Marine Mammals and Their Interactions with Fisheries of the Columbia River and Adjacent Waters, 1980-1982

;i II;' il. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center l'"') ii;1 ' National Marine Fisheries Service s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE :\0 NWAFC PROCESSED REPORT 85- Their nteractions with Fisheries of the Columbia River and Adjacent Waters , 1980- 1982 January 1985 and Marine Mammals l C) ~ ::J This report does not constitute a publication and is for information only. All data herein are to be considered provisional. Notice to Users of this Document This document is being made available in .PDF format for the convenience of users; however, the accuracy and correctness of the document can only be certified as was presented in the original hard copy format. MARINE MAMMALS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH FISHERIES OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ADJACENT WATERS , 1980-1982 Third Annual Report March 1 , 1980 to October 31 , 1982 Richard J. Beach Anne C. Geiger Steven J. Jeffries Stephen D. Treacy Barry L. Troutman Washington Department of Game Wildlife Management Division 600 North Capitol Way Olympia , Washington 98504 Field Address: Washington Game Department Marine Mammal Investigations Astoria, Oregon 97103 Prepared for: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center National Marine Mammal Laboratory 7600 Sand Point Way N. Building 4 , BIN C15700 53 Portway Street Seattle , Washington 98115 January 1985 In fulfillment of requirements for NOAA , NMFS Grant No. 80-ADB-0012 Addi tional funding was provided by the Marine Mammal Commission Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program , and the Washington Department of Game ABSTRACT River and adjacent waters. Results are presented for three years of study on marine mammals and their interactions with commercial and sport fisheries of the Columbia maximum count of 1481 pups in 1982. Maximum counts of 150- 200 California sea lions and 350- 400 northern sea lions were observed in the study area during the non- breeding period. Abundance and distribution research documented a minimum of 6000 study area. Harbor seal 7000 harbor seals using 78 sites within increased at an annual rate of 10. populations in the study area have since 1976. Pup counts for Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River showed a higher annual increase rate of 19. 1% since 1976, with a the A total of 96 harbor seal were fitted with radio between haulout sites in the transmitters. live-captured and tagged, with seasonal use of specific haulout River and haulout sites in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and Tillamook Bay; and (4) seasonal movement of parous females from the Columbia River to Grays Harbor for Willapa Bay Tillamook nursery areas parturition and lactation. sites in the Columbia; ' in spring; (2) Results indicated: (1) daily movements (3) interchange of seals between the Columbia Bay, and Marine mammal interactions (primarily with harbor seals) were reported by salmon gillnet fishermen for 62% of fishing trips, and damage Bitten to fish, gear, or marine mammals was documented for 36% of salmon in nets represented 5% of the coho catch and 4% of the chinook This was valued at $136, 800, or 3% of the value of the catch in fishery. A higher proportion of the chinook catch was damaged in Grays Harbor (34%) and Willapa Bay (12%), but a greater number of coho were bitten in Willapa Bay (4053) and the Columbia River (5110 in 1980, 6127 1981). A significant increase in fish damage rates (from 3% to 12%) was shown for the Columbia River between 1980 and 1981. trips. 1980. in Gillnet gear damages, caused mainly by harbor seals, were valued at The estimate ~or the Columbia River in 1981 $4880 for 550 cases in cases, caused primarily by California sea lions. An was $13, 000 for 576 1980. estimated 335 harbor seals and 45 California sea lions were killed species. annually incidental to gillnetting reduce population levels of either fishing. This 52 take did not appear Analyses of harbor seal feeding habits were based on 1088 scats OR. Area collected June 1980 to May 1982 between Grays Harbor, WA and Netarts Bay, species of bony fish, harbor seals ate a minimum of crustaceans, 2 species of species of jawless fish, 3 species of decapod cephalopods, and possibly other miscellaneous invertebrates. The most frequent prey otoliths occurred for the of bony and Pleuronectidae. Northern anchovy was a leading prey fish in summer. Seasonal predation upon spawning runs of eulachon smelt was the apparent cause for an annual shift in harbor seal population into the Columbia Harbor seals frequently ate steelhead trout River from other fish: Engraulidae, Osmeridae, Gadidae, Embiotocidae, Cottidae, estuaries. following families at various times of year; however, otoliths from salmon species were often found seals. in scats. Lampreys were eaten frequently by area harbor not A total of 237 marine mammals representing 16 species were recovered dead in the study area between 4 March 1980 and 12 August 1982. A sample of 37 harbor seals known tq have died as a direct result of the salmon gillnet fishery (36% of 104 collected) is described. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express their gratitude to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Marine Mammal go to Commis s ion, the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program and the Washington Department of Game for providing funding and support of the various aspects of this research program. Particular thanks DeLong (NMFS) our contract officers, Dr. Robert Engineers , Dr. Robert Hofman (MMC) and Dr. Jack Damron (CREDDP) who provided their valuable advice, expertise and direction in completing our various research tasks. We also thank the U. S. Army Corps of (Astoria Field Office) for providing the use of their facilities for our wet lab. It should be noted that the Marine Mammal Investigations and this Everitt, document are organized under a team concept. We wish to acknowledge the administrative and organizational support Richard Beach, and Steven the members received from Robert Jeffries, our successive Project Leaders, as well as the technical and field support provided to the authors by all Bertran, Dee of the research team. Steve Tinling, Doug Nietert, Pat Gearin and Connie Delano assisted in biological analysis and field sampling. Lynda Stansbury provided excellent secretarial and administrative assistance. Brian Kalac and Valery Shean volunteered their help in our data analysis. Liz Rummell did all the word processing for this graphics. report; Liz Krebill, Sue Peterson and Ann Treacy provided We would also like to thank the many individuals who assisted in our extensive tagging program, including Robin Brown, James Harvey and Jon Temte who helped in the development of procedures. Numerous other individuals capture, handling and tagging and volunteers from Oregon State University, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service participated in capture operations in the Columbia River. out Special and thanks the numerous sport and commercial Without fishermen, particularly the regional gillnetters, who provided their help cooperation during the course these studies. their continued assistance this research could not have been carried out. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii xiii xvii LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES GENERAL INTRODUCTION Goals and Objectives Marine Mammal Abundance and Distribution Marine Mammal- Fishery Interactions Marine Mammal Feeding Habits Biologica 1 Analyses Study Area Columbia River Grays Harbor Willapa Bay North Oregon Coast OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ADJACENT COASTAL WATERS OF NORTHERN OREGON AND WASHINGTON, by Steven J. Jeffries Introduction Methods Aerial Surveys Radiotelemetry Results Aerial Surveys Sea Lion Distribution and Abundance Patterns Harbor Seal Distribution and Abundance Patterns Combined Study Area Northern Oregon Estuaries Northerrt Oregon N~arshore Rocks and Reefs Columbia River Willapa Bay Grays Harbor Harbor Seal Pup Production Harbor Seal Movements Capture Handling Discussion Trends in Regional Harbor Seal Populations Regional Movement Patterns of Harbor Seals Page DOCUMENTATION OF MARINE MAMMAL INTERACTIONS WITH COASTAL SALMON GILLNET AND OTHER FISHERIES, by Anne C. Geiger Introduction Background: Commercial Salmon Fisheries Salmonid Species and Stocks: Chinook, Coho and Chum The Gillnet Fishery Methods Fisheries Interaction Interviews Dockside Samples Field Samples Sampling Rates by Area and Season Analytical Methods: Fish Damage, Gear Damage, and Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Results Marine Mammal Interaction with Salmon Gillnet Fisheries Fish Damage All Areas and Seasons, 1980 Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay All Seasons, 1980- 1981 Summer Seasons, 1980 Fall Seasons, 1980 Columbia River All Seasons, 1980- 1981 Winter Seasons, 1980- 1982 Early Fall Season, 1980 Terminal Fisheries: Youngs Bay, Grays Bay, Skamokowa/Elokomin Late Fall Seasons, 1980- 1981 Gear Damage Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Discussion Suitability of the Methods Relationship of Fish Damage Rates to Salmon Catches Relationship of Damage Rates to Pinniped Abundance and Distribution Impact of Fisheries Interactions on Marine Mammals Impact of Marine Mammal Interactions on the Individual 103 109 116 116 117 121 124 Fisherman Other Fisheries Interactions Marine Recreational Fisheries Commercial Salmon Troll Fishery Other Commercial Fisheries Damage to Free- Swimming Salmonids Methods and Results Discussion Aesthetic Value of Marine Mammals 126 129 129 131 132 134 134 142 144 Page FEEDING HABITS OF MARINE MAMMALS FROM GRAYS HARBOR, WASHINGTON TO NETARTS BAY, OREGON, by Stephen D. Treacy Introduction Methods Collection of Samples Prey Species Identification and Quantification Results Primary Prey of Harbor Seals All Areas Grays Harbor Willapa Bay Columbia River Oregon Estuaries Secondary Food of Harbor Seals Gastrointestinal Parasites Found in Harbor Seal Scats Sea Lion Scat Analysis Analysis of Gastrointestinal Tracts from Stranded Marine Mammals 149 149 150 150 150 153 153 153 156 165 170 179 179 181 181 Discussion Usage of Scats Harbor Seal Predation on Eulachon and Northern Anchovy Harbor Seal Predation on Salmonids Harbor Seal Predation on Jawless Fishes Harbor Seal Predation on Crangon Shrimp Availability of Prey to Columbia River Harbor Seals Dietary Overlap between Harbor Seals and Salmonids Relationship of Marine Mammal Diet to Area Fisheries Natural Predation by Marine Mammals 183 188 188 188 189 191 192 192 194 194 196 199 199 199 BEACH CAST AND INCIDENTALLY KILLED MARINE MAMMALS, by Richard J. Beach Introduction Stranding Network Necropsy and Specimen Preparation Methods Results and Discussion Sex Ratios of Strandings Distribution of Strandings Cause of Death 200 201 201 203 205 209 209 211 211 211 212 212 214 214 217 217 218 219 BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF GILLNET- KILLED HARBOR SEALS, by Barry L. Troutman 209 Introduction Methods Results Recovery of Gillnet- killed Harbor Seals Sex Ratios Age Classes Length Profiles of Gillnet- killed versus Stranded Stomach Contents of Gillnet- killed Harbor Seals Harbor Seals Discussion GENERAL SUMMARY Marine Mammal Abundance and Distribution Marine Mammal- Fishery Interactions Marine Mammal Feeding Habits vii Page RECOMMENDATIONS Marine Mammal Abundance and Distribution Marine Mammal- Fishery Interactions Marine Mammal Feeding Habits LITERATURE CITED APPENDICES 221 221 221 223 225 235 viii LIST OF FIGURES Number Study area: The Columbia Rive r and adjacent Page waters Map of the Columbia River below Bonneyille Dam showing areas open to commercial fishing Fisheries management areas in Grays Harbor Fisheries management areas in Willapa Bay Seasonal occurrence of California and northern sea lions at the South Jetty, Columbia River , Seasonal use of Three Arch Rocks and Tillamook Head by northern sea lions Low tide exposure patterns of Columbia River harbor seal haulout sites at Desdemona Sands and Taylor Sands Harbor seal haulout sites at Nehalem Bay and Cape Falcon, Oregon' Harbor seal haulout sites in Tillamook Bay, Oregon Harbor seal haulout sites at Cape Lookout and Netarts Bay, Oregon Harbor seal haulout sites at Tillamook Head, Oregon Harbor seal haulout sites in the Columbia River: Pacific Ocean to Harrington Pt. Harbor seal haulout sites in the Columbia River: Harrington Pt. to Crims Island Harbor seal haulout sites in Willapa Bay, Washington Harbor seal haulout sites in Grays Harbor, Washington Columbia River cot11Inercial fishing days, 1909- LIST OF FIGURES (cont. Number Time of run passage through the lower Columbia River for different salmon species and races Page Proj ected fishery Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids, total study area, 1980 losses from seal- damaged salmonids, Grays Harbor, Zone 2B, 1980 losses from seal- damaged salmonids, Willapa Bay, 1980 Proj ected fishery Proj ected total number of seal- damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged, by zones, Harbor and Willapa Bay, Summer, 1980 Grays number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, by zones, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Fall, 1980 proj ected total Proj ected fishery 1980 losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids, Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries, Proj ected fishery 1981 losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids, Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries, Proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged, by zones, Columbia River, Winter, 1980- 1982 Proj ected total number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River Early Fall Season, Youngs Bay, Grays Bay, and Skamokowa/Elokomin Terminal Fisheries, 1980- 1981 number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, by zones, Columbia River, Late Fall, 1980- 1981 Proj ected total 100 Rates of gillnet gear damage from marine mammals and other causes, by zone, Grays and Willapa Bay, 1980 Rates of gillnet gear damage from marine mammals and other causes, Columbia River and Youngs Bay, 1980- 1982. 106 Harbor 107 Rates of incidental take of harbor seals, by zone and category of take, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, 1980 110 LIST OF FIGURES (cont. Number Rates of incidental take of harbor seals, by en u' gory of t.1kc ~ Co THrob i a River ;:1I1c1 Yot1ngs Bay, 1980Rates of incidental take of California sea lions, by zone and category of take, Columbia River, 1980- 1982 1981 Page 111 115 Ten- year trends in salmonid catches and seal damage, Woody Island Test Fishery, 119 1972- 1981 Relationship of salmon catches and pinniped damages over time, all gillnet samples, 120 1980- 1981 Seasonal distribution of salmonid damages in Grays Harbor and Wfllapa Bay, 1980 122 Geographi~ distribution of pinniped- gillnet fishery interactions, Columbia River winter chinook season, 24 February to 4 March 1982 123 Annual cycle of seal damage to steelhead, 141 1981~1982 Location of pinniped bites appearing on gillnetted chinook salmon showing . the percent of bites which inflicted damage to designated portions of the fish Primary-type prey species of Grays Harbor harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of various food 155 157 remains Frequent primary-type prey of harbor seals from three estuaries, ranked by the average monthly percent of occurrence in scats of various food remains Percent of occurrence of steelhead trout otoliths in harbor seal scats collected June 1980- May 1982 in the study area, by 163 164 month Primary-type prey species of Willapa Bay harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of various food 166 remains LIST OF FIGURES (cont. Number Page Primary-type prey species of Columbia River harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of various food 171 remains Primary-type prey species of Tillarnook Bay harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of various food 180 remains Percent of occurrence of northern anchovy otoliths in harbor seal scats collected June 1980-May 1982 in the Washington estuaries, by month Primary-type prey species of marine mammals found dead in the Columbia River and adj acent waters, by common name, ranked by the percent of occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of various food remains Percent of occurrence of 182 185 Crangon shrimp 193 remains in harbor seal scats collected June 1980-May 1982 in the Washington estuaries, by month Length/ sex distribution of gillnet- killed versus stranded harbor seals 213 xii LIST OF TABLES Numb e r Page List of marine mammals species reported from the coastal waters of northern Oregon and Washington Sightings of California sea lions in the Columbia River above Tongue Pt. Maximum counts of hauled out harbor seals, 1980- 1982 Date and maximum harbor seal pup counts by area Maximum harbor seal pup counts, by area. Summary of Columbia River harbor seal capture operations, 1981- 1982 Trends in harbor seal pup counts, 1976- 1982 Trends in maximum non- pup counts from Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, 1976- 1982 the Percent of salmonid catches damaged by pinnipeds, by gillnet season and fish species, 1980 Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids, total study area, 1980 proj ected fishery losses from seal- damaged salmonids, Grays Harbor, Zone 2B, 1980 Proj ected fishery losses from salmonids, Willapa ' Bay, 1980 seal- damaged 1980- 1981 comparisons of sampled seal- damaged salmonids, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Proj ected number of damaged chinooks per sampling period, damage as percent of total sold, and cumulative total damaged, by zone and source of survey, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Summer, 1980 xiii LIST OF TABLES (cont. Number Page Proj ected total