)

Spectrogram of 8-minute recording from the Lime Kiln hydrophone.

— the second is from the Orcasound hydrophone (about 5 km north of Lime Kiln) —

Orcasound 8-minute recording (10:55)

Spectrogram of 8-minute recording from the Orcasound hydrophone.

Assuming that drift in the Lime Kiln recording has corrupted its time base, we use the Orcasound to establish timing of the event.  Overall, the event consists of a pattern of broadband pulses and ~30-second sequences of  frequency modulated (FM) slide and narrowband continuous wave (CW) pulses.  The ~9-minute pattern was: two simple, ascending FM+CW sequences, 52 broadband pulses (2.5-3.0 kHz) about 6.7 seconds apart, and then 5 more FM+CW sequences. 

The initial and final FM+CW sequences were distinct.  The first two were relatively simple and consisted of: a 2.5-2.6 kHz rise for ~0.5 seconds, 2.75 kHz tone for ~1 second, another 0.5 second rise from 2.85-2.95 kHz, and finally a 3.1 kHz tone for ~1 second.  The more complicated sequence that is repeated 5 times at the end of the sonar event (around 11:00-11:03 a.m.) is described below (in the section that makes a comparison with SQS-53C sonar sequences emitted by the Shoup in 2003).

The broadband pulse echoes were audible and were received on average 3.4 seconds after the direct path pulse.  This time delay indicates a mean extra distance traveled of about 5 kilometers, though there was a clear trend from about 5.7 to 4.4 km over the course of the 52 pings.

Further quantitative analysis of the acoustic data is included in the 13 Jan 2016 sonar chronology Google spreadsheet.  The larger data files are archived and shorter clips and associated spectrograms are embedded below.

Sonar sequence repeated 5 times around 11:00

Below is a 2-minute recording of the Orcasound hydrophone (by another hydrophone network citizen scientist) at 11 a.m. on 1/13/16 containing 4 sonar ping sequences.  Each sequence lasts 30 seconds and contains a series of complex rising tones followed by single 3.75 kHz tones at about 9 and 22 seconds into the sequence.

Spectrogram of the final 4 repetitions of the more complex sonar sequence.

Spectrogram showing the detailed pattern of sounds during one of the more complex sonar sequences.

Individual sonar ping at 10:55

Recorded and provided by Jeanne Hyde, this ascending sonar sequence is relatively simple —

Spectrogram of a single ping on the Orcasound hydrophone at 10:55 a.m.

Individual sonar ping at 11:00 (1:14 into ~2hr 26 min recording)

In comparison, this recording (provided by Jeanne Hyde) captures one of the more complex sonar sequences —

Spectrogram of 0.5 second sonar pings at 3.25, 6.5, and 9.75 kHz recorded on the Orcasound hydrophone.

Comparison with SQS-53C sonar pings from 2003 Shoup event

This historic recording from 2003 is similar (relatively abbreviated) to the single ping at 10:55 —

Spectrogram of a single ping from the SQS-53C sonar during the 2003 Shoup incident.

In comparison, here’s one of the more complex sonar sequences observed on 1/13/16 —

Complex sonar sequence recorded in Haro Strait on 1/13/2016.

Overall, the ~10-second sequence has fundamentals and pure tones are between 2.5-3.75 kHz.  This makes it distinct (lower frequencies) from the 6-8 kHz tones of Canadian SQS-510 system.

The initial 0.5-second tone has fundamental at 3.20 kHz rising to 3.35 kHz, with intense harmonics at 6.43-6.60 and 9.60-9.90 kHz.   This is followed by a 1.0-second pure tone at 3.45 kHz.

A second 0.5-second tone rises from 2.50-2.63 kHz, with a weak first harmonic at 5.0-5.2 kHz and a moderately intense second harmonic at 7.5-7.8 kHz.  This is followed by a 1.0-second pure tone at 2.73 kHz.

There’s a third pair of rising and pure tones at intermediate frequencies, followed by a pause for reverberations/listening, and then a repeat (at lower source level?) of the second and initial phrases.  Finally, there is an ending 0.5-second pure tone at 3.75 kHz.

Ship tracks and descriptions

The Canadian frigate Ottawa was observed in Haro Strait at the time of the sonar pings.  If the time of the recordings and AIS locations are accurate, then the Ottawa was approximately 8-16 km north of Lime Kiln and Orcasound when the sonar sounds were recorded at those hydrophone locations.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/11 to 1/12.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/13.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/14.

Alternative Ottawa track map

The Canadian Orca class patrol vessel, Caribou 57, was also active and tracked on AIS.  From Tuesday 1/12 noon through 1/13 it was patrolling withing the southern Gulf Islands.

Track of the patrol vessel Caribou 57 on 1/12-13.

Possible US Naval ships in/outbound from Everett on 1/13/2016 (Skunk Bay web cam):

Navy starts 2016 by pinging in the pool (archived)

NOTE: Due to new information provided by the Canadian Navy, this post has been archived.

A new version with the most up-to-date and accurate information is available here — http://www.beamreach.org/2016/01/14/navy-starts-2016-pinging-in-the-pool

With transient killer whales in the area and the whereabouts of J and L pods (and their many newborns!) unknown, we were concerned to hear that active sonar was utilized late in the morning on Wednesday, January 13, in Haro Strait — critical habitat for species on both sides of the border.  At the same time, military training activities were planned or taking place on both sides of the border.  At the time the sonar was heard and recorded by members of the Salish Sea Hydrophone Network the Canadian Naval vessel HMCS Ottawa was transiting Haro Strait in U.S. waters.

This juxtaposition led us to initially assert that the Ottawa — a Halifax class frigate which carries active sonar — was the source of the sonar pings, reinforced by the activation of the test range (area Whiskey Golf off Nanaimo) on 1/12 and 1/14.  However, a proactive call to Beam Reach on 1/14/16 from Danielle Smith, Environmental Officer for Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, suggested that the Ottawa was not the source.  Specifically, she stated that active sonar use was not in their plan when they last departed.  She also said she spoke directly with the Ottawa’s Commanding Officer who confirmed with the crew the transducers were not lowered, and that therefore there was no way their SQS-510 (medium frequency search sonar system) could have transmitted (e.g.  sometimes calibrations underway go unreported).  Finally, she communicated that their senior sonar techs who said the recorded frequencies were not consistent with the Ottawa’s 510 system.  When asked, she confirmed that the sonar system had not been upgraded since it was last recorded during the event in 2012 in which the Ottawa disturbed and possibly damaged the endangered Southern Resident Killer whales.

Other sources of information also suggest that the U.S. Navy may have been the source of the sonar pings.

First and foremost, the sonar pings are distinct from the active mid-frequency SQS-510 sonar used by the Ottawa in February, 2012.  Instead, they sound similar to, but are more complex than the SQS-53C pings emitted by the U.S. destroyer Shoup on May 5, 2003.

They were also coincident with many individual broadband pings (classic submarine-movie ones) spaced about 6.6 seconds apart.  Were these made by the vessel with the active sonar, or a different one?

Finally, comparison of the times of the recorded sonar pings and available AIS tracks suggests that the sonar was recorded when the Ottawa was located between the north Henry Island and Turn Point at the northwest tip of Stuart Island.  If the source was the Ottawa, why would it have utilized sonar only while within U.S. waters (about 1-2 km east of the International Boundary).  During this period, the Ottawa was about 8-16 km north of the recording hydrophones.  Pending computation of the calibrated received levels, the qualitative intensity of the received pings suggests that the source was closer than the Ottawa’s AIS positions allow.

Smith’s statements and these observations raise a key question:  were U.S. vessels in the area emitting these sounds that are similar to those emitted by the US destroyer Shoup in 2003?

This possibility is alarming because the U.S. Navy has refrained from training with active sonar within the Salish Sea since the Shoup sonar incident of 2003 (which disturbed endangered Southern Residents, as well as minke whale and harbor porpoises).  (The U.S. Navy has tested sonar more recently, however, during the San Francisco submarine event of 2009 and the Everett dockside event in 2012.) Also, the U.S. Navy more recently has agreed to minimize the impacts of its mid-frequency sonar.

Portending a worrisome trend, at the start of 2016 news surfaced that the U.S. Navy planned operations in the Pacific Northwest that might include “mini-subs” and beach landings beginning in mid-January, 2016.  At least one U.S. Naval ship, possibly the destroyer Shoup, was seen departing Everett around mid-day by Orca Network.  No recent AIS tracks of US military vessels have been archived by marinetraffic.com, suggesting that the Navy vessels’ AIS transceivers may have been turned off based on their mission.

Below is a chronology of events, wildlife sightings, and acoustic analysis that we hope will help document the event, including the source of the sonar and any impacts on marine life of the Salish Sea.

Rough Chronology (local time, PST):

Tue 1/12/16 14:30 PST: Ottawa in search pattern all afternoon and night (1-7 knots, east of Constance Bank)

Wed 1/13/16 09:00 PST: Ottawa moves north into Haro Strait

Wed 1/13/16 10:00 PST: Ottawa enters U.S. waters, proceeds north

Wed 1/13/16 10:45 PST: Intense sonar pings recorded on the Orcasound hydrophone

Wed 1/13/16 11:00 PST: Ottawa leaves U.S. waters near Turn Point, Stuart Island

Detailed Chronology (public Google spreadsheet):

Acoustic recordings and analysis

Sonar sequence repeated 4 times around 11:00

Below is a 2-minute recording of the Orcasound hydrophone (by another hydrophone network citizen scientist) at 11 a.m. on 1/13/16 containing 4 sonar ping sequences.  Each sequence lasts 30 seconds and contains a series of complex rising tones followed by single 3.75 kHz tones at about 9 and 22 seconds into the sequence.

Spectrogram of a sonar sequence that repeated 4 times around 11 a.m.

Spectrogram showing the detailed pattern of sounds during a single 30-second sonar ping sequence.

Individual sonar ping at 10:55

Recorded and provided by another hydrophone network citizen scientist:

Spectrogram of a single ping on the Orcasound hydrophone at 10:55 a.m.

Individual sonar ping at 11:14

Recorded and provided by another hydrophone network citizen scientist:

Spectrogram of 0.5 second sonar pings at 3.25, 6.5, and 9.75 kHz recorded on the Orcasound hydrophone.

Comparison with SQS-53C sonar pings from 2003 Shoup event

Spectrogram of a single ping from the SQS-53C sonar during the 2003 Shoup incident.

Ship tracks and descriptions

The Canadian frigate Ottawa was observed in Haro Strait at the time of the sonar pings.  If the time of the recordings and AIS locations are accurate, then the Ottawa was approximately 8-16 km north of Lime Kiln and Orcasound when the sonar sounds were recorded at those hydrophone locations.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/11 to 1/12.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/13.

AIS track of the Ottawa on 1/14.

Alternative Ottawa track map

The Canadian Orca class patrol vessel, Caribou 57, was also active and tracked on AIS.  From Tuesday 1/12 noon through 1/13 it was patrolling withing the southern Gulf Islands.