number of seal- damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Summer, 1980 Proj ected number of ' damaged salmonids per sampling period, damage as percent of total sold, and cumulative total damaged, by zone and source of survey, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Fall, 1980 number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Fall, 1980 Proj ected total Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids, Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries, 1980 proj ected fishery losses Fisheries, 1981 from pinniped- damaged salmonids, Columbia River and Terminal Proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged chinook and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River, Winter, 1980- 1982 1981- 1982 comparison of sampled pinniped- damaged spring chinooks, Winter Season, Columbia River Zone proj ected total number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River Zone 1, Early Fall, 1980 Proj ected number of damaged salmonids per sampling period, damage as percent of total sold, and cumulative total damaged, by zone and source of survey, Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries, 1980 proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River Terminal Fisheries, 1980- 1981 1980- 1981 comparison of sampled pinniped- damaged salmonids by species, Youngs Bay and Grays Bay Terminal Fisheries proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River, Late Fall, 1980- 1981 101 xiv LI ST OF TABLES (cont. Number Page 1980- 1981 comparison of sampled pinniped- damaged coho, Columbia River; Late Fall Seasons 101 Proj ected incidence and value of gillnet gear damage caused by marine mammals , by fishery, zone and season, 1980- 1982 108 Annual summaries of incidental take of marine mammals in gillnet fisheries, study area, 1980- 112 1982 Projected incidental take of pinnipeds in gillnet fisheries as a percentage of maximum 113 observed populations Frequency distribution of dollar losses per trip from pinniped- damaged salmonids, all dockside interviews, 1980- 1982 Summary of sport fish sampling for marine mammal interactions and fish damage, by fishery and species caught, Oregon- Washington coast, Summer, 1980 127 130 Incidence and causes of injuries on free- swimming and sport-caught salmonids, 1980- 1982 Incidence of seal marks and other causes of injury on salmonids by species and month, 1980- 1982, at two Oregon fishway counting stations 137 138 Observed and expected frequencies of " arches-type seal marks on selected steelhead samples, January to April, 1981Percent of occurrence of salmonid otoliths found in marine mammal gastrointestinal tracts compared to the percent of occurrence of any salmonid remains 141 184 Primary-type prey species of small harbor seals found dead, May- August, in the study area identified from various food remains found in the gastrointestinal tract Frequent prey species of harbor seals in 3 Washington state estuaries having commercial or sport fishery value to coastal Washington Fish species, eaten at least occasionally by area marine mammals, having commercial or sport fishery value to coastal Washington 187 195 197 LIST OF TABLES (cont. Number Summary of marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982 General location within the study area of marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March to 12 August 1982 Summary of the cause of death for marine mammal carcas~es examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982 Summary of harbor seals killed incidental to gillnet fishery, July 1980 to March 1982 Page 202 204 206 210 xvi GENERAL INTRODUCTION Marine mammals have fishery resources in the perceived Pacific Northwest. been many c omp e tit 0 r for Interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries include reports of damage to fish in nets, damage to fishing gear, and accidental or intentional killing of pinnipeds on the fishing grounds. The Marine Mammal Commission sponsored a workshop in 1977 (Mate 1980) in which the Columbia River and adjacent waters were identified as an area requiring intensive research on marine mammal- fishery interactions. Goals and Obj~ctives A three- year program goals of which were as of research was initiated in 1980, the major follows: 1) Determine how marine mammals affect, and are affected by, sport and commercial fisheries in the Columbia River and adjacent waters; along Continue recen t efforts to monitor marine mammal populations define the the MMPA op t imum portions of the coasts of Oregon and Washington; information needed population levels (as required Provide ' the species of marine mammals in the study 1972) sustainable selected marine area; Estimate age, Determine reproductive condition, and cause of death for mammals found dead in the study prey species mammals and compare them to area; local harbor seals and other marine species of commercial or sport value to area fisheries. cover the broad scope obj ectives was developed and components which follow: wide range study these goals, classified into the four major proj ect Marine Mammal Abundanc-e and Distribution the study area (emphasizing Determine the relative seasonal abundance, distribution and habitat utilization pinnipeds) . marine mammals Describe seasonal movements of harbor seals throughout the study area and assess the discreteness of local populations. Determine reproductive success of harbor seals, and describe any seasonal use of breeding areas. Marine Mammal-Fishery Interactions Identify the kind, rate, and economic impact of damage inflicted by marine mammals upon fish caught in nets or on lines, along with associated gear and fishing time losses. Assess the degree of incidental take of marine mammals associated with commercial fisheries in the study area, and the impact of this take upon the status of the species involved. Describe the nature and mammals and local sport exten t interactions between marine most fisheries. where Identify geographic areas marine mammal- fisheries interactions occur. Review approaches to reducing potentially harmful Review methods of assessing the value of non-consumptive interactions. marine mammals to the user. Marine Mammal Feeding Habits Identify and quantify maj or prey species of harbor seals through scat and specimen collections. Estimate the extent of marine mammal valuable fish predation upon commercially stocks. Biological Analyses Describe the age structure, health of the local harbor reproductive condition and general seal population. Study Area the lower Columbia Ri ver the waters below Bonneville Dam and the adj acent waters north along the Washington and south along the Oregon coast coast to Grays Harbor (470 04' Netarts Bay (450 20' N) (Fig. 1). This study area encompasses five of The study area includes the largest estuaries on the the Canadian Pacific coast between San Francisco Bay and approximate Columbia River eastward Longview, Washington) was emphasized longitude 1230 00' W (vicinity Other study sites include Grays Harbor and throughout this Willapa Bay in Washington, and Tillamook Bay and Netarts Bay in Oregon. border. The of study. each estuary, Described below are the physical characteristics the major biological communities which are present, and the demographics of the region. The anadromous fish runs and marine mammals present will chapters covering fisheries interaction and detail discussed marine mammal abundance and distribution. the flooded ri ver the valley of the second largest river system in North America. the study area, encompassing some 145 square miles largest estuary maps the lower Co 1 umb al. 1980) . Figure (CREST 1977; Proctor River, showing maj or communities, river tributaries and fisheries Columbia River. The Columbia Ri ver estuary It is management zones. On summer flood tides, salt water intrusion is recorded as far east extends as Puget Island at approximately river mile 46. to Bonneville Dam Tidal influence the study area where tidal forces dominate salt and fresh water mixing, the the Columbia River (average 259, 000 cf / sec) permits s iz eab le runo f f Unlike other estuaries in both stratified and partially mixed oceanic and riverine water al 1980). some 145 miles upriver. (Proctor et Physiographically, the lower estuary is characterized by low sand bars and islands resulting from natural sedimentation and dredge spoil deposits. The mouth of the river is flanked by two rock jetties which Fi~ure 1. StudY Area: The Col umbia River and adjacent waters. 124 123 HOOUIAM ABERIEEN GRA YS . HARBOR RA 'flUID BEND . SOlJll-i 460 TILLAMOOK BAY WASHINGTON NETARTS BAY OREGON 124 123 '.. . .. - ... . . , . '" . ,. ,. .,. -------- ,:' .~!..._ ~::' ,.. , , ::: ,I PACIFIC COUNTY ZONE Cowlitz River WAHKIAKUM COUNTY COWLITZ COUNTY 'I ' " 0 :i" R jver 1I1 WASHINGTON R jver St. Helen s OREGON CLARK COUNTY SKAMANIA COUNTY ZONE eacon~, , ' Rock Bonneville:: Deadline. . ,. Dam". ZONE Willamette River F l.gur e Map the Columbia River be low Bonneville Dam showing areas open commerc ial fishing. have drastically changed the historic physiography and hydrography of the entrance to make it less hazardous for shipping. The upper estuary above Tongue Point with low (river mile 16) is typified by tidal marshes interspersed lying islands e~hibiting western hemlock and Sitka spruce climax Overall, the estuary contains 11, 457 communities (Proctor et al. 1980) . acres of this highly productive tidal marsh land, charac terized grasses, sedges and rushes (CREST 1977). Estuarine fauna raptors and is is of key significance extremely abundant. This biologically rich area to numerous invertebrates, waterfowl, shore birds, The reader is directed toward CREST furbearers. 1977, Proctor et al. 1980 and CREDDP 1981 reports for a more complete description of the ecosystem of this large estuary. From both fisheries These stocks biological and economic standpoint, the anadromous critical importance. The river this big river are fish stocks in supports the largest anadromous the lower 48 states. and are heavily utilized by fisheries. The species harvested both commercial consist primarily recreational lesser fisheries in smelt, sturgeon and shad. managed jointly by the Columbia River Compact, composed Department of of Oregon, Washington and salmonids, with Commercial fisheries are of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). Sport fisheries are managed separately by the states Idaho. The estuary borders Clatsop Coun ty Oregon and Wahkiakum Counties in Washington. The south side of the greater human population density, with approximately 17, 000 people; the Washington population adjacent to the estuary is 3, 700 people (Proctor Pacific and estuary has the production, international shipping, fisheries and tourism. Clatsop County provides two-thirds et al. 1980) . The four maj or industries in these areas are timber of the total Oregon are coastal fisheries primarily at seafood processing industries (Proc tor the ports of Astoria, Warrenton and Hammond. The ports of and in zone employment al. 1980) , Ilwaco and Chinook in Washington. Pacific County also fisheries-oriented areas This extensive estuarine area is located at the mouth of the Chehalis River on the Washington coast, approximately 45 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River. It is the third largest estuary in the study area, encompassing a total area of 97 square miles Grays Harbor (ACOE 1976). Figure maps the harbor and immediate surrounding area and including major communities, zones. The harbor is varies from river tributaries fisheries management The surface area heavily influenced by tidal. miles at MHHW, flux. 97 square to 35 square miles at MLLW (ACOE At low tide the harbor is characterized by vast expanses of sand bars, mud flats and exposed eel grass beds criss-cropsed with a network channels. The mouth of the harbor is flanked by two of meandering 1976). tidal convergen t rubble mound jetties which extend feet. seaward, constricting the entrance width to about 6, 500 the bay. Two low sand islands are located in the central harbor, and numerous intertidal sand bars are scattered throughout The sand grass and salt flat and mud flat areas are dominated habitat types by marsh communities. These of abundant eel attract diverse and numerous avian species, particularly waterfowl and sea birds. For a detailed description reader is directed to the biological communities of this bay, the Franklin and Dryness 1973, ACOE 1976, Peters et al. 1977, and Proctor et al. 1980. Large spaWning schools of whitebait smelt Allosmerus elongatus and northern anchovy ( Engraulis mordax mordax ). enter the bay in late spring and summer (WDF 1971). Anadromous fishes are the primary catch both in commercial and recreational fisheries in Grays Harbor is important in the life cycle of several fishes. mouth of the bay, Westport and Ocean recreational fisheries for salmon. this estuary. The ports at the Shores, are the sites, of intensive also Shell, fisheries are in this. area. . an integral provides part of the commercial interest both spawning areas and Harbor habitat There is magister oysters ( Crassostera gigas fishing grounds for the Dungeness crab Cancer also a small but increasing harvest of planted .".,.\,.~,,.", ,: .,;,~'.,:' ,~,.. ..,. . ..., \,. j.""".', "",',:...', .:" ' ,, ...,. ,' ~, . . , :" , '~:' , \' " , " '" . ' ,''!::"..,'.;, '.'' .. :. \, . "", . Humptulips Riyer . l' ' ZONE 2A s t ~ nd a r d ~Uil Dock Johns R i ye r Figure Fisheries management areas Grays Harbor. Grays Harbor has the most concentrated human use of any estuary in encompassed totally by Grays Harbor County, Washington, whose waterfront communities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, the study area. The harbor is Westport and Ocean Shores have populations of 60, 000 ale 1980). people (Proctor et As with the Columbia River, the major industries of the area are natural resource-oriented, with forest products and recreational and commercial fisheries of primary importance. Willapa Bay Willapa Bay is the second largest estuary within the study area, encompassing 110 square miles (ACOE 1975). The entrance of south of the bay is 23 miles north of the Columbia River and ten miles Grays Harbor. Figure 4 presents the base map for the bay and immediate surrounding area. Maj or communi ties, management zones are shown. river tributaries and fisheri~s As in Grays Harbor, this area is heavily influenced by tidal flux. Surface area varies from 110 square miles at MHHW to 60 square miles at MLLW. At low tide this exposes vast expanses of low lying mud flats and eel grass beds intermingled with a network of tidal channels. The mouth of the bay has no jetties series of low lying sand islands and intertidal and as such is characterized by a shifting bars and islands. Another series of sand north and south bars occupies the central bay, while both the reaches feature large expanses of tidal flats. Long Island, containing approximately 11 square miles of forest and marsh, is designated as a National Wildlife Refuge. Estuarine biological communities are similar to those described for Grays Harbor. Avian species are numerous. Peak wintering counts are estimated at 200, 000 or more (Proctor et al. 1980), and waterfowl gulls, shore birds, terns, herons and various types of raptors are also important. For et al. 1980. a detailed description of the div.erse estuarine flora 1975, and Proctor and fauna, the reader is directed to F&WS 1970, ACOE Maj or sturgeon, salmon, Willapa Bay target commercial fisheries and Dungeness crab. The native oyster (Ostrea lurida) , responsible for the early development of the estuary ' s resourc~s, has Ri we r River .o .0. 0 :.. ' "'0' ZONE : :0 ::Willapa' ,Riwer 0 0. :Ston y PI. Leadbetter Pt. ZONE 6!J ZONE ZONE Nahcotta: ::,;0 .:0 Figur e 4 . Fisher ies management areas Willapa Bay. been nearly entirely replaced in oyster, this century by the commercial Japanese acres Crassotrea gigas Approximately 15, 000 are currently under oyster production, with annual average dollars (Proctor et ale 1980). harvests worth over two million Demographically, Willapa Bay mentioned estuaries. is far less populated than previously Tokeland, Bay Center, The waterfront communities at Nahcotta, Raymond and South Bend total less than 15, 000 people. This low human population density, combined with minimal navigational improvements, area. makes this bay the most pristine large estuary in the study Major industries are again forest products and fisheries. Communities along the Long Beach penninsula are also highly oriented toward tourism. North Oregon Coast The study area also encompases 60 miles along the northern Oregon The adj acent 15 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River comprise a contiguous broad sandy beach known as Clatsop Beach. The rest of the coast is characterized by basaltic rock headlands separated by short sand or cobble beaches, and nearshore reefs and sea coast. stacks. Within Since Netarts and Tillamook are this area there are four estuaries: the and Tillamook major mouths of the Necanicum and Nehalem Rivers, and Netarts Bays (Fig. 1) . areas of pinniped population density, they will be described here. Tillamook Bay is located 50 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River. 