Track of the patrol vessel Caribou 57 on 1/12-13.

Possible US Naval ships in/outbound from Everett on 1/13/2016 (Skunk Bay web cam):

Green Tech Conference 2015 in Seattle (live blog)

I’m giving a talk on our recent paper (PeerJ Preprint) at the Green Tech Conference in Seattle today. Here is the agenda and my presentation:

And some notes I took during the 2-day conference in downtown Seattle.

 Introduction

Green Marine is a non-profit based in Quebec, Canada, that certifies environmentally sustainability in the shipping industry. The initiative has a growing number of Canadian and U.S. ports [Seattle, Long Beach, New Orleans] and has 50 supporters (NGOs [including Seattle-based Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Seattle Aquarium]. The number of participating organizations is growing (about 66% increase between 2013 and 2014).  Green

Panel presentations and discussion

SUSTAINABILITY AT WORK IN MARINE TRANSPORTATION MADISON

Linda:

The Century Agenda is the Port of Seattle’s 100-year vision: to be the cleanest, greenest port in North America.  The Green Marine certification program emerged as the best way to progress environmentally.  Stefanie Jones Stephens is Environmental Manager guides performance in different Green Marine metrics.

One practical example of the utility of the certification metrics is comparison with other ports and standards.  The Port was surprised to score low in the in-air noise metric because few complaints had been received (possibly due to their proactive outreach).  Quantitative comparison made it clear that an improvement could be made.

She showed videos of run-off filtering tanks (Harbor Island) and experimental above-ground gardens (“SplashBoxes” in areas where digging isn’t possible) for decreasing water pollution.  In a project managed by GeAlogicA and funded by the Seattle Foundation, Capital Industry built rolling containers that held volcanic soil and plants.  Port developed grant program (~$30,000-50,000 assistance to each participating truck/owner) that helped replace 500 trucks to reduce pollution during the 2000 truck trips per day.

Overarching thought is that the marine industry is very innovative, but perhaps too low-profile about it’s environmental advances.  The Port of Seattle has many other green innovations (biodiesel, stack-scrubbers, …), but too few members of the public know about them.

Stephen

Container terminals (warehouse w/o roof!) are a distinct operation (e.g. from bulk facilities).  GCT is based in Vancouver owned by a pension fund in Canada with U.S. terminals in New York and Bayonne.  We consider ourselves a technological leader that serves 19 out of 20 global container shipping companies.

We didn’t know how we compared with other organizations in our industry.  Green Marine was chosen because its metrics are driven by the participating organizations, not our customers.

There is an industry shift to larger vessels.  Same number of ships, less weekly trips, and fewer companies.  TEU has nearly doubled in 10 years (~2003-2013).  Europe and Asia are seeing up to 20,000 TEU ships now…

Vessel sharing agreements group shipping companies (e.g. Maersk) into only 4 “customers.”  North American Emissions Control Act caused higher costs in coastal waters (and therefore quicker turn-arounds): cleaner burning fuel costs 600$/ton vs $400/ton in the open ocean.  These changes motivate investments in ship-terminal-truck semi-automation, scheduling, worker safety, and other logistics (e.g. no idling during waits).

Dennis (used to work for Puget Sound Clean Air Agency)

EPA has worked with 159 countries and the IMO to develop a uniform fuel requirement through the North America “ECA” (pronounced “Eek-uh” = Emissions Control Act requires large vessels to use cleaner fuel within 200 nautical miles of the coast).  This rule prevents 31,000 premature deaths, 1.4 M loss work days, as well as lost school days (through the connection between ship exhaust and human health).

EPA is committed to working with the industry to find innovations that benefit the environment as well as the bottom line.  Some examples of mutually-beneficial partnerships with industry.  EPA worked with Tacoma-based Tote (RoRo line) is converting ships to burn (non-distiallate) cleaner fuels or LNG, which in the long-term will reduce cost of consumer goods in Alaska.  Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA funding, RFP due June 15) has reduced pollution while returning value to the U.S. Government (usually through reduced human health costs).  The SmartWay programs helps partners move more goods for reduced cost, in part by building off EPA’s brand equity.

EPA is developing a national port initiative, building off experience and leadership (of CA Ports).  The key is for Ports to realize that they are stronger when both providing services to their customers and keeping their local communities and workers healthy.

 10:30 session

1. Emissions scrubbers on the Algoma Equinox class vessels (Mira Hube)
   1. These ships are more fuel efficient and have reduced water use and noise pollution.
   2. We operate in emissions control area 100% of the time, so needed to reduce sulfur emissions (and NOx and particulates)
      1. LNG was an options, but there is a lack of LNG infrastructure in the Great Lakes
      2. EGCS
   3. Overview of exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS)
      1. Manufactured by Clean Marine (Norway)
      2. Closed-loop, fresh water, NaOH scrubber
      3. Base neutralizes acidic emission components;effluent is treated onboard, then discharged
2. CSL’s Experience with Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS) (Yousef El Bagoury; and Kevin Reynolds from Glosten Associates)
   1. How do you choose a BWMS?
      1. 70+ on market; 32 IMO-approved; 16 have USCG temporary approval…
      2. Glosten did early BW installations in 2006, so helped evaluate options
      3. Glosten worked with CSL to 3D laser scan possible sites in CSL ships
         1. How to fit (massive) pumps (2k m^3/hr!); heaters; hydrogen vents; filters?
         2. 3D models and equipment size guided plans for shipyard installation
   2. Lessons learned
      1. Lots of (EPA/USCG) paperwork involved in permits and Class approvals
      2. Site supervision and crew training are critical
      3. Clean ballast tanks prior to commission (ours had mud that clogged filters)
      4. Preparing for USCG approval (testing late summer, 2015)
      5. Other ships getting 3D scans by Glosten
3. Saga Forest Carriers – Ballast Water Treatment (BWT) Case Study (Birgir Nilsen)
   1. Optimarin started as ballast water treatment company in 1990s.
   2. 225 systems at sea; 50 are in use (on bulk carriers, Naval vessels…); medium scale — up to 3000 m^3/hr (largest are 7000 m^3/hr, e.g. in cruise ships)
   3. Regulatory environment: IMO, but also USA (USGS National Invasive Species Act; EPA Clean Water Act; plus confusing State variants (e.g. CA, Great Lakes))
   4. Pre-market conditions: customer buys equipment and intallation through “type approval certificates” (which should specify limits, like UV transmission and/or temp/salinity…)
   5. Basic system filters first and then disinfects with UV light (up to 35 kW from single lamp!)
   6. Sage Forrest Carriers (Optimarin customer)
      1. Open hatch mostly in paper pulp trade
      2. 1-2 km^3/hr ballast flows
      3. 3D scans (through Goltens sub-contract) of 24 ships (4 different ship designs)
      4. Little to no space: used part of ballast tank for equipment!
      5. System successful, but key is user training and operation manual (via officer conferences)
4. Membrane Scrubber Technology for SOx Removal from Engine Exhaust (Gerry Carter & Edoardo Panziera)
   1. Wet scrubbers (dry scrubbers are used on land, but takes too long to warm up/down & maintain)
   2. All designs use combinations of sprayers and filters and (Achilles heel) water treatment systems
   3. Ionada innovation is a ceramic membrane separation technology
      1. Provides surface area for the chemical reactions (resulting in a clean crystal)
      2. But without mixing with the exhaust gases
      3. No PAH wastewater treatment!
      4. Potassium carbonate is less toxic than NaOH; reacts with SOx to from K2CO3 (a fertilizer).
      5. $14 to purchase KCO3; $14 from sale of fertilizer!

History of Beam Reach bioacoustic research

Thanks to Professor Rick Keil and his UW Oceanography 409 class on Marine Pollution, I had a chance to go back through the data archives and review the research progress made over the last decade by Beam Reach students and faculty.  Below is the talk I’m giving today in Rick’s class to wrap up their study of underwater noise pollution in the marine environment.

Notes from the 2014 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference (liveblog)

Thursday, 5/1/2014

8:30
Parker MacCready (with Matthew Alford)
Observations of flow and mixing in Juan de Fuca Canyon

Pacific water on the continental shelf exerts strong control over Salish Sea productivity, hyposia, and acidification. It is the most important source of nutrients for Puget Sound by a couple orders of magnitude.

The problem is that the Pacific water properties vary strongly with depth. There’s high oxygen water near the surface (DO as high as 110 near 150m) and low oxygen water below (DO ~50 at 800m).

The water enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca via the Juan de Fuca canyon, an understudied region
(see Glenn Cannon, 1972) that cuts across the continental shelf. It’s deep enough relative to the shelf that the inflow can move up the canyon (moving east-northeastward at about 40 cm/s, independent of the tidal state) underneath the surface current on the shelf (typically southeastward flow).

The along-canyon flow gets up to 75 cm/s. As it moves over sills, internal lee waves form that have amplitudes of up to 80m.

ROM model runs show inflow across shelf is primarily via the canyon:

Richard Feely
The impacts of upwelling ocean acidification and respiration on aragonite saturation along the WA continental margin

Due to upwelling we are seeing pH conditions that won’t be seen the global surface ocean until the end of this century. The upwelling low O2 water also has high pCO2, low aragonite saturation state, low pH for water >80m depth.

Feely described a new model that can predict water properties 6 months in advance, a tool which could be very valuable to Salish Sea shelfish growers.

Local respiration uses up the (already low) oxygen and increase pH as the water flows in. This can result in anoxic events downstream.

What forces the inflow? Wind from the north!

Ref: Alford and MacCready (2014) Flow and mixing in Juan de Fuca Canyon, Washington. Geophysical Research Letters, 41.

Rob Fatland is talking later about using ROM to visualize the flow of water across the shelf, primarily via the canyon.

The transport observed is about equivalent to the Amazon River, 200,000 m^3/s, easily enough for the Salish Sea “estuarine circulation” about 30,000 m^3/s.

9:00
Christie McMillin (Marine Education and Research Society mersociety.org)
Anthropogenic threats to humpback whales in the Salish Sea: insights from northeastern Vancouver Island

2012 Juvenile humpback stranded (long line entanglement)
2013 photographs (by Mark) indicate that it was a high recent year (along with 2011; nice graph)
1985 Merilees documented two periods of whaling in the Strait of Georgia in the late 1800s. Place names like Blubber Bay reflect this history.

Northeast Vancouver Island had whaling as late as 1968 and many humpbacks were taken in the 1950s on the west side of Vancouver Island.

Since 2006 they have documented 8 vessel strike injuries. Since 2009 there have been 5 witnessed cases of entanglement in prawn gear (3), crab gear (1), and seine net (1). In 4 of 5 entanglements, the whale was disentangled.

We can estimate total (non- + witnessed) entanglements by photographing leading edge of tail stock. This method suggests that 9 additional entanglements have occurred in our study area.

There are concentrations of humpback distributions northeast of Hanson Island, while much lower densities occur in Johnstone Strait (particularly SE of Hanson). This observation informed new signs warning vessel operators of the high density areas.

Is you witness entanglement or ship strike, DFO has a hotline, but with a VHF you can call the Coast Guard.

9:15
Jared Towers (DFO/Marine Education and Research Society)
New insights into seasonal foraging ranges and migrations of minke whales from the Salish Sea and coastal British Columbia

Minkes do breach!

Highest distributions are on west side of San Juan Island, the banks, and Race Rocks, as well as North Vancouver Island. Lower densities further north and on the outer west coast of Vancouver Island. Despite effort, none were observed off Nanaimo area in the Strait of Georgia.

Strong seasonal distribution, peaking in July. No sighting during ~Oct-Mar.

Previous research: Dorsey et al., 1990. Rep Int. Whal. Commn. Special Issue 12.

Intra-annual movements occur spring-to-summer and summer-to-fall suggest migration. Ecological markers (e.g. scars, swordfish beaks embedded in blubber, diatom coatings or barnacles, cookie cutter shark bites, lamprey scars, Xenobalanus colonizing trailing edge of fins [occurs in tropical east Pacific]). Ref: Towers et al. (in press) Cetacean Research & Management (?)

Prey seems to be juvenile herring and juvenile and adult sand lance. We observe bait balls in the NVI and they may occur in the SJI area, too.

9:30
Marla Holt (recording in .mp3 format)
Using acoustic recording tags to investigate anthropogenic sound exposure and effects on behavior in endangered killer whales

Goals: quantify noise that individual SRKWs experience; determine relationship between vessels and their attibutes and received noise levels (RL); investigate kw acoustic and movement behavior during foraging.

Digital Acoustic Recording Tags (DTAGs) have two hydrophones (one for background noises, one for KW signals), as well as orientation and movement sensors.  We have 3 field seasons of data so far (Sep 2010 [before 2011 vessel distance increase from 100-200 yards], Jun 2011, Sep 2012) and plan more deployments this year.  23 tags on all three pods.

Animation of a 7-hour tag in Haro Strait SE down Haro canyon, across to Salmon bank, south along its western edge, and then across to ENE Hein bank.

Received levels: RMS averaged over 1 sec in dB re 1 uPa, 1-40kHz band.  2768 measurements of RL (w/o flow noise or whale signals), min 88 dB (3 vessels 2 stationary 1 slow (0-2) kts; Max 141 dB large fast vessel (ferry passing less than 300m from whale!)  Julian Houghton’s theses working up predicted noise levels and finding speed and (size, distance??) are most important factors in RL.

Variations in pitch and roll may indicate foraging changes, but few prey samples have been acquired during focal follows with DTAG deployments.

9:45

M. Palomares

The Salish Sea ecosystem in FishBase and SeaLifeBase

We have documented the iodiverstiy of Salish Sea in two databases:

• fishbase.ca
• sealifebase.ca

~82 references used to assign 2,280 species to for ecosystems
Gatydos et al. 2008, 2011; Cowles 2005
Fish completed; birds and marine mammals need work; many invertebrates.

The full fish list is at — http://www.fishbase.ca/trophiceco/FishEcoList.php?ve_code=1067

These data (particularly the trophic pyramid, as well as the “1-click ecosystem routine’) should help researches build ecosystem models.  68% of fish species have biological data in FishBase.  There are at least 12 species that are commercially important that don’t have life history data, so they could not be included in the reslience estimations.

There are efforts to cross-reference with the barcode of life movement.

10:45

I. Vilchis

Common risks among declining marine predators suggest ecosystem change

39 taxa of wintering birds in 8 Salish regions and three depth categories

The birds most likely to undergo a decline (based on their model) were the diving birds without local breeding colonies.  Across categories, decline probabilities are higher in the birds that eat fish (vs non-fish eaters).

Why are diving birds over-wintering less in the Salish Sea?  We suspect that this is because there have been long-term decreases in the forage fish abundance in the Salish Sea.  (Some studies have shown concomitant increases in over-wintering populations in California.)

One idea is that the specific power required to maintain a certain air speed is much higher for diving birds.  (Nice use of archive.org videos embedded in slide to show difference in flapping frequency in puffins vs frigates.)

Conclusion: Salish Sea birds are shifting wintering feeding ground as a result of lack of prey.

11:00

P. Arcese

A century of change in trophic feeding level in diet specialist marine birds of the Salish Sea

Western Grebes have declined by 97% in 40 years here and increased 230% in southern CA.  Pacific sardines were extremely abundant before being overfished, but the have come back dramatically since the 1980s (Ref Hill, 2010?)

Murrelets in BC have gone from ~500k to 50k population and were studied isotopically using historic samples (feathers formed early in year [condition prior to breeding]) from museums around the world, including bird collected by Vancouver (Norris et al. 2007, Journal of Applied Ecology).  The dN15 decline they observe suggests a decrease in trophic level of the murrelet diet from mainly fish to mainly euphausids.  Fecundity vs bird count data, suggest that forage fish abundance may be limiting reproductive rates.

Even glaucus winged gulls are in decline.  Mondarte populations down from ~3000 to ~900.  Average age size is also decreasing (Blight, 2011).   The isotopic decline in gull feathers is consistent with the murrelets.

The western grebe is a herring specialist, but isotopic data from grebes have maintained diet (on herring) but most have left the Salish Sea.

11:15

Jessica Lundin

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the Puget Sound ecosystem: An evaluation of POPs in fecal samples of Southern Resident killer whales

247 samples in final analysis, including toxicants, hormones, and genotyping

Toxicant results: dried fecal samples vs blubber samples from same whale (30 whales) show strong corrleation; unprocessed (undried) fecal samples vs blubber also highly correlated.

1. Higher ratios of ppDDE/sum(4PCB) are highest in L, and secondarily K pods relative to J pod
2. Females with >1 calf have lower 2-5x toxicant loads than juveniles, males, and post-reproductive females (who have the highest values)

Graphs of Columbia and Fraser Chinook returns show a ~2 month gap during which there is evidence that toxicant are being mobilized from their lipid stocks.

Ratio of sum(PBDE)/ppDDE shows an increasing trend (2010-2013) suggesting that PBDEs are bioaccumulating.

Next steps are to look at relationships between toxicants and hormone.  A pregnancy test has been developed which could be used to assess reproductive success (and hypothetically may be influenced by toxicants).

11:30

30 minute discussion (.mp3 format) at end of Session on “Marine birds and mammals of the Salish Sea: identifying patterns and causes of change – II”

Lunchtime presentations:

• Sustainability Ambassadors
• Martha Kongsgaard, The Moibus strip of science and policy in ecosystem recovery (.mp3 format) [note: Comparing the RMS background noise levels before and after Martha sang to the over-chatty crowd of ~500, there was a 6 dB drop!]

 Friday May 2, 2014

9:30

Natalie Hamel

The 2013 State of the Sound Status of the ecosystem

PSEMP = Puget Sound Environmental Monitoring Program works with partners to monitor and report conditions and assess restoration efforts.  The Puget Sound Vital signs are one tool used to assess ecosystem conditions.  Such assessments go back many years (e.g. “Puget Sound’s Health” 1998) and should be continued.

Vital Sign characteristics:

• The “wheel” is fundamentally a communication device, designed for a wide audience (simple, distilled, appealing)
• Indicators founded in science, prioritizing: good surrogates for ecosystem conditions; available historic data; quick response to ecosystem change (including restoration efforts)
• Connections to recovery goals (with both baselines and targets)

Graphs and interpretation of trends in them are simplified into a simple progress scale (with baseline at center, target delineated, and % change indicated by a marker of current conditions.

As of the end of 2013, a few vital signs showed progress, some have lost ground (e.g. orcas), and many that are far from the 2020 targets.  One concern is a need for more short-term, responsive indicators.

9:45

Kathryn Boyd

2013 State of the Sound: Accountability and funding of Puget Sound recovery

As of Sep 2013, 68% of the 2012 near term actions were on plan or complete, 12% were off-plan, 7% had serious constraints, and 12% were not started.   The primary cause of delays was lack of funding.  In both 2012 and 2013 there were funding gaps of 100’s of millions of dollars.

The Action Agenda Report Card gets updated quarterly and automatically as partners report in.  These online data show that the number of complete Near Term Actions (NTAs) is rising overall (2012Q3-2014Q1).  Shellfish actions are a good example of steady progress to completion.

10:30

Brian Sackman

Eyes Over Puget Sound: Producing validated satellite products to support rapid water quality

RDI workhorse (300 kHz ADCP) on WA State ferries

Victoria Clipper samples every 5 secs (~100m), 80 mile transect 4 x /day, (T,S,Chl)

MERIS ocean color satellite (2000-2012) combined with others, e.g. LandSat (2000-present, 30-500m resolution  nearshore; >1km coastal/offshore)

To ground-truth, they used partial least squares regression (commonly used in chemometrics, bioinformatics when many parameters are available and correlated).  Working towards an operational workflow.

10:47

Amy Merten

Open source mapping to improve data sharing: Environmental response management application

Web-based mapping tool — Environmental response management application (ERMA) — aiming to make data sharing between agencies, coordinated through UW Tacomea’s Puget Sound Institute.  Now trying to complete after starting before Deep Water Horizon spill distracted.  Real-time data (e.g. from AIS, NOAA weather buoys, NANOOS), forecast data (weather?), and base maps and database  (e.g. Marine Protected Area portal, Burke Herpetology collection, Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, NatureServe?, Audubon data on Canadian watersheds and bird distributions) goes to ERMA Data Center and is accessible from oil spill response Command Center.

Whale telemetry data can be imported and animated.  Satellite tag example.

Upcoming events: August 2014 drill; CANUSPAC.

11:03

Rob Fatland (Microsoft Research)

Ebb and Flow: What we learn from visible circulation patterns in the Salish

All technological problems are solvable.  You just need to find the write person.

Geophysicist (glacialogist turned oceanographer).  Microsoft offering 1 free year Azure cloud computing, but the challenge is finding the right collaborators to help manage data.  Cyberinfracture involves registering and communicating about data sets.  Machine learning is the likely way to distill big data from the growing cyberinfrastructure.

Worldwide telescope is the core of http://layerscape.org

12:30

Wade Davis, UBC

The critical importance of preserving ecosystems for current and future generations & the significance of ancient wisdom

Audio recording ( .mp3 |.ogg | .flac )

1:30

McKechnie, I.

The Herring School: Long-term perspectives on herring in the Salish Sea and beyond

At 179 sites along BC coast and in WA (inland) herring was the major commonality (all but 2 sites on N Coast) and was extremely prevalent in the Salish Sea.  % of herring relative to other fish (based on bone archealogy) varied from 80% in northern Strait of Georgia to 20% in Puget Sound.  Distance from herring bone sites to existing herring spawning sites is <~2km.