50- 60% It is the second largest estuary in Oregon and is six miles long and MLLW two miles wide. The average surface area at MHHW is 8, 600 acres. At of this surface area (4, 339 acres) is exposed in tidelands (Bella et ale 1974. The mouth of this bay is flanked by two rubble pile jetties, and the main channel is dredged yearly by the Army Corps of Engineers. The central bay is characterized by numerous. intertidal sand bars which serve excellent harbor seal hauling shallow tidelands. areas. The southern portion of the bay tributaries of the bay are the Miami, Kilchis, Tillamook, Trask and Wilson Rivers. About 19 smaller tributaries also These tributaries and the estuary support discharge into the bay. Five maj or substantial salmonid fish runs. Estimated numbers of adult anadromous salmonids spawning in these rivers are 39, 825 chinook, 33, 625 coho, 18, 000 sea-run cutthroat trout 900 chums, 51, 975 steelhead, and et al. 1974). Although there is (Bella no commercial gillnet fishery allowed heavily utilized recreationally. Bottom fishes also play an important part in the these recreational catch. Estimated annual collective harvest in this bay, this large anadromous fish resource is species is 24, 500 fish per year (Bella et al. 1974). Recreational and sport shellfisheries are also of importance in this bay. Oysters ( Crassostrea Dungeness crab and recreational use. growth to occur, are cultivated on 2, 650 acres of the bay (Bella et al. 1974). gigas ), which must be seeded for several species of bay clams are also taken for Human population density is square mile (Proctor et al 968) and Garibaldi relatively low with 25 people per of Tillamook 1980). The towns (population (population 1, 083) are the only major communities on the bay. The major industries around the bay are those connected and seafoods, and with timber, agricultural and dairy products, tourism (Bella et al. 1974). fish Netarts Bay is the smallest of the estuaries discussed in this section, encompassing only 2, 300 acres. It is located 60 miles south of the Columbia River and only ten miles from the mouth of Tillamook Bay. Whereas most of the estuaries in the study area are of the flooded river mouth variety, Netarts is a bar-built estuary. It is greatly influenced by tidal flux, producing tidelands which comprise 65- 90% of the surface area at low tide. The mouth of the estuary is narrow and unimproved, action. The interior of the bay partially exposing the bay to wave characterized by meandering tidelands, intertidal channels at low tide. sand bars and a network of LIST OF APPENDICES Number Page Project Data Forms A1- A11 237 249 Aerial survey counts of marine mammals in the Columbia River and adjacent waters Locations of hauling areas used by pinnipeds in the study ~rea, Cape Lookout, OR to Grays Harbor, WA Resights of radiotagged harbor seals Sampling rates for salmonid catches and landings (by species, zone, fishing weeks and source of survey) 253 255 259 Hours of fishing effort per landing (interviews when salmon were sold) and projected total effort, by z one and weeks Annual summaries of pinniped damage losses to 266 salmonids (percentage of fishery and proj ected totals, with associated 95% confidence 268 intervals) 273 Percentage and proj ected numbers of salmonids damaged by pinnipeds (by species, zone, source of survey, and severity of damage) Gillnet gear damage rates and proj ected incidence (by fishery, season and zone) marine mammal and other causes for total 279 Estimated amount and value of gillnet gear damaged by marine mammals (by fishery, season and zone) Frequency and rate of incidental take of marine mammals (by species, category of take, fishery, season, zone and source of survey) Inventory of boat surveys to harbor seal haulouts in the Columbia River, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, Tillamook Bay and Netarts Bay Scientific and common names of primary-type prey species identified in harbor seal scats, sea lion scats, and gastrointestinal tracts of stranded marine mammals 281 282 286 288 xvii LIST OF APPENDICES (cont. Number Frequency of occurrence of food remains, in phylogenetic order, identified in harbor seal scats collected June 1980-May 1982 in four Page 291 estuaries Primary-type prey species identified in five analyses of harbor seal feeding habits from Grays Harbor, WA to Netarts Bay, OR 293 Percent of occurrence of miscellaneous invertebrates in harbor seal scats, collected July 1980- April 1982 in Grays Harbor Percent of occurrence of miscellaneous invertebrates in harbor seal scats, collected June 1980-May 1982 in Willapa Bay 297 298 Percent of occurrence of miscellaneous invertebrates in harbor seal scats, collected June 1980- April 1982 in the Columbia River Percent of nematode infection in harbor seal scats by month and estuary 299 300 301 General categories of food remains present in the gastrointestinal tracts of marine mammals found dead in the Columbia River and adjacent waters, by common name Marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982 305 xviii Some the bay small is tributaries are used anadromous salmonids, but there is no commercial fishery and limited recreational chum salmon Brown (1981) bay hatchery on Whiskey Creek, the bay maj or tributary. discusses the rate of predation by the harbor seal Phoca vitulina on these returning stocks. Other fish species supported within the are perch, take (Kreag 1979). There an experimental aquacultural flounder, oysters, clams and greenling Dungeness crab. and rockfish. Shellfishes include Demographically, the bay has only one community of . Commercial fishing Netarts (population 900) this small pristine bay. oyster culturing and some Dungeness crabbing. Tourism is the largest industry, taking advantage of the recreational fishery and shellfish resources in is limited any size, OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND ADJACENT COASTAL WATERS OF NORTHERN OREGON AND WASHINGTON Steven J. Jeffries INTRODUCTION The Columbia River and adjacent marine areas of the northern Oregon and Washington coasts support a variety of marine mammal species which can be found throughout the North Pacific. Historical records and early accounts of coastal marine mammals are available from a number of sources (Swan 1857; Scammon 1874; Scheffer 1928a, b; Scheffer 1940; Scheffer and Macy 1944; Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Scheffer and Slipp 1969) . More 1948; and Cutright recent accounts and research have documented species abundance, composition, sighting records, distribution patte~ns, seasonal biology and natural history of many marine mammal species found in this area (Pike 1956; 1973; Mate 1975; Based on Pike and MacAskie 1969; Pearson and Verts 1970; Newby Johnson and Jeffries 1977; Wahl 1977; Haley 1978; Stroud and Roffe 1979; Everitt et al. 1980; Brown 1981; and Maser et ale 1981). marine mammal species can be this information a total of 29 expected to be found in the coastal waters of this area (Table 1). Of the marine mammals recorded in these coastal harbor seal californianus ) waters, the Pacific (Phoca vitulina) , California sea lion Zalophus and northern sea lion Eumetopias jubatus ) are the most abundant and important of the pinniped species. The California gray , which is seasonally abundant whale (Eschrichtius robustus) during its annual migration through coastal waters, and the harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena have been the most frequently sighted cetacean species have been obtained primarily using aerial census methods. Additional sightings have been recorded during ground or boat surveys, fishery distribution and abundance patterns for these species. Seasonal interaction documentation, and through the regional marine mammal stranding program. Table 1. List of marine mammal species reported from the coastal waters of northern Oregon and Washington. Occurrence Order: CARNIVORA *Sea otter, Enhydra lutris Order: PINNIPEDIA *California sea lion, *Northern sea *Northern fur *Pacific harbor seal, *Northern elephant seal, lion, seal, Zalophus californianus Eumetopias jubatus Callorhinus ursinus Phoca vi tulina Mirounga angustirostris Order: CETACEA *California gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus Balaena glacialis Right whale, *Minke whale, ~alaenoptera acutorostrata Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale, Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale, Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale, Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale, Physeter macrocephalus *Sperm whale, Kogia breviceps Pigmy sperm whale, Mesoplodon stejnegeri *North Pacific beaked whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi Hubb' s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier s beaked whale, Berardius bairdii Giant bottlenosed whale, Globicephala macrorhyncus *Pilot whale, Risso s dolphin, Grampus griseus Orcinus orca *Killer whale, False killer whale, *Common dolphin, *Northern right whale dolphin, *Striped dolphin, Pseudorca crassidens Delphinus delphis Lissodelphis borealis Stenella coeruleoalba dolphin, *Pacific white-sided ob liquidens *Dall' s porpoise, *Harbor porpoise, Lagenorhyncus Phocoenoides dalli Phocoena phocoena C=Common, R=Rare, A=Accidental Sea otters were transplanted to the Oregon and Washington coasts from Amchitka Island, Alaska stock in 1969 and 1970. *Species recorded during present study of the Columbia River and Sea otters from adj acent waters from strandings and/ northern Washington coast only. or aerial surveys. Identification of seasonal distribution and movement harbor seals has been aided by a capture and radiotagging patterns for program. The Columbia River was chosen as the site for radiotagging studies to obtain an understanding of the movement dynamics, activity cycles and relative discreteness of this harbor seal population. METHOD S Aerial Surveys Aerial censuses of all suitable habitat in the study area were conducted on a seasonal basis using a Cessna 172 aircraft, chartered Aerial survey methods were from a local air service in Astoria, Oregon. consistent with those which have been used to describe regional pinniped populations since 1975 (Johnson and Jeffries and Braham 1980; and Everitt et al. 1977; Mate 1977; Everitt 1980; and Johnson and Jeffries 1983) . Systematic aerial surveys were made of all study area estuaries offshore study area, (Netarts Bay, Tillamook Bay, rocks of the northern Oregon Nehalem Bay, lower Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor), as well as along the headland areas and coast. Due to the size of the total coverage surveys generally required two days to complete, with one day looking at locations south of the Columbia River to Cape Lookout, Oregon, and the Washington. next covering locations north to Grays Harbor, direction was Occasionally survey reversed weather conditions were unfavorable in a specific area. Flights were timed to coincide with the low tide cycle when maximum numbers of harbor seals were present on tidal mudflats, sand shoals and reefs in the study area (Johnson and Jeffries 1977; Brown 1981). The relatively few haulout sites on nearshore rocks and reefs of the northern Oregon coast were also exposed and available only during tide. It should be noted, however, were occasionally seen at high tide low tides. Aerial surveys were routinely made of these areas during low that harbor seals in these areas using adj acent cobble beaches as haulout areas. These haulout sites (Tillamook Head and Cape Falcon) were used by only a small portion 4%) of the regional harbor population; thus this probably has a minimal deviation from the low tide effect on the overall analysis. seal haulout pattern (This would be particularly true if the same seals which were hauled on offshore rocks during low tide cycles were merely moving to the beach as the incoming tide covered the primary haulout areas. During aerial surveys the principal observer sat in the copilot seat and was responsible animals. for sighting, estimating and photographing responsible for recording in the flight log, supplemental photography and sightings. Sightings of harbor seals were made from altitudes of ISO- 200m. This is Additional observers sat in the rear and were an altitude which produces minimal disturbance of harbor optimal for photographing seals and is seals. Due to the more tolerant nature of the sea lion species in the study area, overflights at their haulout causing locations could be made at lower altitudes (80m- 100m) without significant disturbance. These were recorded in the flight log along with time, location and other general comments. group size. verify visual estimates Photographs were taken Overlapping photos were taken if more than one photograph was required Estimates were made of all for complete animals observed. coverage. Photographs were taken hand holding a 35mm SLR camera equipped with a 135mm telephoto lens. Kodak Highspeed Ektachrome color slide film (ASA 160 or 200) was used to compensate for the low aperture stops and high shutter speeds (1/500 - 1/1000 second) needed to reduce image distortion and blurring caused by airspeed. In the laboratory, each slide was proj ected onto either a white on sheet of paper or a framed piece of glass with the opposite side painted white. Individual the seals or sea lions were marked California sea the counting not surface to avoid duplication. visual estimates for final These photographic counts replaced the use of color slides also aided analysis. The identification lions which were survey. distinguished from northern sea lions at the time of the harbor seal pups were used in the Harbor seal pups were analysis of productivity in the study area. easily identified on the uniform background of . sand or mud substrates Photo and visual counts of using the criteria of having a bright newborn pelage color, small size, The and close proximity to an adult female during the nursing period. bright newborn pelage is an important criterion because at this time the adult and subadult animals have a dull brown or tan premolt pelage Using these criteria, pups could be easily distinguished in all estuary areas. In the few areas where rocky haulout sites were used color. along the northern Oregon coast, the broken and non-uniform nature of the substrate made differentiation of mother/pup pairs more Pup counts in these areas were considered minimal difficult. estimates of total number of pups born. Capture In an effort to identify movement and activity patterns of harbor seals in the study area, undertaken in the Columbia capture and radiotagging program was River in 1981 and 1982. Capture nets were a designed similar to those described by Smith et ale (1973) for use in the Arctic on ringed seals constructed to Phoca hispida Each net panel was fathoms; total the following specification: length = 12 depth = 4 fathoms; netting: 8- or 13- inch stretched mesh, #36 nylon dyed green; floatline: 7/ 16- inch braided rope with polypropylene core; leadline: 1 pound per fathom; hanging: 1/4- inch braided polypropylene, OS4- SC floats every second hanging. During 1981 the capture operations, 72 fathoms (6 panels) of 13- inch mesh net were used, allowing small seals (to 30 kg) to escape through operations, subadults were mesh openings. In 1982 capture selected by using 60 fathoms (5 panels) of net, with the inch mesh. outside panels 13- inch mesh and the three inner panels Net depth (4 fathoms) was sufficient to hang completely to the bottom when set along haulout sites in water 1- 2 fathoms deep. Eastside Net Shop, 14207 100th Avenue NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Capture attempts were made at haulout sites in the lower Columbia (Desdemona Sands, Taylor Sands, Green Island, and Miller Sands) during methods low tides ' when seals were present. Nets were set using the developed during earlier harbor seal capture operations in Washington 1980; and Oregon (Everitt and Jeffries 1979; Brown 1981; Everitt et al. and Brown deploy the net panels Two outboard- powered boats were used to net parallel to a haulout beach. The lead boat carried all on a platform set above the transom and outboard motor. This and Mate 1983). boat approached the hauled out seals as rapidly as possible (20 knots), and set the net as the seals entered the water. When only several fathoms of net remained on the platform, this boat turned and landed at the haulout beach. puring immediately pulled to the set the second boat picked up the other net end and landed at the opposite end of the beach with the haulout. Net ends were an effort made to assure the leadline remained entangled as Occasionally Seals which were encircled became the net was brought to shore in a beach seine fashion. the floatline and escape during the seals might " jump on the bottom. Additionally, small animals were able to pass through seining process. the I3- inch mesh or by cutting panels. the net. Seals were removed by untangling the animals Seals which were to be tagged were removed to hoop nets; others were released immediately. Handling A total of 96 harbor seals were captured and handled during netting operations in 1981 and 1982. Once captured and removed from the seals were physically restrained during handling. Head bags net, (Stirling 1966) were used occasionally, although were generally not needed with seals placed in hoop nets. Hoop nets were constructed as lightweight and flexible, follows: hoop: 2- inch heavy rubber hose, feet inch knot less nylon mesh with 6 diameter; netting: drawn together to foot deep bag, close. With the seal placed head first in the hoop net, the flexible hose could be easily bent back to expose the posterior portions of the seal. applied. At this time, tags were attached and pelage marks Each seal was double-tagged using color-coded Jumbo Roto tags placed between hind flipper digits. Pelage marks for visual resighting with compressed air. Blood for chemical analysis and genetic studies was drawn from the extradural intervertebral vein following the technique described by were applied using red Woolite liquid ivestock marker, and blown dry Geraci and Smith (1975) . Seals were also measured and some were weighed during these procedures. Radiotelemetry Radiotelemetry packages 1 2 were attached to 59 of the captured seals for determining movement and activity patterns. Packages band) and lithium battery, resin. The radiotransmit ter attachment methods were used consisted of transmitter components (164 MHz encapsuled in ' waterproof packages weighed 125 grams, electrical had a theoretical battery life of 300 days and field-tested ranges of 4- 16 km. Two seals. for placement of the package on the Thirty-nine seals were equipped with radiotelemetry packages attached using an anklet around the base of the hind flipper (Pitcher and McAllister 1981). The anklet package was cyclindrical in shape cm x 3cm diameter), with the leading end rounded and tapered to reduce drag in water Ankle bands with a bimetallic link to the radio package were secured by heavy duty plastic tie wraps covered with rubber surgical tubing for cushioning. The tie wrap allowed easy adjustment of anklet diameters for each seal. Due to possible constriction of the anklet during flipper growth, this method was used only with older age seals. Twenty additional seals (primarily small subadults) were fitted with radiotelemetry packages by attaching the device to the pelage using epoxy glue. The radiotelemetry package used had dimensions 9 x 3 x 3cm, with a rounded upper surface and flat base. A shallow keyway was cut bottom. This keyway set. into the sides of the package lcm up from the provided a groove which locked the package base into the epoxy when 1981: Cedar Creek Bioelectronics Laboratory, Univ. of Minn., 2660 Fawnlake Dr. NE, Bethel, MN 55055. 