Visible foodstuffs in a drawing of part of Chief Maquinna’s house include 2675 herring/anchovy, 20 flatfish, 10 greenling/cod/hake!

pacificherring.org was launched this morning.  A really cool feature of it is the 12,000 year timeline of herring on the coast of Alaska, British Columbia and Washington.

2:15

T. Francis

Can we have our herring and eat our salmon too? A qualitative approach to modeling trade-offs in the Puget Sound foodweb

Foodweb figure coming…

2:30

J(oan?) Drinkwin (Northwest Straits Derelict Fishing Gear — winner of the 2014 Salish Sea Science Prize! http://www.derelictgear.org/ )

Observed impacts of derelict fishing nets on rocky reef habitats and associated species in Puget Sound

PS has lots of derelict fishing nets because of abundant rocky outcrops and long-history of salmon fishing.  Nets located with side-scan sonar and reports from divers, etc.  All material removed by hand, not grapnel.  4467 gillnets removed (95% of those located), 168 purse seine (10?%).  672 acres of habitat restored as of March 31, 2014.  %5 of fish found dead in nets are rockfish (including one canary rockfish).

Next steps are to continue removal, including with expanded fleet.   Need funding to go deeper than 105′.

Annual net loss is 10-30 nets and our new program aims to keep new nets from accumulating in the environment, including education and tools to increase (often mandatory) reporting by fishers.  Of 24 reports in pilot program, 10 were removed, 7 had unknown location, 2 not found, 4 not derelict fishing gear, 1 in Columbia River.

Orca and salmon recovery workshop (live blog)

Sponsored by the Puget Sound Partnership and organized by Orca Network, the Salish Sea Association of Marine Naturalists, and The Whale Museum, this workshop preceded the 2014 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference.

Daniel Schindler, UW

The “Effects of salmon fisheries on SRKW” report

12:09 Starts with introduction of the science panel members

12:12 We were charged with evaluating the BiOp’s “chain of logic linking Chinook salmon fisheries to population dynamics of SRKW”

Population decline in both NRKW and SRKW was coordinated in late 1990s.

We were blown away by the quality of SRKW demographic data.  This is probably one of the best-studied wildlife populations in the world.

Eric Ward estimated growth rate (lambda) as 0.99-1.04 (mean ~1.017, or ~1.7% exponential growth) for J/K pods and 0.985-1.035 (mean ~1.01, or ~1% exponential growth).  The overall SRKW rate of 0.71% per year might increase to ~1%), but fisheries management changes are unlikely to raise the growth rate to the recovery goal.

There are 1000s of papers about Chinook salmon, but less is know about Chinook topics relevant to SRKWs.  Listed 3 shortcomings.

Kope and Parken summarized Chinook trends for specific stocks important to SRKW.  Coastwide there has been a modest decrease in recent pre-harvest Chinook abundance.  There isn’t much room to lower commercial fishing in a meaningful way (e.g. decrease harvest of 20%).

Correlations between SRKW vital rates and Chinook abundance depends on abundance measure chosen.  Mortality of SRKW should scale non-linearly with salmon abundance, but the existing correlations are linear.

12:38 Questions

Bain: Why weren’t acoustics impacts of fishing vessels considered?  A: I don’t know.  Perhaps because available data did not include fishing boats.

Felleman: Were analyses done using only Columbia Chinook?  A: No, but you should email Eric Ward about that.  You should also be careful about interpreting correlations as causal relationships.  If you look for correlations from 50 different salmon populations, you’ll find strong ones just through random chance.

12:50

Elizabeth Babcock, NOAA

The intersection of salmon and orca recovery

Focus is on Puget Sound stocks.  Locally-developed recovery plans for Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (14 watersheds from Neah Bay to Point Roberts; 22 populations) reviewed in 2005, then adopted plan in 2007, and are now implementing with partners.

70% of our estuary habitat area in Puget Sound have been lost…

13:00

Lynne Barre, NOAA

13:10

Mike Ford, NOAA

Salmon recovery and SRKW status

Noren (2011) suggest SRKW metabolic demand is 12.6-15.1×10^6 kcal/day =~1000 Chinook salmon/day

Ward looked at all available Chinook time series and found many correlations, including between runs, but the strongest correlations were not with the Fraser nor the Columbia.

Interesting population projection figure from Ward (2013)

Post-workshops we have been looking at trends in other marine mammals: AK and NR KWs increasing, CA sea lions now  ~6x 1975 levels, harbor seals 6-8x…

Overview of salmon status

• Historic Chinook salmon abundance figure (compiled Jim Myers, NWFSC): Biggest reductions were in Columbia (~-3-5x) and Central Valley (~-3-4x)
• Bonneville time series (1938-2014) shows abundance declines happened a long time ago (pre-dams!).  2014 levels approaching 1888 average levels!
• A lot of the historical losses are due to extirpations (Gustafson et al., 2007): biggest extinct populations were in Columbia above Grand Coulee and Snake
• Run timing changes: Columbia example — ~10x reduction in interior run (above Bonneville) from ~2.5 million to ~200k.
• Hatchery production rose from 1950 to peak in mid-80s and in 2000 was near 1970s levels (Naish et al. 2007)
• Puget Sound historical abundance is ~700k (based on cannery pack in 1908); current wild escapement is ~50k; hatcheries add ~300k.

Recovery activities

• Habitat: 31,000 projects completed at 51,000 locations throughout Pac NW.  Over $1 billion spent on restoration to date.
• Hatcheries: overall reductions in hatchery releases in last few decades, and limiting genetic impacts on wild fish.  One example of reductions to near zero is on OR coast…
• Harvest: easiest to change and responsive; examples of successful catch reductions are Hood Canal summer chum.  Coastwide harvest % has decreased by ~factor of 2 over last 30 years
• Hydro: improved fish passage, predator control, spill, barging; dam removal on Elwha, Condit, Rogue, Sandy, Hood River
• Heat: potential effects of climate change mostly not great for salmon; summarized by Stoute et al. 2010 and Wainwright and Weitkamp in prep

Budget comparison

• Orca recovery spending: FY12 1.2M on science/research; ~300k on management/conservation
• Orca salmon spending: FY12 600M!!  Columbia only is 450M!

1:40 break

David Troutt, Director of Nisqually Natural Resources (for 35 years) and Chair of SRC (=Salmon Recovery Counci)

WA State salmon recovery — How we work together

2:02

State broken into regions, each with their own recovery plans (developed through the “WA way” involving many stakeholders, endorsed by Feds).  Go to RCO web site for more information.

Study completed in March 2011 estimated costs of all planned regional plans is ~$5.5 billion.  Funds dispersed through Salmon Recovery Funding Boards established in 1999.  Funds come from PCSRF and others…  Note: it is a LOT cheaper to protect than to restore…

10% of Federal grants must be used for monitoring.  Example: About 80% of Nisqually outgoing smolts remain in estuary; 20% seek pocket estuaries elsewhere, but we see almost no returns of fish using the latter strategy.

There is a problem with marine survival in Puget Sound.  We see 95% mortality of tagged out-going smolts between the Nisqually and Port Angeles.  We’re confident that the estuary is in much better shape and 77% of the mainstem is in permanent stewardship, but we’re not seeing any result in the numbers of returning adults!

2:15 Tribal perspectives

Story: a generation of Nisqually fishers have never caught a steelhead.  Annual catches of ~2k by tribes and ~2k by recreational fisheries collapsed (in 1990s?) to total run of ~500, a condition which persists.  The treaties have not been withheld (and the tribes have not “shot at y’all in a long time”).

We need to work together towards ecosystem restoration.  The tribes are interested in actions related to all H’s.  The tribes have been working with the State to adapt how we run hatcheries to support harvest, but also be consistent with recovery goals.  The North of Falcon process is part art, part science, but it is transparent and it works.

Rich Osborne, North Pacific Coast Lead Entity Coordinator (WRIA 20)

WA Sustainable Salmon Partnership — Salmon recovery on the WA coast

2:25

What’s unique about the outer coast in terms of salmon restoration?

• All 5 salmon species and steel head; none are listed except Ozette sockeye.
• Large areas are encompassed within tribal lands, which allows alternative restoration strategies.
• Almost no people!  Only 7000 people on coast with no residential areas
• Large portions of watersheds in National Park, other large areas in National Forests.

Formed a non-profit to raise money beyond the SRFB: the WA Coast Sustainable Salmon Foundation.  WRIA 21 = Quinalt; WRIA 22&23 Grays Harbor; WRIA 24 Pacific County.

Example projects:

• Goodman Creek road decommissioning (4 miles of road and fill removed)
• Quinalt: old logging road and fish passage blockage removal — facilitated by ability for tribe to control local decisions.
• Grays Harbor: huge estuary Chehalis has spectrum of impacts (industrial, logging, headwaters in National Park), but again not many people
• Pacific County (Willapa Bay): huge estuary w/few people; mostly Weyerhauser timber operations between pristine upper watersheds and the ocean.

28 Chinook stocks returning only 30-40,000, but could be 100s of 1000s…

An additional 12 million hatchery fish released from coastal watersheds per year

Salmon stronghold study areas (circa 2006)

 Jeannette Dormer, Puget Sound Partnership

Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound

2:45

In contrast, there are 4.1 million people in the Puget Sound region: 12 counties, 20 large cities, 100 cities total, 17 treaty tribes, many NGOs; 15 lead entities; Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (not the Partnership) is policy body to oversee implementation of the PS salmon recovery plan.

6 salmonid species, 3 listed under ESA (PS Chinook threatened in 1999, Hood Canal summer chum threatened in 1999, 2007 Puget Sound steelhead).

Salmon recovery success example: Puget Sound Acquisition & Restoration (PSAR) Fund.  Regional priority list; increased from $15 million to $70 million appropriated for 2013-2015 biennium

• 100s of acres of estuary restoration in Snohomish and Skagit rivers
• Elwha dry lake bed reforesting
• 3+ acres eel grass on Bainbridge
• Seahurst seawall removal and restoration

Intersection with orca…

3:05

Jacque White, Exec. Director of Long Live the Kings (used to work at P4PS and Nature Conservancy)

Salish Sea marine survival project

Many partners supporting the coordinating organizations — Long Live the Kings in U.S. and Pacific Salmon Foundation in Canada

“Puget Sound salmon are sick and we don’t know why…”

• Coho marine survival declined sharply in 1980s from ~3% to <~0.5% and has persisted, while during the same period (1974-2007) WA/BC coastal survival has been fluctuating around a mean of ~0.5%.  There are similar trends for steelhead and Chinook.
• Declines in Fraser sockeye, steelhead, herring spawning areas, forage fishes, hake, lingcod
• Rises in Harbor seals, lags, temperatures, and human population
• Little effort to integrate research efforts
• Now seeing economic impacts on humans (sports fishing, tribes, First Nations)

Time line:

• 2007 State of the Salmon in 2007 focused on interactions of wild and hatchery salmon
• 2012 fall workshop led to idea of a transboundary project to increase survival in the Salish Sea, improve accuracy of adult return forecasting, and assess success (or failure) of existing salmon recovery efforts.
• 2014 Comprehensive planning
• 2015+ Implementation of research

Hypotheses (trying to identify factors that control salmon and steelhead survival that can be managed)

• Bottom-up processes (PDO, environment, forage fish changes to which salmonids haven’t been able to compensate)
• Top-down (predation…)
• Other factors (toxics, disease…)

Research activities

• Focus on juvenile fish
• Predation of seals on steelhead

3:45 break

Panel discussion (audio recording: .ogg [~68 Mb] | .mp3 [~34 Mb]; responses are hard to hear for some panelists who did not use microphones)

3:58 Begin

5:14 Final comments and next steps (also included in audio recordings)

2013: the year southern ‘resident’ killer whales were transient

The year 2013 was an exceptionally unusual one in the world of southern resident killer whales and Pacific salmon. Most noticeably, the southern residents returned to the Salish Sea later than normal, raising concerns among conservationists. Throughout the summer, researchers and whale watch operators noted that the whales were present less than normal and the duration of their visits to the Salish Sea were abbreviated.

Meanwhile, the Chinook salmon runs on the Fraser plummeted while 80-year record returns were counted on the Columbia at the Bonneville dam fish ladder. Combined with new evidence from satellite tags that the southern residents are focused on Columbia salmon during the spring months, the sighting patterns of 2013 may indicate a transition for the urban estuary known as the Salish Sea — from one with “resident” orcas to one with southern “transient” fish-eating orcas.

Killer whale trends

Based on data from the Orca Network sighting maps from the past decade (see figure below), records were set or tied in 2013 for the least number of days spent by southern residents in the historic core of their summer habitat (the west side of San Juan Island in Haro Strait). The SRKWs were seen only once in March and not at all in April. Even more shockingly, they showed up only 5 times in May (a record low) and were observed 15 times in June, a low level not seen since 2001.

The same data show downward trends in monthly sightings over the last decade. With the exception of a high in 2011, the March prevalence has been flat or decreasing. There are stronger, more continuous downward trends in April and May sightings.

We used the OrcaMaster database maintained by The Whale Museum to look for trends in sighting “gaps” — the number of consecutive days between sightings of J pod members within the Salish Sea.   Val plotted running averages of 2013 gaps versus a historic average (1992-2012) and found that in the spring of 2013 sighting gaps were 2-5x longer than the average.  Only during and after September of 2o13 did the gap return to a normal duration.  (Maybe we should look at trends in Salish Sea chum run?)

Historic trends in J pod sighting gaps (Val Veirs, using R and ggplot)

Chinook trends

One way to characterize the foraging conditions the SRKWs experienced in 2013 within the Salish Sea and on the outer coast is to examine the Chinook salmon counts from the Fraser and Columbia rivers. The Albion test fishery on the Fraser provides a proxy for the abundance of Fraser Chinook, the primary prey of SRKWs in the Salish Sea from spring through the summer . The fish counts at the Bonneville dam on the Columbia are a proxy for the abundance of Chinook on the outer coast of Washington.

As marine naturalists like Jane Cogan and Monika Wieland have pointed out, 2013 was an exceptionally bad year for Fraser Chinook returns. The fish arrived late and the cumulative returns were well below this historic average and only slightly better than in the worse year on record, 2012.  The highpoint of the 2013 run was the peak around the 3rd week of August that may also be related to a pulse of Chinook recorded in the first two weeks of July off southern Vancouver Island (in the Area 20 test catch fishery).

In contrast, adult and jack Chinook abundance in the Columbia River has been on the rise for the past couple decades, with 2013 standing out as a record-setting year for adult Chinook.

Daily Chinook counts at Bonneville show that while most of the record-setting abundance was due to the fall run, the spring run also had peaks well above the 10-year average.

The spring run passed Bonneville from late April to late May, 2013.  This timing is consistent with the timing of the spring Columbia Chinook run in 2012.  Since Bonneville dam is about 200 km upstream from the river mouth and adult Chinook swim at about 0.5 m/s, we could expect that the returning Columbia Chinook were in the ocean at least until about a week before they reached Bonneville ( 200,000 m / 0.5 m/s = 400,000 seconds = ~5 days).  So where were the southern residents in March and April of 2013, since they weren’t being sighted in the Salish Sea?  We don’t know about J and L pods, but the satellite tag deployed on K25 indicates the likely position of K pod (up until April 4).

The answer is: during March, 2013, K25 was spending a lot of time going back and forth along the continental shelf of Washington (and to a lesser extent Oregon) with a track that centered on the mouth of the Columbia River.

We need to know more about when the returning Columbia fish are on the continental shelf and accessible to the southern resident killer whales.  But these salmon trends from the region’s biggest rivers combined with migratory patterns of the orcas strongly suggest that the southern resident killer whales may be happy to move their “residence” to wherever the eating is best!  Perhaps we are watching them become southern transient fish-eating killer whales?!

Anecdotal observations of orca-salmon interactions

When the fish-eaters were around during the summer of 2013, they displayed some unusually aggressive foraging. A (potential) prize Chinook salmon was taken off a derby fisherman’s line and became the focus of a KPLU radio story and an impressive photo of the one that was eaten away…

The part that didn’t get (taken) away. (credit: Kevin Klein)

This local predation event was a first for Washington State (as far as we know), though it was comparable to one by Alaskan fish-eating killer whales. In the video below, the Alaskan whales were foraging amongst fishing vessels and happened (probably visually) upon a large hooked Chinook. (Mute your speakers if you don’t want to hear angry and amazed fishermen cursing.)

Later in the summer of 2013, back in Washington, a whale watch captain obtained this video of southern resident killer whales pursuing a large (likely Chinook) salmon alongside the boat —

Could these uncommon foraging observations indicate that the southern residents were having a tough time finding enough to eat in the Salish Sea?  We’d be interested in hearing from local fishers about how often they’ve had fish taken off their lines by Southern Residents.  Monika assures us though that it is common to observe SRKWs pursuing salmon around and underneath whale watching boats, so maybe we should attribute the second video to more typical foraging and take it as evidence that orca-salmon interactions in the fall of 2013 were more typical than earlier in the year.

Dolphins react to air gun blasts 150 km away?

Last June (2012) marine mammal researchers and stewards around the Pacific Northwest were surprised to learn of seismic research cruises that would use air guns to survey faults and crustal structure on the outer coast of Washington and Oregon. Our concern was that there would be inadequate mitigation of potential acoustic impacts on marine species (particularly southern resident killer whales). It all happened very fast and I never heard much about how it went… until now.

Thanks to John Dorocicz who has been logging acoustic highlights from one of the hydrophones maintained by NEPTUNE Canada near the head of Barkley Canyon, I just had the rare opportunity of hearing airgun blasts in the real ocean — complete with simultaneous vocalization of nearby dolphins. The date and time of the recording match up very well with a cruise track of the R/V Langseth, the research vessel from Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

Here’s where the Barkley Canyon hydrophone is located:

Here’s where marinetraffic.com AIS shows the Langseth was at 8:25 UTC on 2012-07-19, about 175 km south of the hydrophone.

And finally, here is a spectrogram of two seismic blasts recorded at 10:13 on the same day, along with sounds from (likely Pacific White-sided?) dolphins.

Listen to the recording and you’ll notice the low-frequency rumbles of the airgun blasts along with what seems like an increase in dolphin vocalizations (visible as wiggles at 4-6 kHz in the last fifth of the spectrogram).  I wonder if these were the first two blasts the dolphins experienced.  If so, then the suggestion (made by John initially) that the dolphins are responding to the blasts seems tenable.  But were there many blasts before this recording was made?  And why wouldn’t they react as much to the first blast in this recording as they seem to react to the second blast?

Regardless of the answers, it is exciting to hear what airguns sound like on Washington’s outer coast at a range of nearly 200 km.  The number of marine animals exposed to the sounds of seismic exploration is staggering and begs the question: is the risk of interfering with so many oceanic lives worth knowing more about the subduction zone that may someday rock our west coast cities?

Liveblog: salmon-orca workshop III

Live blog from the third and final workshop on “Evaluating the Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales” that begins today (9/18/2012) in Seattle, WA.   The workshop runs Tuesday-Thursday (9/18-9/20).  During this third step in the process NOAA initiated to manage chinook salmon with attention to southern resident recovery, a U.S.-Canada science panel will hear comments on their draft science plan along with new presentations of data and analysis that may improve the plan.

Exciting aspects of the workshop III agenda are presentations by Mike Ford on diet and distribution of SRKWs, Sandie O’Neill on contaminant and stable isotope insights, Sam Wasser on hormone analyses, John Durban on growth and body condition, and Dawn Noren about energy requirements.

Most presentations (will) include links to the slides (PDF or PPT) archived on the workshop web site.  Select presentations also include a link to the audio recording of the presentation.

Day 1 (Tuesday, 9/18/2012, 8am-5pm)

8:16 Pat of WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife comments (mp3)

• Generally agree with draft report regarding the low impact of extant fisheries on killer whale recovery.
• But, in sections 5.2 and 5.3 the report mentions the distribution of “far north-migrating” Chinook stocks. Coded wire tag and genetic data from off WA coast show that many stocks are present, including: Sacramento and Northern Oregon coast. Columbia river summer chinook do sometimes wander into the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the San Juans.
• Need more data on winter distribution of SRKWs.
• There maybe thresholds effects, but they may be hard to detect.
• Eric Eisenhardt comments:

1. SRKWs did go north of Vancouver island twice this summer, so that confirms they are foraging outside of Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits
2. L-112 Victoria/Sooke had both Chinook salmon and halibut in her stomach.

8:36 John Carlisle of Alaska Department of Fish and Game comments (mp3)

• Growth rate criteria may not be the best metric for recovery.  The growth rate will ultimately decrease as the population reaches carrying capacity.  If you go to an abundance-based criterion, you’d conclude that the population is going to recover.  Since the aquaria removals this population has been recovering.
• Comment from Ken Balcomb (cutting through the smoke and mirrors): if you choose any decade other than the mid-70s when the population was at its lowest, the SRKW population is in decline, not growing.  There were 100-120 before the captures; there are 84 now.  That’s a decline in my book.
• Comment: we ought to look at where these animals in every month of the year.
• Mamorek and Ford: we are not being consistent yet about defining each season.

9:01 John Ford of Northwest Fisheries Science Center comments (mp3)

• Reminded audience of workshop I and II data showing movements along outer coast at least from January through July.
• Diet information was under-emphasized.  We had more than two samples and we have new data.
• Report makes overly simple assumptions about seasonal distribution
• There is seasonal overlap of whales and Chinook stocks (they don’t feed only in the Salish Sea during the summer).
• We need to be very clear about seasons and could look at shorter-time-scale overlap.
• Not all versions of Ward’s lambda are comparable with the recovery growth rate criterion.
• Comment discussion (Bain, Durban, Ward) of whether the SRKW abundance time series shows density dependence or not.