1982: Advanced Telemetry Systems, 23859 NE Hwy. 65, Bethel, MN 55005. inch The attachment process used the following materials: (a) diameter PVC plastic pipe, cut into 3cm sections. This was formed into a mold in the general shape of the transmitter package by heating in halfway up (1. 5- 2cm) to The PVC mold was then boiling water. facilitate removal when the epoxy had set. (b) Nylon mesh material 1 the cut which was secured tightly around the base of the PVC mold using a (c) Bright, color- coded vinyl streamers stainless steel hose clamp. (d) 5-minute mold. edge of sewn to the mesh along the trailing epoxy With the seal physically restrained, the pelage in the area of attachment (mid- back) was towel- dried, dry with compressed degreased with acetone, and blown air. The PVC mold with the nylon mesh attached was pushed down and moved forward to raise hair clumps through the mesh openings. Epoxy was mixed during this process and poured into the mold to a depth needed to cover and secure the keyway grooves on the sides of the transmitter package. The and held in place until package was pressed firmly into the epoxy set. Once set, the hose clamp was removed and the PVC mold cut and peeled off. Setting time (5- 10 minutes) could be decreased by additional mechanical agitation of package. the epoxy during the A method similar to mixing process. Any excess nylon mesh was (Woolite) were applied around the attached this has been used successfully to trimmed away and pelage marks attach radiotransmitters to grey seals ( Halichoerus comm. 1980). grypus ) in the United Kingdom (Sheila Anderson, per. Radiotagged seals were monitored from ground and boat locations in the study area using manual or scanning receivers. Aerial monitoring was conducted antennae. during monthly survey flights, with wing-mounted Yagi Remote monitoring systems, using programmable receivers and 20-channel Esterline Angus event recorders, were used to provide 24- hour monitoring of seals at selected haulout sites. Signals were received only when seals were on land, allowing monitoring of daily haulout NJ 07971. Fablok #2150 mesh, Fablok Mills Inc., 140 Spring Street, Murry Hill, Devcon 5-minute Epoxy, Devcon Corp., Danver, MA 01923 patterns. Reference transmitters were also placed on haulout sites to record tidal patterns and to verify operati.on of telemetry equipment during monitoring. Ground surveys were used as the primary method to monitor for radiotags at the main lower Columbia River haulout sites at Desdemona Sands and Taylor Sands. Daily checks of these haulout sites could be made from several locations near Astoria (Lincoln St. and West St.; the Astoria Column; the Crest Motel; and Megler Ridge, Grand WA. ) . Outside the Columbia, ground monitoring of haulout sites was restricted to a limited number of areas which were within telemetry range of an accessible vantage point. Ground monitoring of all Tillamook Bay haulout sites was made at the Bayview Rest Area, or from an overlook on the logging road (Rockaway Crossover) which turns off Highway 101, ~ mile east of the Bayview Rest Area. The haulout areas at Cape Falcon were monitored from a turnout off Highway 101, 1/4 mile south of the Arch Cape Tunnel. areas were monitored from vantage points in Ecola State Tillamook Head Park. Because of from the the low topographic features around Willapa Bay and monitored the Seal Grays Harbor, only a few haulout areas could be effectively ground. Willapa Bay monitoring locations were: (1) Slough logging road (B- 600) for the N. E. Long Island haulout sites; (2) the overlook at the Bruceport Historical Marker off Highway 101 for Pine Island Channel/Ellen Sands haulout sites; and (3) the overlook off sites. The Highway 105 at Washaway Beach for the entrance shoal haulout only locations in Grays Harbor accessible to ground monitoring were from the Red Bluff area (near Grass Creek), and provided coverage of East Bay haulout sites. RESULTS Aerial Surveys A total of 51 aerial surveys (115. 5 flight hours) were flown in the study area to locate haulout sites used by marine mammals. The Pacific harbor Zalophus seal (Phoca vitulina) , California sea lion californianus ) and northern sea lion Eumetopias jubatus ) were the most frequently sighted marine mammal species. Counts of all marine mammals observed, with associated aerial survey conditions, are summarized in abundance and Appendix Bl. Additional information on distribution, natural history parameters was recorded during boat and land surveys, during examination of stranded and incidentally-taken specimens, and during fishery interviews. Because some pinniped species were present on haulout sites censused year-round (harbor seals) or became seasonally abundant on rookery areas during annual migrations (California and northern sea lions), they could easily and efficiently using aerial 1979). photodocumentation techniques (Eberhardt et al. It should be rookery survey and noted, however, that although aerial surveys may be one of the best censusing methods, counts animals haulout sites represent only a minimum estimate of the actual population. Some unknown (and possibly varying) proportion of the population may be the water and would therefore not be counted during a survey. If aerial surveys are made under comparable survey conditions (time, tide, weather), counts can however be used to identify seasonal usage patterns and trends in population numbers. Because of the inaccessiability of most of these haulout sites, aerial surveys were the most efficient method of checking all study area locations. All radio tagged seals were routinely monitored during In addition~ six aerial surveys (15. 3 flight hours) were made specifically for radiotelemetry work. With the 1981 along the northern two aerial surveys made exception regular census flights. Washington coast no efforts were made to locate any of the tagged seals outside the study area (Cape Lookout OR to Grays Harbor WA). Sea Lion Distribution and Abundance Patterns. California and northern sea lions were present in the study area seasonally, with haulout sites off the northern Oregon coast at Three Arch Rocks, Tillamook Head (Ecola), and on the tip of the South Jetty, area Columbia River. Seasonal movements of sea lions into the study during the non- breeding season resulted in population build-ups at these sites (Figures 5 and 6). patterns of Mate (1975) examined the annual migration these species along the Oregon coast and noted similar trends in species composition and population numbers. The largest concentration of California sea lions occurred in March when 150- 200 animals were present at the South Jetty, Columbia River. Animals which were here appeared to be all males, with the maj ority large, blond- headed adults. This, along with the fact that all stranded California sea breeding sites. lions were present in study area males, indicates that females were seldom waters. By lat~' June, no California sea lions southern September, northward-migrating males began to were present on haulout sites and had apparently migrated to In early reappear at the South Jetty. Northern sea lion numbers reach maximum spring levels in May when 250- 300 animals were present at the South Jetty, Three Arch Rocks and Tillamook Head (Ecola). sexes were present in the At this time, adults and subadults study area. of both By mid- July only the Three Arch Rocks location was occupied, with an estimated 100 animals remaining in population peak the study lions _ at the South Jetty area. This species in begins to reappear with California sea early September. A fall occurs in October when 350- 400 animals were present at Three Arch Rocks and the South Jetty. During the winter (mid-January) frequently sighted in the both sea lion species were the lower annual Columbia. This was particularly true in 1981 when mixed aggregations of 50- 60 animals were foraging in Columbia, off Pt. Ellice. The movement of sea lions, along with harbor seals, into the Columbia River at this time coincides with the eulachon smelt run. As with harbor seals, California sea lions appeared Figure Seasonal occurrence of California and northern sea lions at the South Jetty, Columbia River (maximum counts , 1980 to 1982). 200 to- ::I -Callfornia Sea Lions 100 ::J ...J ::I Northern Sea LiOnS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure Seasonal use of Three Arch Rocks and Tillamook Head (Ecola) by northern sea lions. (Maximum monthly counts in 1980 anq 1981). 300 to- ::I 200 Tillamook Head (Ec to- ola) ! ~ ::J ...J ::I c( 100 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC to be following this run upriver and were frequently sighted far Cowlitz River, with some individuals reported as this time Bonneville Dam (river mile 145) . California sea lions were regularly sighted (or heard upriver. barking) near the far upriver . as the year the California sea lion has caused considerable damage to the lower Columbia gillnet fishery. No locations were identified as being used for haulout sites in the Columbia, although California sea lions were often reported rafted together in groups while upriver. Upriver sightings California sea lions are summarized in Table Harbor Seal Distribution and Abundance Patterns Combined Study Area Harbor seal haulout locations were present in all study area estuaries and on nearshore rocks along the northern Oregon coast. A total of 78 sites were identified as being used by harbor seals (Appendix B2). The minimum population estimate for harbor seals present in the study area (based on maximum monthly counts from aerial was 6000 to 7000 animals surveys) (Table 3). study area estuaries were primarily These haulout areas were exposed for intertidal sand or mud shoals. Haulout sites all varying lengths haulout sites of time depending on daily tide height. Figure 7 shows Columbia River the predicted low tide exposure pattern sites had similar . tide related exposure essentially unlimited space for harbor seals cycles. During these . low tides, maximum. counts at Desdemona and Taylor Sands. for the lower All estuarine haulout patterns which provided during daily low tide were expected. The nearshore rocks and reefs along the northern Oregon coast were also exposed during low tides. In seals. good contrast to the relatively protected estuary haulouts, these areas were more tidal stage making only conditions available for use by harbor topography making susceptable to weather, sea space It was limi ted amoun t This was due to their exposure and them unuseable during adverse condi t ions assumed however, as well. that under tidal and environmental conditions aerial surveys also provided the best estimate of seals in these areas Table 2. Sightings of California sea lions (Zalo hus californianus) in the (Astoria, OR). Columbia River above Tongue Pt. DATE LOCATION NUMB ER MILES UPRIVER COMMENTS SOURCE 1 ODFW 1950' 1970' Willamette Falls Oregon City, OR 115 Eating lamprey from trap; shot Rode barge downstream thru locks 2 working gillnet; 1 killed; 2 shot at Bonneville Dam 145 ODFW 2/27/80 2/28/80 2/28/80 2/28/80 Tenasillahe Is. Tongue Pt. 12- FII FIr FII Woody Island Swing Drift (Clifton) 2- 1 ate salmon from gillnet; entangled and MMP released 2/28/80 Skamokawa Heard barking at night FII POP MMP MMP 4/01/80 4/04/80 4/14/80 9/30/80 10/13/80 2/24/81 2/25/81 2/25/81 2/25/81 Ryan I s land Woody Island Willamette Falls Grays Bay 115 Swimming upstream In water at base of falls Identified as " sea lion POP species Bit fish in gillnet Tongue Pt. Tongue Pt. Clifton Chute Drift FII FII FII FII MMP/FII MMP/FII MMP MMP MMP Grassy Island Tenasillahe Island Skamokawa Fitzpatrick Island 3 went through gillnet 2/25/81 2/25/81 2/25/81 2/25/81 2/25/81 2 working gillnet Barking Heard barking Elokomin Cathlamet Channel MMP MMP 2/26/81 2/26/81 2/26/81 2/26/81 2/26/81 2/27/81 Three- Tree Pt. Rice Island Cathlamet Channel MMP MMP /POP Wallace Island Westport Channel 1 repelled w/ MMP/FII seal FII MMP /FII bomb Rice Island 4 swam thru gillnet Table 2. 3/02/81 3/02/81 3/02/81 3/02/81 3/02/81 (cont. ) Grassy Island Cathlamet Channel Skamokawa Quinns Island 1 swam over corkline FII FII FII MMP MMP Crims Island Chute Drift Swimming downstream 3/03/81 3/03/81 3/03/81 3/03/81 3/25/81 Three- Tree Pt. Bit fish, holes in gillnet FII FII FII MMP WDG Rice Island Wallace Island Stevenson, WA Drowned in gillnet 150 125 125 Bit fish, entangled in gillnet and escaped 3/27/81 Reed Island Assoc. with harbor seal WDF WDF 4/03/81 1 ODFW: Corbett On beach FII: MMP: POP: WDG: WDF: pers. comm., J. Galbreath, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, OR fisherman report obtained from interviews direct observation, Marine Mammal Project direct observation, CREDDP researchers, Platforms of Opportunity Program Washington Department of Game, Vancouver, WA Washington Department of Fisheries, Vancouver, WA Table 3. Maximum monthly counts (includes pups) of hauled out harbor seals, Grays Harbor 1980- 1982. Date 1980 Oregon (Cape Lookout to Columbia River Columbia Willapa Combined Study River Area Total June 751 191 1194 1469 1638 1986 1437 1921 4122 4146 4546 1921 July August 726 514 405 582 September 1981 460 444 491 520 April May 399 897 639 1199 1533 3468 5604 5730 4776 2865 893 842 720 499 568 273 525 2944 2871 1993 1083 June 1744 1538 687 July September 1982 May 596 858 759 164 150 1994 3601 3727 6617 June 2142 6788 DESDEMONA SANDS .t::. -1 Height of Low Water (feet) 1" .t::. TAYLOR SANDS Height of Low Water (feet) Figure 7. Low tide exposure patterns of Columbia River harbor seal haulout sites at Desdernona Sands and Taylor Sands (1981). Northern Oregon Estuaries The estuaries along the northern Oregon coast (Nehalem Bay, Tillamook Bay and Netarts Ray) contained a total of 14 areas which were used as haulout sites by harbor seals (Appendix B2). Seals were present irregularly at the one area used in Nehalem Bay (Figure 8). This area is located near the public boat launch, and boating activities on the bay were probably responsible for frequent disruption of seals at this site. The maximum harbor seal count recorded in Nehalem Bay was 25 (10/1/81). No pups were ever observed in this estuary. Tillamook Bay (Figure 9) and Netarts Bay 13 haulout areas used by harbor (Figure 10) contained up to The remaining seals. Each of these estuaries contained one main haulout area used by harbor seals year-round. haulout areas were being used primarily during the pupping season (April to August). At this time these areas were being used by nursery groups of females with dispersal into pups, segregated from the main haulout groups. This peripheral areas also coincided with an annual spring 134 increase in the total counts of harbor seals in these estuaries. The Tillamook Bay was 606 harbor seals recorded max imum c oun t (5/26/81). For Netarts Bay, the maximum harbor seal count was (5/26/81). The highest pup count in Tillamook Bay was 148 in 1982. The highest pup count in Netarts Bay was 23 in 1980. The 1982 pup count (166) from these two estuaries accounted for 12 percent of the total study area pup count. Reefs. Northern Oregon Nearshore Rocks and A total of six harbor seal haulout areas were present on the nearshore rocks and reefs along Seals were present at both the Cape Falcon and these locations year-round. each Tillamook Head areas harbor seals occasionally used the adjacent cobble the northern Oregon coast (Figures 8, 10 and 11). beach, although the preferred areas were apparently on nearshore reefs. the Cape Maximum harbor seal counts for these areas were 49 seals at Lookout areas (5/29/82); 126 seals at Cape Falcon (6/9/81); and 72 seals at the Tillamook Head areas (7/23/81). No pattern of seasonal increase the pupping in use was apparent for any of all areas had mother/pup pairs these areas. During season present. The highest combined pup count for these three areas was 19 pups recorded in 1980. study area pup The 1982 pup count (13) from these areas accounted for less than 1 percent of the total count. i!i KEY Year-round Sea sana 1 Ground MonHori n9 NEHALEM SA Y 0 40 124 0 00 Figure 8. Harbor seal haulout sites at Nehalem Bay and Cape Falc0n , Oregon. 124 - 58 124 124 . 54 124. 52 124. 45 34- 0 34 30 ci. KEY 'J.. i-' .f. ~~~c " rf Year-round Seasonal Ground Monitori ng 26Figure Harbor seal haulou t - 45. 26 sites Tillarnook Bay, Oregon. Three Arch qO~. Rocks KEY Year-round Seasonal Ground GH Monitori NETARTS BA ng ' 00 Figure lO. Harbor seal haulout sites at Cape Lookout and Netarts Bay, Oregon. 