9:22 Department of Fisheries and Oceans comments (mp3)

• Status of SRKW

1. the panel inference of increase (rather than decline) is stronger than warranted given inherent uncertainties (ref Velez talk later this morning)
2. causation is evidenced by multiple lines, including CPUE declining with decreased Chinook abundance

• Feeding habits

1. Winter ecology could benefit from synthesizing information from w0rkshops 1 & 2, including all new acoustic and visual observations.
2. Diet data for Dec-Apr are scarce, but Chinook still appear to be primary prey.
3. Statistical design of diet studies should be undertaken

• Fisheries and prey availability

1. Vast majority of Chinook eaten May-September are Fraser Stocks, but only weak association between terminal run of Fraser Chinook and SRKW vital rates.  Why?  Low quality data on Fraser Chinook?  Abundance of Fraser Chinook may be sufficient for current SRKW population size.

• Scordino question: why isn’t satellite tagging being done in Canada?  John Ford: we’re focusing on acoustic detections along outer coast to get better sense of timing during off-season periods.
• Balcomb question: wrt statistical sampling — our scale and fecal samples are really only collectible during low sea states; those samples are/will-be difficult to obtain during the winter months offshore.
• Marmorek question: Why isn’t there a stronger association between Fraser Chinook time series and vital rates?  We’re not sure, but there is a strong correlation between coast-wide Chinook abundance and vital rates…  Led to discussion of correlations… Mike Ford summarized by saying there’s no single stock that’s better than the coast-wide abundance index.

10:20 Antonio Velez-Espino — Killer Whale Demography (mp3)

• Selected 1987-2011 demographic data [10 years less than Ward!], used 7 age/sex categories [different than Ward’s!), and defined lambda as the asymptotic population growth rate
• SRKWs have greater vital rate variability, lower fecundity, and higher mortality, and higher proportion of post-reproductive females — compared with NRKWs.
• SRKW are in mild decline of -0.91%, while NRKWs are in annual increase of 1.65% (which is below the current SRKW recovery criterion!)
• 48 individuals were captured or killed according to Olesiuk
• Greatest effect on vital rates is due to young female survival
• Maximum increase in pop growth is produced most by young and reproductive female fecundity.
• Greatest increase to lambda (pop growth rate) comes from avoiding reductions to survival of young reproductive females and increasing their fecundity.
• Comment: why did you start with 1987?  Answer: this was a compromise between extent and highest quality data that is most representative of the current population ~25 years or one generation back.

11:00 Mike Ford Review of southern resident diet information by season (mp3)

• Cloning and high-throughput sequencing (extract DNA from homogenized and pooled from about 1000 prey samples and 300 fecal samples from a period of years (Jan-Apr not well represented); use primers for potential prey, not SRKWs; use reference and custom data bases of 40,000 DNA sequences; post-processing to remove chimeras) which has potential sources of bias (from collecting to relative tissue density of mitochondria, digestion factors, PCR amplification differences)
• Results: May-July dominated by chinook; Aug-Sept include some sockeye and coho; Oct-Dec mostly chum (~3x more chinook than chum in Oct and Dec, but ~2x chinook more than chum in November); 2005-2008 August was highest proportion (~15%) of  sockeye (Chinook made up the rest); Most fish were year 2-4, but some younger during winter in Puget Sound.
• Jan-Mar only a handful of samples, but almost entirely Chinook.
• Is this a summary of Salish Sea only?  Yes, all fecal samples for summer months are from inland waters, though there are some samples (from John) from the outer coast…
• Q: John Ford — Have you looked at samples that may contain prey transported by SRKWs as they return from an excursion to the outer coast.  A: no due to budget constraints we have combined samples to look at average patterns.
• Mike Ford: We haven’t tried to quantify the levels of DNA in the fecal samples from L-112, but we have detected Chinook and halibut.
• Ken: wrt oct-dec sampling, all three pods were in the area during that point
• Tim from NOAA fisheries: 2010 was our world record sockeye year.  Mike: we sadly have no samples from those months in that year.  Tim: there are blackmouth present during chum runs.

11:21 Sandie O’Neill Integrating stable isotope, genetic, and scale samples… (mp3)

• These methods differ, but are complimentary (stable isotopes average longer spatial and temporal scales)
• D. Herman studied stable isotopes of KWs and prey that provide TEFs that help interpret our mixing model which shows SRKW stable isotope signatures along the “salmon line” in a location that our “classic” model says is associated with a diet in late summer of 43% Chinook (scales suggest 70%; fecal suggest range…)
• An “alternative” model gives more weight to known prey choices and lets us ask what would TEFs need to be for results to be consistent with scale and genetic data?

1. 52 scales samples (NWFSC only) (2004-2008?)
2. Estimated diet with scales (no genetic prior) = 72% median Chinook proportion
3. Median nitrogen TEF 1.65; carbon 1.18 (lower than reported)

• Main result from all models: Chinook is dominant in September, but proportion is a little lower than expected.
• Time-frame represented by biopsy samples (from about 12 of about 30 available SRKW samples) were selected to be from period of Aug-Sep, but we don’t know over what time scale the sampled isotopes are influenced…
• Hypotheses:

1. SRKW eat more juvenile Chinook than we think
2. SRKW eat some other lower trophic species that’s not detected well in prey and scale samples (possibilities: BC halibut is left of salmon line; lingcod, rockfish, herring, and English sole are all to right [higher deltaC%])
3. SRKW eating more chum, sockeye, or steelhead than are apparent in the scale samples

• Isotope turnover rate is based on bottlenose dolphin skin growth rate of 72 days.
• John Ford: 2 stranded SRKWs on outer coast showed stomach contents consistent with Chinook and squid.  Have you looked at their stable isotope signature?
• John Durban: might fasting affect isotope ratios in the skin biopsies?  Dawn: mammals usually metabolize all fats before affecting proteins.
• Daniel: trophic fractionation data may help with your mixing model (KWs are like most terrestrial predators ~3-5 for nitrogen)
• Scordino question…

12:00 lunch break

13:21 Sandie O’Neill — Using chemical fingerprints in salmon and whales to infer prey (mp3)

• Contaminants in fish (POPs = PCBs, PBDEs, hexachlorobenzenes (HCB), etc.)
• How do west coast Chinook salmon populations differ in POP concentration (about 30 fish from each of Skeena, Fraser (S. Thompson, upper/middle Fraser; no Harrison yet), Columbia River, Sacramento/San-Juaquin; about 80 from Puget Sound)
• Puget Sound PCB levels about 4x higher than other sites (~60 ppb and highly variable — 10-210 ppb, migratory-resident); sub-adult residents ~140 ppb mean…
• Multi-dimensional scaling plot (4 POPs) show similarity of samples: groups show Skeena is more distinct from CA, than Fraser is distinct from Columbia, with distinct and bimodal Puget Sound Chinook.  Herring show similar geographic grouping of this pelagic signal, but benthic species show more local non/urban-patterns.
• K/L pod fingerprints overlap with CA/Columbia fish; J pod overlaps most with Puget Sound non-resident Chinook.

13:50 Michael Ford — Overlap of southern resident killer whales and Chinook salmon (mp3)

• What we really want is overlap of SRKW and Chinook along west coast over time.
• Figure from first workshop: Daily SRKW (all pods, and J pod alone) sightings 2003-9 is above 75% for May-July, above 40 in Aug-Oct.
• K/L pods not showing up more than 50% of the time until June
• Slide with inference of time spent in regions offshore of CA, OR, WA, BC by Ken B (too small to see values)
• Acoustic recorders of Brad and John show SRKW (mostly K/L) detections per unit effort peaking at 10% during Jan-Mar at Columbia, but also significant during winter as far south as Point Reyes.  Riera plot shows seasonal pattern of NRKW and SRKW at mouth of Strait of Juan de Fuca.
• Summarizing whale distribution

1. July-Sept 56% of time inland; 44% in western straits and Vancouver Island
2. April-June — 70% outer coast (~19% of days accounted for with PAM/NOAA — 65% centered on Columbia, 30% near Tatoosh, 5% south of Columbia.
3. Oct-Dec 81% outer coast, 19
4. Jan-Mar 96% (missed north-south breakdown), 4%

• Chinook distributions (Weitkamp, 2010, coded wire tag data; May 2010 genetic data from WDFW, NMFS, DFO not covered here much but consistent with CWT results)

1. Summer — 56% inland; 44% western straits (more than 100 tags annually from lots of stocks — central BC to CA, including Columbia)
2. Spring — 68% of time outer coast (65% off Columbia to Olympic coast; 30% western straits; one more…)
3. Winter — 75% outer coast (75% Columbia/WA) 4% puget sound [Only about 6000 tags over 40 years of CWT effort; compare with summer total of ~110,000]
4. Fall — 81% outer coast

• Whales spend ~40% of time west of Strait of Juan de Fuca
• April-Dec SRKWs overlap with all major stocks south of central BC
• Jan-Mar very limited salmon data
• Ken Warheight WDFW samples from Chinook ocean troll fisheries off WA coast show 2011 May-Aug show lots of Columbia stocks, and other (mostly Oregon)
• WCSGSI Collaboration by Pete Lawson and Renee Bellinger show genetic data: similar stocks present off OR coast.
• Furthest south J pod has been detected on acoustic recorders is Westport.
• Comment from Dave _____: CWT data show salmon distribution where fishing occurs, not necessarily their natural distributions; same commenter said “Columbia stocks spend their entire life history in the range of the SRKW” (!).  The north OR coastals come in June when SRKWs are mostly in inland waters.  M.F.: One of my main points is that in June, and especially May, K/L pods are spending at least half their time on the outer coast.

14:22 Antonio Velez-Espino, DFO — Role of ocean and terminal run abundance of Chinook salmon on Resident Killer Whale population viability (mp3)

• 1: Main hypotheses (based on diet evidence)

1. 1a. SRKW growth influenced mainly by terminal run size of Fraser Early, Fraser Late, and PS Chinook
2. 1.b NRKW Northern BC, Central BC, WCVI…

• 2: Additional hypotheses (assuming Chinook remains important diet component year-round) relate to stock size, spatial overlap, and temporal overlap

1. 2a. SRKW growth influenced mainly by terminal run size of abundant stocks
2. 2a. SRKW growth influenced mainly by ocean (pre-terminal) abundance of ocean-type stocks with large contributions to ocean fisheries
3. …

• Again using 1987-2011 RKW abundance and vital rates, Kope-Parken terminal run size, CTC Cohort ocean abundance, simple * mulitple linear regression models
• Results:

1. Some support for 1a and 2a; interestingly, most interactions occur with female 2 fecundity (old reproductive females)
2. Interactions with Puget Sound ocean abundance and young & old reproductive females; and WCVI are most important. (Both are selected for fisheries scenarios)

• We, too, were surprised that the Puget Sound ocean abundance seems to be more important to SRKW population growth than the Fraser river stocks.  It may be that there are confounding factors (e.g. toxins) or it may be we don’t have enough data to resolve what may be weak signals.

14:52 Sam Wasser — Why physiology matters (mp3)

• Challenges to assessing recovery (3)
• Physiology is a bridge — dynamic changes can be captured by allostatic load; reproduction can be suppressed by physiology.
• Having many factors influence a given hormone is a strength!
• Endangered caribou example
• SRKW results (4 years)

1. GCs increases with psychologial and nutritional stress
2. Thyroid T3 decreases with nutritional stress, but changes more slowly than GC
3. Hi Thyroid corellates with high birth rates and low death rates
4. The more Chinook at the Columbia (or Fraser) river, the higher the mean T3 level
5. We get 150 POP samples/year (compare with O’Neill’s 30 biopsy samples) showing, e.g. PCB/DDT ratio for K/L pods is always much lower than for J pod

• Guide mitigation

1. If fish matters most, recovering fish should be top priority (maybe not fisheries, but Habitat!)
2. Timing of run may be key (delaying fishery may help)
3. Measuring physiological response over time could also indicate how things improve in response to mitigation
4. Few tools can offer that
5. During last workshop, L10 (L90?) was thought to be injured.  We’ve already resolved that she was pregnant and aborted!

• There is tremendous variability from year-to-year in Fraser (Albion, 2007-2011; 66k-242k).  In a year when there are long delays in the Fraser peak (near Julian day 240), it may be devastating if
• Andrew Trites comment regarding possibility that thyroid data could be interpreted differently (referenced their captive starvation experiments and some studies in wild).
• Lance Barrett-Leonard comment: we historically have observed that RKWs arrive in a condition of relative nutritional stress — e.g. ketosis, more foraging earlier/ more social later.
• Comment: upper Columbia river stocks (Bonneville) aren’t caught in any ocean fisheries; lower Columbia and Willamette stocks are more impacted by ocean fisheries.

15:24 Break

15:53 John Durban — Size and body condition of southern residents (mp3)

• Review of last fall’s results along with new analysis
• New analysis regarding two comments made by NWFSC that suggest there has been a misunderstanding:

1. photogrammetry of Durban et al 2009 has high error rates.
2. photogrammetry did not detect that L67 was near death.

1. We used boats of known length to quantify bias of ~7cm at altitude of 1000′
2. But when we’re measuring distance ratios (relative shape), e.g. length/width, within the same photograph, altitude does not matter.  Width is harder to measure than body width due to waves at edges of body, so we used head width/length to gauge error rates; average coefficient of variance only 0.03.  L67 was only 0.12 when average female was ~0.135.

• Latest efforts are looking at whole body shape differences between whales

1. L67 jumps out as having “peanut head” and anomalously thin peduncle
2. J14 and J17 were measured when around 12 months pregnant and found the peak of their width came aft of their dorsal fins.
3. Pitman et al, Journal of Mammalogy 88 demonstrates with Antarctic KWs where we hope to go with SRKWs.

16:16 Dawn Noren — Energy Requirements and Salmon Consumption by Southern Resident Killer Whales in their Summer Range (mp3)

• RKWs (both N and S) are larger than Icelandic KWs (from which captive KWs have been used to get estimated length at age from time series data)
• Best estimates of asymptotic body length of SRKWs come from captive Islandic whales — Females 630 cm; males 700 cm — and are also consistent with the initial photogrammetry results of Durban (when corrected by 80% factor?)
• There are some times when SRKWs are estimated to consume upwards of 50-60% of some runs
• Conclusions:

1. Two approaches to determine SRKW DPERs yield similar results.
2. Two approaches (Williams vs Hanson) do differ slightly…
3. …

 16:40 General discussion (mp3)

• Ray Hilborn question: is there scientific consensus about an annual cycle in killer whale condition?

1. Durban confirms that later in the summer social behaviors that create better grouping for photogrammetry
2. Barrett-Leonard makes another supporting point…
3. Bain mentions that other patterns suggest early stress (travel speeds get higher, echolocation rates higher)
4. Wasser suggests that they seem to have had their most energetic feeding of the year in the early spring; he may have said “best body condition,” but meant most energetic feeding.

• How do we make population inferences from studies of individual whales.

1. Sam: it depends on number of samples you’re getting.
2. Longer discussion with comments from Ken B., Fred F., Dawn N., Lance B-L. (behaviors like prey preference and inertia are important), John D. (we should indeed reflect more than we have on our inferential framework).
3. Another panel member suggests it may be fruitful to conduct a meta-analysis of other populations (e.g. for population significance of a female that has a 100% offspring mortality).
4. John Ford suggests comparisons with transients would be useful, but we lack the detailed census information and behavioral observations we have for residents.
5. John Durban mentions recent completion of study of a few *thousand* resident KWs from northern climes (often feeding on acker-mackerel(?)) leads him to think that SRKWs are indeed unusual residents.

 Day 2 (Wednesday, 9/19/2012, 8am-5pm)

8:00 Intro (mp3, latter portion only)

8:17 Ken Warheit, WDFW — Genetic composition of recreational catch from the San Juan Islands (mp3)

• Genetic Stock Id (GSI/PSC-CTC GAPS baseline) analysis, age, fork length from 450 Chinook taken from 2009 San Juan Islands recreational fishery
• Stock composition is different from SRKW diet (sampling in different years, though)
• No diff in size and age distribution between Fraser and PS stocks (including hatchery)
• SRKWs not using some areas where humans catch large Chinook (from Puget Sound)
• 3 basic stocks: Fraser (101, 96 wild), Puget Sound (297, 51 wild), Other (47, 31 wild).
• Most overlap in human and orca (Hanson samples) are Hein Bank to Henry Island; orcas not catching (or Brad not sampling) as much as recreational fishers inside east San Juans or Rosario; no fishers reporting from Pt Roberts area where orca prey samples were obtained.
• Lummi Chinook bycatch in their sockeye fishery report mostly Fraser Chinook in Pt. Roberts/Alden Bank area.
• Chinook proportions are much lower in recreational catch than in orca samples, with greatest difference in July (all areas of San Juans ~10% Chinook)
• Fork length vs age: mean length ~55 cm in age 2, 70 age 3, 80 age 4, 90 age 5 (legal limit ~52)
• In each area the same age class are about the same across 3 main stock groups.
• There appears to be a difference in
• Comment Tim of NOAA: sockeye migratory corridor changes from Rosario to Haro from year to year.  Do Fraser Chinook do the same?  A: The main reason there are proportionally more PS fish caught in Rosario area is that there are many more PS fish there; there are, though, some Fraser fish are present there.  Tim: Skagit fish mill in the Anacortes area.

8:47 Robert Kope, NOAA — Effects of fishing on availability of Chinook salmon to resident killer whales (mp3)

• Harvest impacts make up more than 20% of the “Parken-Kope” indices
• The indices don’t account for immature (age 3-4) fish not killed by fisheries.
• On average, these immature fish account for more than half the total abundance in the ocean.
• How appropriate is the 20%?  Harvest impacts account for 33% of the aggregate PK index.
• What matters to the killer whales is the local density where they’re foraging.  Abundance may be sort of irrelevant to RKWs.  Overall, 20% seems like “a reasonable ball-park number.”
• Bain question re whether immature fish are important to SRKWs that seem to prefer largest fish?
• Alison question: Should we be considering outside stocks more?  A: The fall aggregate mostly consists of outside stocks.
• Panel question: Can we clarify salt-water age versus fresh-water age 2-5 terminology?  A: Most stocks except Fraser spring Chinook have ocean-type (vs stream-type) life history.
• Another public comment re Upper Columbia River Chinook not being available in the ocean fishery.
• Larry Rutter comment: we should be very disciplined about the nuance between harvest rate and exploitation rate.  A: Within a small group of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, there is a distinction harvest rate is “a reduction in the number of fish that are available.”

9:14 Robert Kope, NOAA (again) — Assessment tools for evaluating effects of salmon fishery management on resident killer whales (mp3)

• Fishery assessment tools — FRAM vs CTC — use similar algorithms and ~95% same data.
• Exploitation Rate Analysis (ERA) uses coded wire tag recoveries by brood year, typically available a year out (e.g. 2012 ERA used CWT data through 2010)
• ERA, GSI, and Parken-Kope are retrospective
• CTC, FRAM are both retrospective and prospective
• Mark-recapture is the “gold standard” for estimates of escapement numbers which are used as model inputs.
• Panel question: I’m concerned that we have model predictions with CVs of 50%.  Ward A: forecasting beyond ~5 years is difficult.
• Panel question: Is KW predation changing the natural mortality rate in a way that the FRAM model doesn’t capture because it uses a fixed natural mortality rate?

9:42 Antonio Velez-Espino — Chum salmon as a covariate of Resident Killer Whale population viability (mp3 | video)

• Using BC and WA terminal runs of chum
• Highest elasticity was for interaction between Puget Sound salmon stock aggregate and fecundity of young and mature reproductive females

10:40 Eric Ward — Estimating “other” marine mammal effects on salmon with limited data (mp3 | video)

• How much to seals and sea lions compete with SRKWs?
• Best U.S. data: harbor seal surveys (Jeffries et al., 2003); Canadian and other data sources have data gaps…
• Panel suggested using Ecopath modeling results, but Eric has no confidence in model outputs.
• Instead cite A. Acevedo-Gutierrez work or citations in his papers.
• Better approach: multivariate state-space modeling using MARRS R package (Holmes+ 2012)
• Essington & Quinn have survey data going back to 1930s/1940s, but data are messy.
• Harbor seals are eating more juvenile Chinook than adults.

10:56 Scott Pearson, WDFW — Competition from Pinnipeds (mp3 | video)

• 3 pinnipeds overlap in range (but not necessarily time and niche)

1. Harbor seals: reaching carrying capacity in ~1990s (Jeffries, 2003)
2. California sea lions: all males in pulses from southern colonies
3. Stellar seal lions: population growing and continuing to grow in SRKW habitat

• It’s complicated!