00 KEY Year-round Sea sana 1 Ground Moni tori n9 Cannon . Beach 124 0 00 Figure ll. Harbor seal haulout sites at Tillamook Head , Oregon. Columbia River. Harbor seals used a total of 16 13). sites as haulout areas in the lower Columbia River (Figures 12 and Harbor seals were most abundant in the Columbia during the winter months, with the maximum count being 1422 seals (1/6/82). During the winter months, harbor seals were present in relatively large groups (100 to 500 seals) at the Desdemona Sands, Taylor Sands, Miller Sands and Wallace Island sites. Additional smaller groups were also present at most of remaining haulout areas at haulout the other this time. During this period harbor seals The had apparently entered the Columbia from adjacent estuaries and dispersed upriver to feed on spawning eulachon smelt Thaleichthys pacificus largest Columbia River haulout group was recorded at Desdemona Sands and numbered 884 seals (4/25/80). of Total counts and the number during the pupping haulout sites used decreased by spring as seals moved out of the Columbia and into the adjacent estuaries season. Although mother/pup pairs were present in the Columbia, pup production was low with less than 10 pups counted each year. Pup counts from the Columbia represented less than 1 percent of the total study areas pup counts. Summer 25 seals) also counts in the Columbia remained near 500 seals, with the only large group present at the Desdemona Sands haulout. Small groups (~ Willapa Bay . could be found at the haulout areas in Grays Bay and Cathlamet Bay. A total of 20 areas were being used as haulout sites in this estuary (Figure 14). Harbor year-round basis. seals used 6 of these areas on a The remaining sites were used during the pupping season and into the summer. The largest groups (500 or more seals) were present on haulout areas on the Bay contained 957 seals entrance shoals and along Pine Island channel during the summer. The largest haulout group recorded in Willapa (8/13/80) and was present at the entrance shoal location. The maximum total included 393 pups (6/14/82). count for Willapa was 2142 seals which The earliest observation of mother/pup pairs in during an aerial survey on 24 April 1981, with a still remaining together through the end of Willapa was made few mother/pup pairs During April and May, July. seal numbers increased at haulout areas on Ellen Sands, NE of Long 124 0 00 123 123 Cape Disappointment .., C' 1c:- 46' 15 ,;~t~" f;\ \.V TA1' WR SANDS \V-'/;: r\~j '-tfr::;~. CATHLAHET BAY l:Y;~ "!VI" :~~2)~- :~J ('1. r~~;?:??F?~- ;'L: ' 10 KEY Year-round Sea sana 1 Historical Ground Monitori ng Figure l2. Harbor seal haulout sites in the Columbia River: Pacific Ocean to Harrington Pt. 123 ' 40 123 ' 30 ClC . 123 ' 20 KEY Year-round - 46 Sea sana 1 Hi stori ca 1 Ground Man; tori ng Puget Figure l3. Harbor seal haulout sites in the Columbia Harrington Pt. to Crirns Island. River: 124 0 00 123 ;~~k0 KEY ;r Year-round Seasonal Ground Monitor; ng :~0" RIDDLE ~2' SPIT :J; ~,t - 7. .;0 Nahcotta ~\~81~ 460 Figure l4. Harbor seal haulou t sites Willapa Bay, Washington. Island and in the Shoalwater Bay areas. During the pupping season haulout groups in these areas were predominantly made up of mother/pup Following the completion of pupping in AugURt, these groups pairs. disappeared as seals congregated year. in the large haulout groups channel. The on the entrance shoals and along Pine Island highest pup count for this estuary was 393 (6/14/82). This represented 28 percent of the total study area pup count for this Grays Harbor This estuary contained a total of 32 areas which were used as haulout sites by harbor seals (Figure 15). Five the of these areas were used on a year-round basis. Similar to the use pat tern in Willapa Bay, the remaining areas were used during summer. The Island shoal pupping season and into the largest group (500 or more seals) was present on the Sand area. This haulout area contained relatively large numbers of seals year-round, with a noticeable increase in numbers during late July and August. The largest single group recorded for the entire study area (2297 seals) was counted (6/14/82) . at this haulout on July 27, 1982. The pups maximum total count in this estuary was 3727 seals . including 902 Seal numbers increased in North Bay, East Bay, around Sand Island, Mid- Harbor Flats area and around Whitcomb Flats during this time. As the pupping Mother/pup pairs were evident in season progressed it was apparent that early April through July. these areas were being used as nursery areas with predo~inantly mother/pup pairs present during the peak pupping period. These areas were generally abandoned by August with the completion of the annual pupping cycle. This abandonment coincided with the increase of seal numbers at the Sand Island shoal area. Pup counts from Grays Harbor were the highest of any estuary in the study area. The maximum pup count of 902 (6/14/82) in this estuary represented 61 percent of the total study area pup count for this year. during the rest of Seal counts remained at relatively high levels the summer. By months. September harbor seal counts had begun to decrease to a level of around 500 seals which remained in the area during the winter At this time the largest group continued to be present on the Sand Island shoal haulout. 124' 10 124' 00 123 ' 50 ' 00 -47 46. 55 -46 ' 55 KEY o:. Year-round Seasona 1 Ground Monitori ng 46' 50 Figure l5. Harbor seal haulout sites Grays Harbor Washington. Harbor Seal Pup Production The pupping season Columbia River began in the s~udy area in early April and the continued through July. During this period harbor seal numbers in declined, and counts increased in Ne tarts Bay, Tillamook Bay, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The number of haulout sites used in these estuaries also increased during this period, as pregnant females moved into peripheral areas. As the pupping season progressed, these nursery haulout sites. The period of peak pup production for the study area was between May 25 and June 15 (Table 4), with a maximum count of congregations of predominantly mother/pup pairs became apparent at 1481 pups made in 1982. Table 5 summarizes the maximum study area pup counts by area, and shows that the major areas of production occurred in the estuaries adj acent Harbor Seal Movements to the Columbia. A total of 96 harbor seals (30 males; 66 females) were captured and handled during 1981 and 1982 tagging operations in the Columbia River. Successful capture operations were made at haulout sites on Desdemona Sands, Taylor Sands and Miller Sands (Table 6). Two of the seals which was an old had been captured died during handling procedures. One male; the other a subadult male with large numbers of circulating microfilaria in the blood. Both In the 1981 females (13) of these seals apparently died from dive response related respiratory failure. tagging operations, 30 seals (11 males; 19 females) received radiotelemetry packages attached using anklets. The majority of these animals were relatively large and considered to be adults. All captured in April were pregnant and appeared near-term~ During 1982 tagging operations, 29 seals received radiotelemetry packages. Nine adults (1 male; 8 females) had packages attached using all of these females were pregnant and anklets. Again, near-term. The (and adult male represented the retagging of an animal which had received lost) an anklet in 1981. The remaining 20 animals (10 males; 10 females) Table 4. Date and maximum harbor seal pup counts by area. 1982 29 May 1980 Oregon - (Cape Lookout 6 June 1981 . 26 May 176 22 May To Columbia River) Columbia River 152 30 May 173 29 May Willapa Bay 5 June 10 June 14 June 229 Grays Harbor 5 June 328 10 June 393 14 June 443 759 902 Table 5. Maximum harbor seal pup counts (survey period: May 26 to June 14), by area. (Numbers in parentheses indicate percentage of total. ) Pup Count Area Northern Oregon Coast (Cape Lookout, Cape Falcon, Tillamook Head) Tillamook Bay 1980 1981 1982 19(2) 126(15) 7 (1) 7 (1) 17(1) 147(12) 14(1) 148(10) Netarts Bay Columbia River 15(1) 9 (1) 18(1) 6 (1) Willapa Bay Grays Harbor TOT AL 229(28) 443 (53) 328(26) 759(60) 1275 393(27) 902(61) 1481 831 Table 6. Date 1981 Apr 8 Apr 9 Apr 10 Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr 11 13 14 20 21 22 Summary of Columbia River harbor seal capture operations, 1981 - 1982. Captur e Site Taylor Sands Taylor Sands Desdenona Sands Tay lor Tay lor Grou Estimated Size Seals Restrained Encircled Roto ta Transmitters 300 Sands Sands 300 Desdenona Sands Taylor Sands Desdenona Sands Taylor Sands 150 200 . Desdenona Sands Desdenona Sands Jul Jul 9 Jul 13 200 200 150 4 . Green Island Desdenona Sands Desdemona Sands Desderrcna Sands 1982 Mar 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 30 Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sands Tay lor Sands Desdemona Sands Tay lor Sands Desderrcna Sands 200 200 Apr Apr Desdenona Sands Taylor Sands Miller Sands 300 150 100 200 Apr 10 Apr 21 Desderrcna Sands Miller Sands Desdemona Sands TOTAL 150 159 were classed as subadults, and received radiotelemetry packages attached to the pelage using the epoxy gluing method. During monitoring efforts in the study area, 57 of 58 individual seals (98%) captured and radio tagged the Columbia River were resighted at least once (Appendix B3). (75%) were resighted at haulout sites Of the 57 seals resighted, 43 outside the Columbia. Movements were recorded to haulout sites in Tillamook Bay (55+ km), Cape Falcon (30+ km), Willapa Bay (40+ km), and Grays Harbor (55+ km). The farthest movement recorded for one of the radio tagged seal resulted with the recovery of the pelage tag from a (Mike Graybill, pers. comm. km to the south of the subadult female near Coos Bay, OR This represents a movement of about 300 Columbia. radio tagged adult female resighted in Willapa Bay (9/11/81) , and then in Tillamook A minimum movement of 100 km was also recorded for a Bay (9/18/81). An additional five radio tagged seals were also resighted more than one estuary outside the Columbia. Movements were occasionally recorded between haulout sites in adjacent estuaries in the hour period between consecutive low tide cycles. Seals which initially remained in the Columbia following March and April captures were also recorded interchanging haulout areas during this between different Columbia River period. radiotagged parous females were recorded to haulout areas in Grays Harbor or Willapa Bay. Resights of additional parous females with pelage identification marks were also made in these estuaries, as well as in Tillamook Bay. These resights of mature Movements by females were most often made in nursery areas only used as haulout sites 14 (74%) during the pupping season. Many of these resighted females were observed with pups, and were repeatedly resighted in the same area through the duration of the pupping season. In 1982, resights were made of two females (with pups) radio tagged in 1981. Both of these females were using the same nursery area used the previous year, which indicates possible site fidelity to a specific nursery area for pupping. The radio tagged adult males areas outside the Columbia" with also showed (70%) of considerable exchange to these seals resighted in here. another area. Radiotagged adult males were however regularly present on the main Columbia River haulout at Desdemona Sands, and represented some of the most frequently and consistently resighted animals Subadul t throughout seals captured All the study area. the Columbia River were resighted of the radiotagged subadul t males and females were resighted in some other area during monitoring efforts. coas t One of the subadult females represented the only resighting on a rocky haulout site along the northern Oregon ( Cape Falcon) . The farthest movement (300+ km to the Coos Bay area) was also recorded by a subadult female. Based on the number of subadults which moved to other areas, this component of the population appeared to be highly mobile, regularly interchanging between coastal haulout areas. DISCUSSION Trends in Regional Harbor Seal Populations Maximum counts of harbor seals in the study area provide a estimate for the regional population at 6000-7000 seals. This for best population level is well above previous estimates recorded the area (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; and Pearson and Verts 1970), and indicate the regional harbor s~al population is increasing. An analysis of harbor seal counts from the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor since 1976 (Johnson and Jeffries 1977, 1983; this (Table 7% (r 2 = study) show a substantial increase in both the annual pup and maximum non- pup counts recorded non- pup counts from these areas. Annual pup counts have increased at an annual rate of 19. 1% (r 2 = . 927, p ~ 01). Annual for for (Table 8) have increased at an annual rate of 10. 855, P ~ . 01). These rates are higher than most increases recorded other pinniped species (Laws 1979). They are, however, comparable with southern the the relatively high annual increase rate of 15. seal Arctocephalus australis on South Georgia (Payne 5% reported fur 1977) . Table 7. Area Trends in harbor seal pup counts, 1976- 1982. 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Annual Increase Rate Columbia River Willapa Bay 125 228 328 393 902 1301 Grays Harbor 363 362 492 494 597 443 679 759 1096 Combined 452 19. Table 8. Trends in maximum non- pup counts from the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, 1976- 1982 (all areas combined). 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Annual Increase Rate 2434 2724 2757 2932 4086 4734 10. 7% Several explanations for the relatively high increase rates regional harbor seal populations have been postulated. One possible explanation is that seals may be moving into the study area from other areas, such as the northern Washington coast. Harbor seal counts from the northern Washington coast number in excess of 2000 seals and Jeffries 1983), with haulout site~ almost exclusively on (Johnson intertidal rocks and reefs. Because space is sites, excess various study haulout seals could be displaced from this area and into the area estuaries. Availability of haulout space in these types of limited on these estuaries (on intertidal sand or mud shoals) is essentially unlimited at present. The relatively high rate of increase in pup counts may be due part to a change in the age structure in a rapidly expanding population. Suggested contributing factors include increased protection of regional harbor seals since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act supp ly and/or inc rease available food excluded. due the greater opportunity for seals to forage in regional estuaries and river systems where they had previously been Prior to passage of the MMPA, seals (and sea lions) were actively harassed from the discontinuation of this Columbia under program in control program. With the 1970 and subsequent protection afforded by the MMPA, seals have been able to enter the Columbia River without intentional harassment or killing. Harbor seals move into numbers during the lower Columbia in relatively large eulachon the winter, feeding almost exclusively on the smelt run. If this food base had been previously unavailable to harbor seals (due to exclusion of seals from the Columbia), the nutritional benefit to pregnant females may have acted to increase pup survival by increasing fat reserves needed for lactation. Increases to these age classes could now be contributing even greater production to the regional population. Improved survival might also have been expected if other prey species were now available to seals able to forage farther up other river systems in the study area where they were excluded or killed prior to the MMPA. Other possible explanations for the high increase rates include changes in hauling patterns acting to make more seals present on haulout sites during censusing, and biases in pup counts caused area. by temporal variability in the annual timing of births in the study Regional Movement Pat terns of Harbor Seals capture operations, radio tag resights, overall analysis population counts and feeding habits (see: " Feeding Habits p. 149) reveal a number of apparent regional movement patterns for harbor seals in the study area. First, harbor seals are moving seasonally within the study area response locally abundan t prey items. This particularly true in the Columbia where occupy upriver haulout sites seals increase in number and only during the annual winter eulachon smelt run. the year. During this same period, counts as well as the number of haulout sites used in adjacent estuaries are at their lowest levels of Secondly, general movements are occuring between all study area estuaries year-round, with certain haulout sites During the preferred spring, seals are moving out of the seasonally. Columbia and into adjacent estuaries for the pupping season. Pregnant females, which are present in the Columbia during the winter, move annually to preferred pup nursery areas in adj acen t estuaries where 98% of the regional production occurs. Females which pupped in a specific nursery appeared to maintain site fidelity through the nursery also moved into the same nursery area each period. Pregnant females year. Finally, the observed movement patterns indicate that harbor seals in the study area are part of a regional population interchanging between all coastal areas seasonally. Resident seasonally by groups in each estuary are supplemented an influx of seals which are moving throughout the region in search of abundant prey, haulout sites and preferred pupping areas. DOCUMENTATION OF MARINE MAMMAL INTERACTIONS WITH COASTAL SALMON GILLNET AND OTHER FISHERIES Anne C. Geiger INTRODUCTION Systematic data collection for marine mammal- fisheries interactions was focused on salmonid fisheries, primarily estuarine gillnet fisheries and secondarily recreational free-swimming " troll fisheries. * Additional data salmonid damages, presumably inflicted by marine mammals apart from fisheries, were collected from various terminal sources. ** Reasons for focusing the investigation on salmon fisheries were: (1) Previous interactions as literature pinpointing Columbia River gillnet or high priority problem (Mate 1980), providing related baseline data from the study area (Scheffer 1928a; Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Pearson and Verts 1970; FCO 1972; Newby 1973; Puustinen 1977; Brown 1981) or other 1975; Hirose 1977; Johnson and Jeffries salmon fishing areas (Fisher 1952; Rae 1960; Fiscus 1980; Matkin and Fay 1980) . (2) The preeminent economic importance of salmonid fisheries to the states of Washington and Oregon (Petry et ale 1980) and local fishing communities (OHS 1980); the historical preeminance of Columbia River salmon production to fisheries from California to Alaska (PFMC 1982a, 1982b); and the declining status of many Columbia River salmon stocks (Netboy 1980a, 1980b). (3) The supposition that the common marine mammal species occupying estuarine, coastal and nearshore zones would compete most directly with fisheries in these areas for space, food and survival. *A tertiary data set was collected for non-salmonid marine sport fisheries. Other fisheries were investigated on an informal opportunistic basis. **See " Damage to Free- Swimming Salmonids , p. 134. The organization of this chapter will accordingly reflect these priorities, beginning with brief descriptions species, the development and conduct of target salmonid and some the gillnet fishery, fisheries. problems confronting marine mammal this fishery that influence the significance of What is interactions. Methods, results, with and discussion will then be presented in detail for commercial salmon gillnet known 0 interaction problems fisheries will also be presented and other salmonid and non-salmonid discussed. Background: Commercial Salmon Fisheries The Columbia River supports the largest anadromous fish stocks remaining i~ the lower 48 states. These stocks are heavily utilized by both commercial and recreational fisheries. The species harvested consist primarily of salmonids, with lesser fisheries in sturgeon, smelt and shad. Since 1938, or 600, 000 fish commercial salmon and steelhead landings have ranged between 5 and 32 million pounds per year, averaging 7. 