11:17 Lynne Barre & Eric Ward — Summary of lambda & Killer Whale growth rates (mp3 | video)

• Delisting criteria: mean growth rate of 2.3% per year for 28 years
• Info about population structure and behavior that is consistent with resilient (e.g. shorter inter-birth intervals)
• Data supporting criteria

1. 1974-1980 mean 2.6%
2. 1984-1996 mean 2.3%
3. NRKW 1974-1991 3.4%…

• Some have suggested abundance criteria instead of growth rate…
• If you achieved growth rate of 2.3% from 81 whales in 2001, you’d get to 155 whales in 28 years (in 2029) => delisting
• for 14 years you’d get 113 whales in 2015 => downlisting

11:23 Ward swaps with Barre, summarizes past lambda results, and presents discussion questions (starting ~11:30)

• Mike Ford Q: extinction risk was influenced most by catastrophic events, so maybe an alternative de-listing criterion could be a threat criterion.  Lynn A: we have quite a few threat criteria already.
• Panel comment: Given the uncertainty in the historic population size, let’s say you used 1/2 carrying capacity.  The estimates I have would put abundance at high 90s or even as high as 300.  Ward A: one solution would be to optimize carrying capacity and growth rate.  (balance productivity and abundance).  In fisheries those are Kobe plots — exploitation rate and abundance are axes…
• Larry comment: Back in Poet’s Cove, we asked “what’s the best think we could do for southern residents.”  The answer was take care of Fraser salmon.  Now it should be take care of Chinook salmon.  Lynne response: one of our three components to the recovery plan is recovery of the prey populations.
• Bain comment: An alternative is a recovery budget that starts with trying to conserve genetic diversity.  At 3% growth, you lose 6% genetic diversity per generation.  If you stay stable, you lose 25%.  If you decline as in 1990s, you lose 50%.  I’d like to see actions that try to achieve that 3% growth as soon as possible (WW impact reduction is fast but has short effect; toxin reduction is slow but has long effect; salmon recovery actions have a wide range that could be pieced together to get optimum evolution of population growth).  Lynne A: there is a table in the recovery plan that is a basic approach similar to what you’ve mentioned.  Dave: Incorporate a time frame into that.
• Scordino Q: if you met your recovery goal and got up to 155 and then did your PVA would you still call it an endangered species?  Lynne: I don’t know.
• Scordino Q: if population stabilized and we determined the carrying capacity had been reached, would the SRKWs be delisted?  Lynne: I can’t answer that now.
• Mike Ford: We should tie recovery to risk of extinction, not carrying capacity metrics.

12:00 Lunch break

13:15 Questions from panel (mp3)

13:23 Eric Ward — Other approaches to adjusting Chinook abundance (mp3 | video)

• Scenarios involving raising P-K index by 10%…
• Why not other P-K indices?  Best predictor is total index (aggregate of all salmon stocks), implies that no one stock is important in all years

13:36 Antonio Velez-Espino, DFO — Resident Killer Whales population viability analysis under selected fishing scenarios (mp3 | video)

• 4 scenarios
• Under status quo, the ime for quasi-extinction of SRKW (population falling below 30) at median probability is ~50 years.
• Under all scenarios, the probability of downlisting is always zero under U.S. criteria.
• Only under most extreme (fishing reduction) scenario does the SRKW growth rate become positive!
• Hypothesis 2a: closing WCVI fishing only increases growth rate by ~0.5%
• 75% reduction in ocean harvest rates of Puget Sound stocks also only results in ~0.5% growth increase
• Is Chinook abundance limiting population growth and viability of RKW?
• We need more research to understand depressed SRKW calf survival (relative to NRKW)…
• First report will be available in February.
• Panel comment: This seems opposite of what Eric Ward found.  You’re saying they’re going to go extinct.  A: Yes, unless dramatic change is made in fishing impacts, based on this time period we have chosen in which population is in decline.
• Peter Olesiuk’s census data is of high quality for individuals during the period we chose.
• Lots of discussion, primarily around why these results are different from Eric Ward’s.

14:23 Panel presentations about causality vs correlation (mp3 | video)

•  5 panel members:
  1. Jim Irvine
  2. Dave Bernard, ADFG
  3. John Ford, DFO
  4. Scott Pearson, WDFW
  5. Eric Ward, NOAA
  •  Panelist 2: CA fish have been notable in their rarely being mentioned in these workshops.  We have a correlation between lower Columbia stocks.  I find it ironic that we aren’t looking at the stocks that seem to be important to the SRKWs.
  • John Ford: 1990 decline of SRKWs coincident with prolonged decline in coast-wide salmon stocks is revealing.  Mortality indices during late 1990s were 3-5 times higher — unprecedented.  SRKWs are resilient to 1-2 years of nutritional stress, but not more.  8 of 13 peanut head cases occurred during years of low Chinook abundance.
  • Scott Pearson: Chinook are clearly important in both summer inland and winter outer coast habitats.  You could look at evidence ratios, but Eric provides reasonable cut-offs that show that Chinook are important.  The relationship makes biological sense, but seems to not have a strong effect on SRKW population dynamics.  We’re dealing with a species with vital rates that don’t respond quickly.  We extremely good data on the killer whales in contrast with fish data that have high coefficients of variation.
  • Eric Ward: The N & S RKWs population dynamics are correlated which suggests a bottom-up trophic effect is main control.  This is a predator-prey issue in which we know very little about their winter diet, especially historically.  So, I’m confident it is a salmon story, but maybe not a 100% Chinook story.

  14:52 10-minute coffee break15:10 Panel presentations about effect of fisheries (mp3  | video)

• Eric Ward: Pinnipeds seem to matter, e.g. SJI harbor seals consuming Chinook
• Scott Pearson: Both Eric and Antonio suggest fisheries can’t influence population very much, but if population is declining a small manipulation could be important.  We don’t really understand how SRKWs would utilize an increase in salmon from a fishery reduction, and that puts us in an uncomfortable position.  Beyond pinnipeds, there are other species that eat salmon.
• John Ford: In years of low coast-wide salmon abundance, SRKWs showed more intense foraging, were more spread, less social mixing (less superpods/mating).  In those cases at specific locations and times, area closures (recreational and commercial) could be meaningful to SRKWs.  During prolonged periods of reduced Chinook abundance, it could be effective to manage fisheries more aggressively for SRKWs.  During winter when Chinook density may be lower, we should ensure their prey are as abundant as possible, ensuring a year-round supply of food — not just managing the stocks we know they prey upon during the summer.
• David: Just where are fisheries important?  Assuming we’ve picked the right fisheries and stocks, then we have simulations that show that if you close fisheries there’s not much impact.
• Jim: I’ve seen little evidence that changes in fisheries impacts on salmon would affect SRKW vital rates, but it does seem entirely likely that there are temporal/spatial bottlenecks that may affect their foraging efficiency and/or behavior.  We should have a better understanding of the ecosystem linkages seems to be warranted.  It’s entirely likely that the SRKWs are doing so poorly is because they are on the periphery of their natural range.  Within Canada we’re moving fisheries — increasingly into terminal (in-river) fisheries.  That could increase marine access to fish while still allowing human harvest.

15:20 Last question

What are most critical data needs and analyses to reduce key uncertainties affecting management decisions?  What types of evidence to alter/strengthen conclusions?

• Better estimates of Chinook abundance (not just indices), ideally where SRKWs are foraging
• Columbia river springs are not in the indices!
• What is relationship between contaminant loads and vital rates?
• How important is inter-specific competition (to vital rates)?
• How do SRKWs locate and catch salmon and how is their foraging efficiency affected by noise and/or interference?
• We need tools to detect nutritional stress in advance of changes in vital rates.
• Year-round satellite tagging
• Go to empirical data on Chinook (especially Fraser); Parken is pioneering GSI in conjuction with test and high-seas fisheries.
• Chinook density and stock identification at times and places where SRKWs are foraging.
• Better salmon forecasts using marine ecosystem indicators.
• Statistical power analysis, once Eric and Antonio have come to agreement about the base period for assessing growth rate.

15:43 Science panel and panelist discussion (mp3 | video continuous w/previous)

• Schindler: We should be considering alternative hypotheses, e.g. disease
• Trites: Periods of low abundance seem important (not the summertime), so when/where are they occurring?
• Hilborn: In some species, social interactions control growth.  Also, the differences between N and S that are more interesting than the apparent correlations
• Science panelist: It appears to me that NRKWs are first in line during the return migration of U.S. Chinook.  Ford: Good point.  About a 1/3 of prey samples we got from NRKWs near Haida Gwai were Columbia Chinook.
• Jim: Why were Chinook populations low during 1990s?  Dave: lowest in my experience was in 1970s prior to the Salmon Treaty.  Jim: There was a regime shift in 1970s that led to growth in many marine species and around 1989 another shift caused many declines.  The Gulf of AK ecosystem has been doing better recently than the CA current system, so N/SRKW populations are really.
• Eric Ward: habitat and dams are not on the table (for this workshop)!
• Panelist: stochastic events like ship strikes (of calves) may be obscuring correlations, so perhaps hormone and other techniques should be used to detect pregnancies and get at neonate mortality (especially in NRKWs which are rarely observed in winter).

16:10 General discussion (mp3 & video continuous with previous)

• Sam Wasser: overall these analyses have been too coarse and should pay more attention to the annual cycle of interactions between SRKWs and salmon.
• Brendan Cummins, CBD: I don’t understand the general vibe that reducing fisheries won’t make a difference.  My reading of Antonio’s model was that reductions could lead to halving of extinction risk.
• Mike Ford: The size of the effect depends on the metric you’re using, so “negligible” on lamba could mean a whale per year for the population.  What 3rd factor couldn’t involve the predator-prey interaction?  Understanding the differences between NRKW and SRKW are the key to discovering how to help the SRKWs recover.
• Lance Barrett-Leonard: A justifiable management option (without being sued) is actions that reduce fishing pressure during low abundance years.  I hope the panel’s final report does not just consider regulation of particular stocks.

Day 3 (Thursday, 9/20/2012, 8am-5pm)

8:30 Larry Rutter final remarks (not recorded)

8:42 Will Stelle final comments (mp3)

•  The predator-prey interactions of listed Chinook and listed orcas put up a huge red flag for many state, tribal, and Federal co-managers because of the potential management implications.
• I didn’t know what to expect from this high-risk meeting, but I recall how quiet and responsible it was.  There were no histrionics.  There was no table pounding.
• Thanks to the science panel for credible examination of best available science.  Thanks to the sovereign governments that surprisingly stayed focused on this tough subject.

Case Study for Week 2

My case study for this week centered on reducing bycatch of juvenile red snappers by shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Mexico. The paper is: Designing marine reserves to reduce bycatch of mobile species: a case study using juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), by Diamond et al.

Red snapper from the Gulf of Mexico

The research team made use of geographic information system (GIS) to map fishery-independent trawl surveys done by the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) every summer and fall in the Gulf of Mexico from 1987 to 1997.

The paper attempts to asses whether there is a geographic pattern to the distribution of juvenile red snappers.

Diamond et al. analyzed juvenile red snapper distribution and examined “hot spots” with high concentration (intensity) and the predictability for the hotspot to reoccur in the same position over time (persistence). In designing marine reserves, one could designate no-trawling zones according to the desired level of intensity and persistence which correspond to percent or numerical bycatch-reduction goals.

In further consideration, given that red snappers are highly mobile and higher-intensity hotspots are often unpredictable, a no-trawling zone does not need to be permanent. Ideally, such a no-trawling zone could be fluid from year to year, in order to avoid trawling in higher-intensity hotspots.

For a no-trawling zone to be fluid, it would depend on how effectively this information could be disseminated in a timely manner. This could also apply to marine vessel no-go zones in the activity range of Southern Resident Killer whales. In the San Juan community, dissemination of information should be relatively easy due to wide availability of communication technology.