2 million pounds since 1957 (ODFW/WDF 1979). Landings from the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam have averaged six million pounds since 1968, and 3. 5 million pounds were landed in 1978 (ODFW/WDF 1979). From 1974 to 1978, an average of 1300 licensed gillnetters were employed in fishing seasons averaging 50 days per year (ODFW/WDF 1979). Problems of stock conservation and harvest allocation (discussed below) have forced on gillnet the Columbia River Compact management agencies reduce fishing effort in recent years. Beginning in 1980, a moratorium licenses was imposed, and harvest quotas were instituted in some cases. Open season for gillnetting was reduced to a low of 14 days in 1980 (Fig. 16, reprinted from Bohn 1983). Three salmon species are fished Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Salmonid species and stocks. coho commercially in the study area: the chinook (Q. kisutch and chum keta The sockeye salmon ( nerka was formerly important, but is now commercially extinct in the study 300 + 1909-36 X BELOW BONNEVILLE (NONTREATY) ---- ABOVE BONNEVILLE (TREATY INDIAN 250 FISHERY) 200 fI) CI: ~ 150 100 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Figure ~6. COLUMBIA RIVER COMMERCIAL FISHING (reprinted from Bohn 1983) DAYS, 1909-81 LOWER RIVER FALL CHINOOK & COHO UPPER RIVER SPRING CHINOOK WILLAMETTE RIVER CHINOOK JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT, OCT, NOV, DEC, MONTH Figure t 7. Time of run passage through the lower Columbia River for different salmon species and races. (reprinted from Zirges 1983) gillnet gear; but classified as non- Indians. sea-run cutthroat trout (SA game fish, they now cannot be sold by The other anadromous salmonid in the study area is the clarkii ), River fished only recreationally. Chinook. The Columbia king salmon renowned The American fish international fish markets from Europe to the Orient. canning industry grew from a base on the Columbia River in 1866 (Smith largest runs of chinook salmon in the world 1979), lured here by the (Netboy 1980a). The fishery has been so closely tied to the fate of the chinook that gillnetters refer to the species as " salmon. Chinooks historically spawned the headwaters Co 1 umb tributaries from British Columbia to Nevada (Chaney 1978). The species adaption to river migrations of up to 1200 miles (FCO/WDF 1971) and lasting up to six months beyond ocean feeding has resulted in large fish that enter the river in exceptionally prime condition. The Royal Chinook race and others that once produced fish in the 60- to ISO- pound category were eliminated when Grand Coulee Dam presented a 550- foot high barrier to the upper 1100 river miles in choice 20- to 30- pound chinooks are restaurant and smoked lox 1941 (Netboy 1980b). However, still highly prized today for the trade. Adult chinook are present in the Columbia system during all months of the Willamette and Cowlitz Rivers (Galbreath 1966). Substantial hatchery production has resulted in increasing run sizes since 1974 (King 1979). The winter gillnet fishery targets on this run for one to eight days during late February and early March (ODFW/WDF 1979). fall (Fig. 17). The earliest spring migrants are bound year, but three principal runs occur during spring, summer and for the The late spring and summer runs are destined for upper Columbia and Snake River tributaries. Severe declines in these stocks are attributed to passage problems for both adults and juven~les at hydro-electric dams, and blocked or inundated spawning grounds (Chaney 1978). Once the mainstay of a fishery that peaked at 43 million pounds in 1883 (Cleaver 1951), the summer gillnet seasons have been closed since 1963, and the fisheries spring since 1975 (except for 1977) (ODFW/WDF 1979). Summer in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay do not take returning migrants, months to but target on mixed Columbia River chinook. stocks that enter the estuary feed. The fall run beginning in August is composed of four stocks: lower river wild and hatchery chinooks, Bonneville Pool hatchery stocks, and wild upriver " brights. "* Lower river and Bonneville Pool stocks Fall chinook fishing in generally produce surpluses, harvested during one-day gillnet seasons in 1980 and 1982 at rates up to one ton per boat. the lower river must be curtailed during most of August and September, for however, to allow sufficient upriver escapement for natural and hatchery production and treaty Indian fishing quotas. ** Drift gillnetting tule chinooks resumes in October and continues into November, although mesh size restrictions designed to limit capture of brights target the fishery on effectively coho. Coho. migrating little Coho (" silvers " or " silversides ) spawn only in the fall, tenThis eightfurther than Bonneville Pool. to pound species was rarely fished by gillnetters before chinook began to decline in the 1890' s (Netboy 1980a). Landings peaked at 6. 2 million pounds in the 1920' s, then declined until hatchery production reversed this trend in the 1950' s (Netboy 1980a). second decline since the production, has led fishery the suspec t that carrying capacity for juveniles biologists coastal zone may be exceeded in years of poor . ocean upwelling (ODFW 1982). Intraspecific competition (and possibly predation) may then lead to reduced coho survival to harvestable size. 1970' s, unmatched by increasing juvenile *The term " bright " salmon that will not spawn for many months. Ripe salmon, or " tules (pronounced " toolies ), are much deteriorated from converting fat and refers to the prime skin and flesh condition of muscle to metabolic energy and gonad development. A jack" is a precocious, undersized male salmon that has returned to spawn after only one year in the ocean. **Five Columbia River tribes, guaranteed fishing rights " in common " with non- Indians in treaties negotiated by Governor Stevens in 1855, won claims in Federal Court (particularly the Boldt decision of 1974) to the harvest of 40% of all surplus fall chinook salmon produced above Bonneville Dam. Coho management has recently emphasized conservation and rehabilitation of wild stocks (many of which are severely depressed) in coastal streams. Since the fall most Columbia River coho are of hatchery origin, gillnet fishery targets The chum or dog on this species, taking about one Oncorhynchus million pounds in recent years (ODFW/WDF 1979). Chum salmon is unique among the that it spawns in tidal streams and rears only briefly in fresh water. Where it has been commercially fished, chums are sought more for their quantity in late fall tha~ their quality. The lower grade meat of these overly mature spawners chinook. brings the fishermen only 50 to 60 cents per pound as opposed to $1. 00 to $1. 15 for coho and $1. 50 to $3. 50 for Shoreline development along estuaries and the lower reaches of remaining in the rivers has destroyed chum habitat in proportion to the growth of human uses. The only maj or chum producing tributaries area adj oin Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. There, stable or annually in each fishery (Zook study gillnet catches show a increasing trend since 1969, averaging 28, 000 chums taken 1976). Fewer than 1500 chums have been harvested in the Columbia in these years (ODFW/WDF 1979). Small-scale artificial spawning in stream bed egg boxes, and experimental hatchery production in Netarts Bay and the Chinook River on the Columbia River estuary, show promise because of low overhead but little if any effect to costs, date. Seal predation on returning adults in haulouts may these shallow streams located adjacent to affect returns (Brown 1981) while the runs are The Gillnet significantly rebuilding. Fishery Gillnets used in that hang more the salmon fishery composed of panels of mesh or less tide. vertically in are the water, set across current to drift with the Fish swimming with or against the current penetrate the mesh until it constricts against the attempts to back out, the deepest part of their bodies. If the fish webbing lodges behind the pectoral fins or opercular plates. to Most gillnetters own more than one net (each costing $3, 000 $4, 000 new), so mesh size can be matched to the target species. Agency regulations often restrict mesh sizes to allow escapement of protected runs. Thus 5- 3/4" to 7" mesh (stretched diagonal measurement) is chinooks. Webbing materials were formerly generally used for coho, 7" to 8" for chum, 8" to 9" for chinook and 9" to 10" for sturgeon and large linen, hemp and other natural fibers, but now a more visible multifilament nylon is used for all new durable and less nets. Monofilament is illegal. The mesh hangs between a polypropylene " cork line, " buoyed by small oval plastic floats, and a " lead line, " either of wrapped lead core or with small lead weights molded at intervals around the rope. Hanging used to material of cotton or nylon twine is used to secure the net to lead and cork lines, and to shackle several net panels together, to the maximum legal length to " bag " of 250 fathoms. Further hanging twine may be shorten the distance between cork and lead lines, allowing the webbing down current, or used as trammels. A trammel is a much larger mesh (24- 60" ) which hangs against the gillnet, attached only at top, bottom and mid- depth (Craig and Hacker 1940). A large fish entering the gillnet pushes a bag of net through the trammel mesh, where it may be trapped even not securely gill~d . " apron gillent mesh attached at the corkline and allowed to float downstream at a~ angle to the net may also be used to trap large fish attempting to swim over the net (Craig and Hacker 1940). The apron during the present was rarely observed in use study. Two types of gillnets are used in the study buoyed at the surface and does not touch area. The " floater " is the diver bottom, but hangs about 30 feet deep. The " diver " is leaded to drift along the bottom, with fewer corks that float underwater about 12 feet off the bottom. Although bottom. net produces good catches in the river channels above the estuary (Craig and Hacker 1940), it is less used today because it snags on waterlogged stumps which the current deposits on the In former times a group of fishermen using one particular " drift The members of (two- to five-mile stretch of river which could be fished from end end) would organize to clear snags from their drift. this " snag union " would then enforce their exclusive rights to use that river section for gillnetting (Craig and Hacker 1940). The tradition of " drift rights " has continued to this day, and rights are commonly inherited, bought and limited entry gillnet permit. sold (often along with a boat and/ or Market values range from $2000 to $10, 000 for the most productive drifts. clearing is done However, relatively little snag today. The process (involving a special heavy snag net and a commercial scuba diver to attach lines to the stumps) is expensive and must be repeated following annual floods. Given the now limited seasons and areas open to fishing, many gillnetters use floater nets and strive to avoid known snags. of Nets constructed dark, but modern coarser materials were usually fished after as much as by multifilament nets are fished by day hours before night. Boats usually leave port after the tidal flow has peaked and make the first set one to two , slack tide. ( Ebb ing and low tides are fished more often in this region. One " drift " may last from one- half to two hours, depending on current velocity, catches, and the area fished; one- hour drifts are typical. Boats generally drift with the engines shut off and one end of the net tied to the elect to buoy both ends of the net and run the boat along the reel. When seals are present, the fisherman may corkline Completely unattended sets are to discourage seals and/or to retrieve salmon seen by their movements to be gilled near the surface. illegal. As the net nears the end of the drift, the fisherman may pick it up from either end. Depending on the boat style, the net is either reeled onto a power drum at the bow or stern, or pulled by hand into the open bow, usually over a hydraulic roller. Reels and rollers are idled for the gillnetter to remove fish and debris from the net. In the one-man operation, a duplicate gearshift and throttle are wired close at hand by the reel, so boat position can be maintained relative to the net. With a " boat puller " as crew, the skipper may handle the craft while the other picks the net. This operation takes 15 minutes or more, depending on the amount of fish and debris to be removed. Then the net can be re-set, either at the head of the drift or at a new location. In this area, fishing usually continues for an hour or more after the tide has turned. If there is incentive (particularly during short open seasons), the gillnetter might stay out and fish around the clock. More typically, they will return to port when the current picks up and fish cease to move, some two to six hours after fishing commenced. The fish are sold immediately, either to " cash buyers " operating from boats and barges on the river, or to processors at the rest, the ports. After a short full-time gillnetter will often fish the next suitable tide, hours. thus making two or more complete trips in 24 METHODS Fisheries Interaction Interviews The interview method was used to document marine mammal- fisheries interactions. Interviews were conducted both on the docks and on the fishing grounds, and each interview (n=3971) concerned the fisherman Responses were recorded on a current or most recent fishing trip. AI) patterned after that used by Matkin and multipurpose form (Appendix Fay (1980). For every complete interview, the following information was obtained on a confidential basis: (1 ) Fishing location, time and tide fished. (2) Species and number of fishes caught, number of fish damaged by marine mammals, and severity of damage. (3) (4) (5) Marine mammal species and number observed, location, type of interaction. Marine mammal species and number entangled, harassed and killed. Amount and cause of gear damage. In addition, gillnetters were asked the type and amount of gear and the number of net sets made. fished Sports fishermen were asked the number of anglers in their party contributing to the total catch. Open-ended questions Additional comments were recorded verbatim. elicited further details on the circumstances of incidental take and the efficacy of harassment techniques used. time was damaged fishes, otographed available, interviewers examined and recording the nature and extent of injuries. Dockside Samples A minimum sampling goal of five percent of each gillnet fishery was arbitrarily selected, based on the recommendations of other researchers as expressed in the literature and in personal communications. Because of the highly variable nature of salmon run strength (and consequent fishing success) over time and between study area. These strata fishing to locations, the of sampling goal was applied to weekly subsamples of fishing zones in the were selected take advantage total landing statistics reported in this format by WDF and ODFW. The previous year t s catches patterns, and were used as a predictor of landing provisional sampling quotas were established to aid dispatching interviewers. Lists of the major salmon-buying stations were obtained from WDF and ODFW. Pre-season surveys of these buyers provided additional information on the dates and times (often related to tides) when stations the bulk of the landings was expected. Several buying in one zone were included when practical, to increase representation of various fishing locations (drifts) within subsamples. The sampling unit chosen was a single fishing trip. Thus the content of one dockside interview covered the fisherman between leaving port to fish and returning to port to Sampling units experiences make a landing. (n t s) equated in the analysis are variously described as fishing trips, load of fish). interviews, " or " landings " (the delivery and sale of a Variable elements within the sampling unit included the number of damaged fishes, the amount of gear damage, the number of marine mammals incidentally taken, etc. The values taken by these variables are herein presented as averages per trip. (Other units of fishing effort were for some variables; also used Damage to compute average rates see " Gear , p. 67. Field Samples A replicate sample of interviews conducted on the fishing grounds was desired to check the accuracy of fisherman reports. In 1980- 81, field samplers operating from a WDG boat planned daily intersect gillnet vessels throughout the zone (s) they were to sample. Each gillnetter encountered along the route was interviewed in order, unless the fisherman was obviously too busy to be routes interrupted. In this Observations case, they were interviewed at a later time if possible. of marine mammals and interactions witnessed were recorded in a field log. The field sampling strategy was revised for the winter 1982 season with the purpose of detailing marine mammal abundance, distribution and behavior relative fishing gear and harassment techniques. All available personnel were placed aboard or a alongside a working boat for the duration of the fishing trip. twice. Each maj or gillnet gillnet " drift by (river section) was sampled at least Sample sizes were secondary in importance to increased data resolution, achieved real-time " format. Sampling Rates by Area and Season utilizing behavioral observation forms (Appendix A2) for each drift (net set, soak and retrieval), in addition to the standard interview The data base achieved was 3493 fishery interviews conducted with working gillnetters on the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor during 1980- 1982. Primary emphasis was devoted to this phase of the investigation in 1980, when the bulk of the proj ect ' s resources supported interviewer/observer teams in the field. Thus complete survey (Appendix Cl). coverage was achieved for all Columbia River gillnet seasons, as well as summer fishery areas in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Later in the season, when more areas were opened to harvest major the salmon, interviewer effort centered runs mainstem Columbia River. September/October surveys were made of all terminal fishery areas off the Columbia and Willapa Bay, although sampling periods were not always continuous. The lower- bay area of fall spawning Grays Harbor (Zone 2B) there were not was included in September, but peripheral zones surveyed. Due to annual contract limitations, no data were collected on late fall seasons during November. In 1981, a full survey was made of the Columbia season. River winter fisheries were interviewers were available. The Other of sampled spot-check basis purpose was to ascertain if trends in damage rates established from 1980 data were consistent from year to of year. * Sampling reports. the Columbia River fall season was effectively contract discontinued in mid- October 1981, to allow preparation The Columbia River winter chinook season was again sampled in 1982. Full dockside survey coverage was obtained as a check against a revised field sampling regime (described above). The system for purpose was to begin develop and test an " indexing continued monitoring of interaction rates. However, the fully-comparable dockside survey added nearly 200 interviews to the data base. Sampling rates per weekly period by fishing zone are shown in Appendix Cl. For each stratum used in the analysis, the number of interviews is expressed as a percentage of sampling rates for fishes sold is given by total landings, and the species. Analytical Methods Fish Damage Raw data from gillnet fisheries interaction interviews were entered onto magnetic developed for this purpose by the Ceren tape using a computer program manipulation of the Hewlett-Packard Model utilized or modified. This and further data set were conducted in-house Where applicable, analysis minicomputer. Corporation. programs from the HP- 85 General Statistics Pac and Standard Pac were Additional programming was written by J. B. Kalac and A. C. Geiger for the Marine Mammal proj ect. The primary reference , 1977, used for statistical methods was Cochran, W. G. Sampling Techniques (Third Edition). *A secondary goal was to maintain continuity of contact with the gillnet This was deemed necessary to the success of ongoing studies of the incidental take of marine mammals and methods to reduce fishery fleet. interactions. Landing and value data from the total fishery were obtained from ODFW and WDF. Average prices paid for each species were computed from total monthly sales of all grades and proj ected to pounds landed by zone and week. Daily deliveries, numbers species, zone and week. and pounds of fish reported on agency computer printouts were entered into our computer and stored by It should be noted that virtually all fishery landing data used and reported here are preliminary, and sub j ec t change by ODFW and WDF. Having (more or less complete) totals qvailable for the population of fishes sold allowed proj ections from sample data to be made with much greater confidence than is usual in general survey samples. This was accomplished by use of the ratio method of estimation (Cochran 1977; detailed below). Further accuracy was gained by stratifying the sample Such precision was judged necessary in (Cochran 1977) by zone and week. light of the extreme variability observed in marine mammal damage rates, making an unweighted average over the entire season inappropriate. As Matkin and Fay (1980) caugh t . pointed out, a binomial distribution could not be used, since the number of fish damaged is dependent on the number The ratio method, however, takes advantage of the correlation between these two variables (Cochran 1977). I t also incorporates in from the the estimate all the information known total fishery (population from which the sample was drawn), such as the proportion of deliveries sampled (sampling fraction) and the average catch per trip. The rate of damage to the fisherman s catches was computed for each stratum as: ~=l damage rate # damaged in sample # caught in sample i=l *The author is indebted to Mr. Ken Hall of the Biometrics Section, ODFW, and especially to Dr. L. L. Eberhardt of the Committee of Scientific Advisors to the Marine Mammal Commission, for suggesting references to and consulting on the application of this method. i=l The within-stratum variance, (Yi - R.x vCR) , was weighted (n- l) x N2 (Iby the finite population correction, landings, and where n = # interviews, N = # total = n/N = sampling fraction. This correction was utilized in confidence interval of the ratio, R f (a narrower fraction of z~~ 1.. later calculation samples where a of the so that greater confidence interval) could be ascribed the landings were sampled. The large resulting variance formula, when expanded according to Cochran (1977) and used in calculation, was: variance of damage rate v(R)- = :- nX2 where S y , S = sample mean squares and gx (s 2 + R.s 2 - 2'R.s yx = sample covariance. 95% Damage rate estimates, with associated confidence intervals, were multiplied by 100 for expression as percentages of the catch. For this stage of the analysis, the " catch" used in the denominator included all fish of that species known to be in the nets, including unsalable the rates therefore represent percent damage potential catch; i. e. to what the fisherman could have sold had some remains. These fish not been destroyed. Another way of stating this is that marine mammals damaged a fraction of all salmonids known to have been available in nets. When making projections to the total fishery (which by definition does not include unsalable fishes), the X used in the denominator was changed. Unsalable fishes in the sample were subtracted out, so the ority catch remainder (undamaged + salable damaged) represented only that portion of the catch which was sold. It can be seen that, if the maj fishes sampled were unsalable, the ratio applied to the total would be greater than 100% of the fishes landed. The formula used to estimate losses to the total fishery was: proj ected # # damaged , ill sample damaged = Y = II (# sold in fishery). sold in sample Variances were recomputed to reflect mean square differences from the average catch sold, plus the revised N2 - ratio. The formula used was: (I+ R.s 2 - 2eReS variance of estimate v(Y) total fish losses, with associated 95% confidence intervals, were multiplied by the average pounds/ fish and price/pound. These were computed from tQtal landing data by species, The proj ections zone and week. Salab le damag e losses were calculated figure used was 15% projected poundage and value estimates, assuming that the undamaged 85% of the fish was sold at full value. The 15% derived from visual estimates of meat loss, as assessed by the interviewers on 235 salable chinooks the buyers in 1980 (Everitt et ale 1981). This probably for results in a low estimate, since damaged fishes were often downgraded by to tule price (a loss of up to $1. 00/pound estimate. chinook). However, insufficient data were collected on the weight sold and price paid for salable fishes to attempt to refine this Stratum estimates for proj ected number of fish, pounds, and dollars lost were summed across strata to arrive at season totals. The variance associated with these (Cochran 1977). the summed variance. totals equaled the sum of the stratum variances Confidence intervals on the totals were computed using Two or more strata were combined (see Appendix Cl) for weeks when either no sample was taken, or when fewer than 30 interviews of were collected (if this was "" 5% of the reported landings) in a zone. The was insufficient sample terms of (to satisfy the assumptions this method) most pooled with the adjacent sufficient sample which it resembled in landings. Landings for this combined period were then pooled for the analysis. Gear Damage Each complete interview asked gillnetters whether gear damage had occurred during the trip in question, the amount of gear damaged, the cause (and percent attributable to marine mammals, in the case of multiple causes), and the estimated cost of repairs. All this gear. information was . used the analysis except the fishermen evaluation of cost, which was replaced with standard values per unit of Gear damage rates per hour were computed for marine mammal and for all other causes of damage causes combined. The number of trips where damage was reported. was divided by hours of fishing effort sampled in each zone and season. Total fishing effort was projected from dock sample. data (hot.1rs fished per , landing of salmon; see Appendix C2). Damage rates were then multiplied by the estimated total hours of effort to proj ect the number of damage incidents. These were summed across strata for seasonal and annual estimates. incident small The average amount of gear damaged by marine mammals per was computed from interview data in three categories *: number of seal holes , number of large " sea lion holes , and number of fathoms of gear lost in maj or entanglements. The small holes were valued at $4 to repair, the large holes at $8 (pers. comm., Supply). S. Warner), and the maj repairs at $10/fm for coho gear comm., Dick Kelly, Astoria Marine and $12/fm for chinook gear (pers. The projected total damage incidents were partitioned into the three categories according to their sampled frequency. Each was multipled by the average number of holes per incident, then by the standard cost per hole for repairs. Results were summed to estimate the overall dollar value of marine mammal damages to gillnet gear. *These categories were suggested by Steve Warner, commercial net mender, Astoria, OR, as being most representative of the types of damage he is called on to repair. Mr. Warner s estimates of labor costs (at $8/hr) were also used. Incidental Take of Marine Mammals. Three categories of considered here: marine mammal entanglement in gillnets, mortality from all causes, and non- lethal harassment by all means. Since overlap exists between the first two categories, the minimum take were number of animals taken was reported here as the sum of those killed and those harassed. incidental hour) were computed by species for each category, following the method described above for Total fishing effort was proj ected from reported Gear Damage Take rates (number of animals taken per landings (Appendix C2), to include trips where no salmon were caught but marine mammals may have been taken. The take rates per hour for each sample were multiplied by estimated total hours of effort to project the number of animals taken. These were sunnned for seasonal and annual totals. RESULTS Marine Mammal Interactions with Salmon Gillnet Fisheries No marine mammals were observed in 33% of gillnet trips sampled. Only 4. 8% of the fishermen observed mammals mamma 1 they felt were not interacting with their gear (hauled out, swimming past, etc. trips (62. 2%) , marine interactions were On most experienced, which resulted in evidence of damage to fish catches, gillnets, and/or marine mammals on over one-third (36. 5%) of all fishing trips sampled. Harbor seals were the primary cause of fish damage in all estuaries and seasons. California sea lions caused some fish and gear damage in the Columbia River in the fall, and were the major cause of gear damage during 1981- 1982 winter seasons in the were observed or lower Columbia. Other species reported (northern sea lions, gray whales, harbor porpoise, and northern elephant seals) but none imp lica of these species was ted in f ish damage. Fish Damage Damaged salmon were identified from remains left in the nets, and categorized as " salable " or " unsalable Salable damaged fishes were most often found with bites to the throat or belly, and a portion of the organs stripped. If the attack had occurred. frdm the opposite side of head was the net, the portions of gill area was often damaged, or the entire 38, sometimes eaten. (A schematic summary of wounds noted on various 155). Our photographed salmon appears in Fig. observations of damage to salable salmon agree substantially with those reported by Herder (1982). A fish was unsalable if, in addition to organ damage, the seal had stripped skin from around the salmon or had chewed the flesh. (Contamination from water and gastric juices rendered the remaining flesh unsuitable for commercial use. Chinooks especially were often found with skin and organs entirely eaten away, but considerable meat left on the carcass. This observation is consistent with the findings of Matkin and Fay (1980), who published photographs of such damage. Unsalable salmon were also recorded when all that remained in the It can be supposed that some net was a head, jaw, operculum, or eggs. evidence fell out of nets before being sampled, and that an of this additional number of salmon were taken have been gillnetted and damaged. in their entirety. Thus the totals reported here represent a minimum accounting of salmon known to Scratches, claw marks and teeth rakes on fishes, unless associated with active marine mammal interactions, were not emphasized in this portion of the study. Wounds of this type were typical of marine mammal damage to free-swimming salmonids, and are discussed in a later section 3/t). Those that affected the marketability such wounds the fish were recorded during interviews, and all were noted in ODFW market sampling (Hirose 1977 and unpub. data) and WDF test fishing (Stockley 1980 and unpub. data). Each major salmonid species caught in gillnets (chinook, coho, chum and steelhead) was the target of pinniped depredation. Incidental fish species, although occasionally caught in quantity, received only a token amount of damage. Over 4, 000 fish in the bycatch were sampled; just a single example each species (white and green sturgeon, dogfish shark, starry flounder, shad and of harbor seal damage was observed for smelt) . Although the latter species of bony fishes are known harbor seal diet attracts items (see " Feeding Habits seals to prey from gillnets. , below), it is the salmon which All Areas and Seasons, 1980 On an annual basis, pinnipeds damaged a greater percentage of the chinooks caught in gillnets than coho, and more coho than chum (Table 9) . Coho did not begin to show damage until they became numerically catches, in mid- September. From then until November dominant in the both chinooks and cohos seals in most had an equal probability of being damaged by areas. (More coho were actually eaten because more were caught in nets. Coincidentally, this apparent order of preference paralleled human preferences by favoring the more expensive fishes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------- Table 9. Percent of salmonid catches damaged by pinnipeds, by gillnet season and fish sample sizes of damaged salmon shown in parentheses. species, 1980. (Dockside FI SHERY SEASON CHINOOK COHO CHUM S TEELHEAD ALL SALMON SPECIES2 GRAYS HARBOR summer fall 8% (2) 7% (2) n. s. 25. 0% (61) 3% (7) 18. 0% (68) 24. 9% (62) 6% (9) 14. 2% (71) annual WILLAPA BAY summer fall 1% (184) 10. 1% (485) 5% (163) 7% (90) 1. 7% (90) 10. 1% (485) 1% (455) 4% (940) annual 4% (648) 0% (184) --...J I--' COLUMBIA RIVER winter terminal 9% (11) 1% (1) 0% (494) early fall late fall 2% (178) 0% (6) 9% (26) 0% (121) 6% (25) 2% (506) 20. 0% (1) 8% (6) 4% (37) 9% (123) 9% (520) (1) 1% (686) annual TOTAL ALL SEASONS 1% (894) 9% (692) 1. 7% (90) 8% (1) 7% (1697) Steelhead are caught incidentally, but not sold commercially, in any of these fisheries. Only 21 were sampled. species. Includes other and unidentified salmonid n. s. = not sampled strength was found to have a major impact on damage rates. When fishing seasons opened before large runs arrived, harbor seals in many cases destroyed the maj ority of fishes caught in nets. Salmon run Especially severe chinook damage rates were sampled during summer 1980 seasons in Grays Harbor (25%) and Willapa Bay (10%), and a limited winter season in the Columbia (9%) (Table 9). When salmon run strength peaked, the damage rates were low, such as 1% of chinooks taken in the early fall season in the Columbia, when landings averaged over half a ton per boat. At the end of fall seasons when most migrant salmon have passed, we would expect November fish losses from gillnets to mirror those observed Since no samples were taken in November, and none during chum in July. seasons and upbay fisheries in Grays made for these Harbor, no proj ections have been fisheries. total damage in the remainder of Grays Harbor and proj ections the study area were made for 1980, and results appear in Table 10 and Figure 18. Stratum proj ections (and associated variances) were summed for losses in fish, pounds and dollar values. Resulting totals are also expressed in Table 10 as a percentage of the volume and value entire fishery in the zones of the affected. * An estimated 13, 100 fishes were bitten, with the majority (71%) unsalable and a complete commercial loss. These represented 5% of the Two percent of the 1980 coho catch sold and 4% of the chinook fishery. chum landings in Willapa Bay were also damaged. Poundage and dollar loss rates were slightly lower, since it was salable assumed that 85% of full value was recovered in the case of damaged salmon ids. Pinniped-caused damage in both categories represented 4% of the total income from the coho fishery and 2- 2. 7% of chum and chinook values. *This is in contrast to Table 9, in which unexpanded sample data for damaged salmonids was expressed as a percentage of total salmonids known to have been caught in nets. In sections to follow, percentages will relate to the catch that was sold (excluding unsalables from the total). Table 10. Proj ected fishery study area , 1980. losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids , total PROJECTED LOSSES KING COHO CHUM PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL KING COHO CHUM TOTAL FISH DAMAGED Unsalable 2514 Salable 1901 Total 4415 POUNDS LOST 6236 1712 501 9251 220 721 3833 13084 7948 (thousands) VALUE LOST 52. 50. $56. 7 108. (thousands) I $ 75. $4. $136. P ROJ ECTE J: g en LOSS ES PERCENT FI SHE R J: en (II .oJ LL )( unsalable sa a LL unsalable salable C "';' Z 0 ::::J ,- .oJ ::::J 0 0 a. unsalable sa lab Ie unsalable salable W '0' ::::J ~ ...J ::::J ~ .oJ ..J c:t: fA c:t: 0 unsalable salable unsalable salable ...J ::::J Figure 18. Proj ected fishery study area , 1980. losses from pinniped- damagcd salmonids , total The projected 1980 total of $137, 000 represents 3% of the gross earnings of study area gillnet fishermen. (Multiplier effects within the salmon industry and the communities supporting by fishing were not calculated. The overall harvest of salmonids could have been increased by at least 3% with the same amount of gillnet effort in the absence seal depredation. Individual losses were often much higher, depending on the area and season fished. In the following sections, fishery damages zones. will be presented for specific estuaries, seasons and Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay All Seasons, 1980- 1981. Proj ected losses from all subsamples i~ for 1980, and results appear in Tables of all salmon landed in Willapa of Grays and Willapa were totalled 11- 12 and Figures 19- 20. Overall, 6. 8% Bay were seal- damaged, including 9. 7% of chinooks and 9. 5% coho. chinooks had greater poundage and value than coho, nearly $47, 000 of the total $67, 000 in projected damages stemmed from chinook losses (Table of the 12) . Annual damage rates for Grays Harbor were higher (17% only chinook landed), but applied to a smaller volume of fish, dollar losses loss was Virtually all amounted to $9, 600 (Table 11). of the derived from chinook damages, as little information was coho and chum. colle~ted for did not cover the entire season, proj ections to the fishery were not made. Results from most 1981 Sampling periods in 1981 samples seemed comparable with 1980 results however (Table 13). The measured damage rate was higher in 1981 for chinook in Grays Harbor and for coho in Zone 2J, but both samples were small. Table 11. Proj ected fishery lo-sses from seal- damaged salmonids , Harbor , Zone 2B , 1980. Grays PROJECTED LOSSES KING COHO PERCENT OF FISHERY KING COHO TOTAL TOTAL FISH DAMAGED Unsalable Salable Total POUNDS LOST 319 171 319 237 11. 17. 12. 11. 7% 490 6514 556 6604 . $105 VALUE LOST $9486 $9591 P ROJ ECTE :J: '0" en 0 LOSSES PERCENT 1\1 FISHERY :t 2 (fJ LL~ unsalable sa a LL~ unsalable sa a z g :::J T- lO- :J - D.. Q. unsalable sa a e unsalable sa lable :J ~ ..J c:t en ..J c:t 0 unsalable sa a ,1 unsalable salable ..J c.? c.? ...J Figure 19. Prod ected fishery Harbor , Zone 2B , 1980. losses from seal- damaged salmon ids , Grays Table 12. Proj ected fishery Bay, 1980. KING COHO losses from seal- damaged salmon ids , Willapa PROJECTED LOSSES CHUM PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL KING COHO CHUM TOTAL FISH DAMAGED Unsalable Salable Total POUNDS LOST 1401 1541 501 3443 1793 928 645 220 721 2329 2186 5236 (thousands) VALUE LOST 28. $46. 7 14. 48. $4. $67. (thousands) $16. PROJECTED en LOSSES PERCENT III FISHERY :r: 2 en u.~ unsalable sa a '0 . LL~ un s a I a b1 e sa a z g ::J a.. unsalable salable :J - 10- a. "'-" unsalable sa a 2J III ::J ~ 12 - ..J ..J .. c:( 0 unsalable sa a Ie unsalable sa lable ..J ::J Figure 20. Proj ected fishery losse~; from seal-damaged salmonids , Bay, 1980. ~lillapa Table 13. 1980- 1981 comparisons of species, zone and source of sampled seal-damaged salmonids (by survey), Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Grays Harbor, Zone 2B, Weeks 29, 1980 1981 31, 33 dock # damaged chinooks # undamaged chinooks 41 (21. 1%) both 29 (39. 7%) total 173 field 17(30. 9%) 1980 1981 both 29 (39. 7%), total 129 Total chinooks 170 243 128 06, not Chi-square 07, 0:: significant Willa # damaged chinooks # undamaged chinooks 266 (6. 6%) , Zone 43 (5. 2G, Weeks 29, . 3342 (7 . 2%) 43 (5 . 6%) 6%) 309 3769 724 767 1 . 06, 4493 544 586 37, not Zone 2J, 724 767 1268 1353 Total chinooks 4035 4802 Chi-square not significant 37(12. 4%) 261 significant Week 39 14(40%) Zone 2G, Weeks 38173 # damaged coho # undamaged coho Total coho 136(9. 9%) 1243 11(21. 2%) 1504 1677 1379 298 Chi-square 72, not significant 62, po:: . Summer Seasons, 1980. Summer gillnet seasons Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay initially target not on (July- August) returning migrants, but on chinook salmon primarily of Columbia River ' origin Incoming tides bring schools of bait fish (Zook 1976). (anchovy and smelt) and set at predatory salmon into the entrances of both harbors. Gillnets, tide. the mouths, drift with the flood tide up the main channels. If fishing is good, drifts are made through slack water and into the first part of the ebb, to intercept salmon departing the bays on the Fishing success was low and sporadic landed on 12% in 1980. No salmon were of 700 trips sampled dockside in Willapa Bay, and 37% of 124 trips sampled dockside in Grays Harbor. It fishing hours in Willapa and took an average of 5. 6. 7 hours in Grays to make a single landing (sale) of salmon. Willapa Bay landings averaged only six for the month of July 1980 Grays sales per day of 2. 6 chinooks each, while the each. Harbor fleet averaged only four sales per day of two salmon These statistics improved considerably in August, as the onset of fall runs brought more consistent fishing. The Willapa Bay average for August 1980 was 50 daily landings of 8 chinook apiece, and for Grays Harbor, 10. 5 daily landings averaging 5 salmon each. Harbor seal damage rates to chinooks were extremely high in July, was averaging 77% of both fisheries. In some samples, the maj ority fishes caught were rendered unsalable, so that the several times the amount actually proj ected damage landed. This is reflected in Table in weekly damage rates greater than 100%. Damage rates (Table 15). remained over 20% in Grays Harbor throughout August, culminating in losses estimated at 34% of the entire summer fishery in Zone 2B As returning fall chinooks arrived at upbay areas of Willapa Bay (see maps, Figure 4 and Figure 21) in early August, initial damage rates in Zones 2J and 2K were also extreme. Over 300 fish per week were estimated damaged in Willapa in the first half of August (Table 14). Catches as well as the percent damaged declined in the last two weeks of this season. Overall, 12% of the summer fishery in Willapa Bay was impacted by harbor seal damage (Table 15). Table 14. Proj ected number of damaged chinooks per sampling period (Y), damage as percent of total sold (%), and cumulative total (l:), by zone 'and source of survey, Grays Harbor and damaged Willapa Bay, Summer , 1.980. JULY FI SHERY ZONE AND SAMPLE AUGUST Grays Harbor 2B dock 102 153 46. 217. 177 24. 330 152 20. 401 241 2B field 80. 42. 36. 22. 228 70. 469 342 955 153 Willapa Bay 204 307 2G dock 27. 3 500. 32. 102 78. 306 17. 613 542 1108 227 2G field 25. 542 819 Willapa Bay 2J dock 36. Willapa Bay 2K dock 18. 41. Table 15. Proj ected total of fishery damaged, number of seal- damaged chinooks and percent Harbor and Willapa Bay, Summer, Grays 1980. FI SHERY Grays Harbor SEVERITY OF DAMAGE PROJECTED NUMBER OF CHINOOKS PERCENT OF FISHERY 267 132 Unsalable Salable TOTAL 22. 11. 399 33. Willapa Bay Unsalab le Salable TOTAL 692 491 1183 12. PROJ ECTED N U M B E R 0 F CHIN FISH DAMAG 00 K unsalable unsal able salable PERCENT OF FISHERY ::J c:J salabl e 399 33. 1108 12 . 6 % 2 5 . 2% Figure 21. Proj ected total number of seal-damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged , by zones , Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Summer , 1980. The cumulative chinook losses proj ected and field estimates for Grays unsalable chinooks were predicted, or in Table 14 show that dock Harbor were very C6) . Sample results for salable chinooks differed, but not was much more complete 23- 24% of 265- 267 the total sold (Appendix From similar. significantly; for every marketable predicted that 1. salmon showing seal 2 chinooks were completely destroyed. sample in Zone 2G bites, it was In Willapa Bay, the dock (nearly half of the fishes sold were sampled dockside), 14). and also Of proj ected higher estimates than the field sample (Table the proj ected 1108 damaged chinooks, three:"'fifths were in the unsalable category and two- fifths were salable. Damages in other zones only of contributed an additional 76 fish to the total, most these salable (Figure 21). Summer season chinooks were worth about $35 apiece to the fisherman in Willapa Bay, and $28 in Grays Harbor. Willapa Bay gillnetters lost a proj ected $25, 000 in prediction for Grays seal damaged chinooks during this fishery. The Harbor was $9500. The impact on the average fisherman can be imagined by making use of some hypothetical of calculations from sample $17 per fishing hour from the sale of data. The fleet earned of (grossed) an average salmon, while the poundage value fish caught in nets which could not be sold due to seal damage amounted to $4 an hour lost income. * Fall Seasons, 1980 mid- October in Willapa Fall chinooks heavily in run from mid- August Grays through Harbor Bay, and (Zook 1976). Hatchery coho run through mid-November in Grays Harbor . from late September through mid- October, when they integrate with wild runs which peak between mid- November and coho runs are mid-December (Zook 1976). from Willapa Bay similar, but begin a week earlier and end by mid- November. Chum have constricted run timing, late October through *The overall impact on the profit/loss structure of the fishery (including such factors as trip expenses, capital investment, licenses, insurance, etc. ) was not investigated for this The interested reader is referred to Smith 1979 and Petry et 1980. report. al. mid-November in Grays and during the last three weeks Willapa (Zook 1976). of October in 1980. Dock samples were taken in Willapa Bay through the end of October Although open season continued throughout November in Zones 2G, 2H and 2J, no damage projections were made for this month. The 2700 salmon landed after October were also not included in annual summaries of damage to the fishery. Data from other seasons and areas collected the during " scratch fishing " would increase as conditions lead us to expect that damage rates catches dwindled, but neither the magnitude nor species affected are known. Dock and field samples were taken in Zone 2B of Grays Harbor during the first week of a three-week fall season. Projections were made for all damaged chinook but only for salable- damaged coho for this zone. Data were lacking to estimate chum salmon damage in the upbay Zones 2A, 2C and 2D (see losses, as well as the extent of map, Figure 3). Damage rates to all salmon species were high in Zones 2G, 2H and 2J during September (Table 16). It was estimated that more salmon were damaged in the last week of September (2105) than were damaged during the entire summer the Palix River October (Table 16). season. Damage rates declined thereafter except in loss was predicted for (Zone 2K), where most of the Fishermen there reported that harbor seal problems were acute when only a few boats were fishing in the narrow channel. through Chinooks sampled catches con t inued show damage mid- October. After this time, chinooks were rarely observed in Overall, 5. 4% of the fall chinook catch in catches. Grays Harbor and 7. 9% of Willapa Bay chinooks showed seal damage (Table 17). The damage rate was highest in Zone 2J. One-third of proj ected chinook losses originated there; all but 3% of the remainder for Willapa Bay stemmed from Zone 2G (Figure 22). chum salmon in Willapa Bay began to show seal damage September; this continued to be observed during the first week Coho and throughout the sampling period. Coho damage (9. 5% with of the total was more frequent than chinook damage, over 2100 fish fishery) affected Table 16. Proj ected number of damaged salmonids per sampling period damage as percent of total sold (%), and cumulative total by zone and source of survey, Grays Harbor and E), damaged ( Willapa Bay, Fall, 1980. FISHERY ZONE AND SAMPLE Grays Harbor 2B dock AUG SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 157 157 2B field 131 131 Willapa Bay 127 127 106 363 1904 564 155 2G dock 233 596 12. 2500 3064 3219 3278 2H dock 11. l:. 2J dock 10. 210 36. 289 181 22. 470 519 210 2K dock 11. 230 Table 17. Proj ected total FI SHERY SEVERITY GRAY S HARBOR Unsalab le Salah le number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent 1980. of fishery damaged, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Fall, PROJECTED NUMBER KING COHO CHUM TOTAL KING COHO CHUM TOTAL PERCENT OF FISHERY 105 157 1. 7% TOTAL WILLAP A BAY Unsalable 709 437 1146 1541 501 2751 1302 . 1. Salable TOTAL 645 220 721 2186 4053 PROJ ECTED FISH DAMAG NUMBER OF SALMONIDS unsalable salable PERCENT OF FISHERY t(::::::! unsala hie c:J salable 157 8% 3277 230 ---------0- ------00--0--'---00----_----00---- 11 . 09(, 517 11. Figure 22. Proj ected total number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged , by zones , Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Fall , 1980. (Table 17). bulk of Most of these fish were destroyed in were made during this the catches Zone 2G, where the period. Zone 2K had the highest coho damage rate; unsalable losses amounted to 16. 5% of what was caught and landed there (Appendix C4). Chum salmon were sampled at the peak of their run in Willapa. was low with other fisheries (2. 4%) . proj ections when catches were high, percent damage (730) than other species, but variability within this sample was high (Appendix C4). showed fewer chums damaged The Grays Harbor chum season was not set u~til initial Indian and were not WDF. Consequently, non- Indian catches were analysed time sample this Zone the one- day opening informed salable fishery. The coho sample showed highly variable amount s Therefore, only coho were samp led. unsalab le damage, and Grays season losses conservative estimate of fall could be made for Harbor (Table 17). Columbia River All Seasons, Overall, 3. 3% 1980- 1981. The total of proj ected losses for all Columbia River subsamples in 1980 is shown in Table 18 and Figure 23. of the annual salmon landings in the lower river were damaged by pinnipeds (mostly harbor seals). This represented a loss of 2% of gross earnings for fishermen. Coho were most heavily impacted; damage loss 3% were damaged, and 3. 5% of coho values were lost. This resulted in $40, 200 of lost income during fall for the entire year. seasons, out of a $60, 000 A slightly higher was in losses to dollar loss was sustained in 1981. The total estimate was $61, 500, of which $39, 800 was in coho losses and $21, 500 greater chinooks (Table 19). This however represented a much percentage of catches and income (i. e., higher damage rates) was than 1980. Over 12% of the year t s salmon harvest in the lower river damaged by pinnipeds, including 14. 3% of coho, 6. 2% of chinooks, 8% of chums. and The income of area fishermen was reduced by 6. 5% for the year and by 10. 6% for the fall coho season (Table 19). Table 18. proj ected fishery KING losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries , 1980. PROJECTED LOSSES COHO PERCENT OF FISHERY KING COHO TOTAL TOTAL FISH DAMAGED Unsalable Salable Total POUNDS LOST 794 4695 1001 5489 1803 802 1596 5696 7292 (thousands) VALUE LOST 17. 35. $40. 53. $60. thousands) $19. PROJECTED J: g en 0 LOSS ES PERCENT OF FISHERY (II u.. unsalable sa a u.. unsalable ::J ~ ::J 0.. unsalable 0.. unsalable salable salable ::J ~ ..J ~ ::J ..J 30- c( unsalable salable unsalable salable ..J ..J 23. Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged salmonids Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries , 1980. Figure Table Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged Columbia River and Terminal Fisperies , 1981. PROJECTED LOSSES KING COHO CHUM 19. salmonids PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL KING COHO CHUM TOTAL FISH DAMAGED Unsalable Salable Total POUNDS LOST 60S 4164 2029 6193 4784 2304 7088 275 880 14. 10. 10. 12. 3 % (thousands) 14. 34. $39. $0. 49. $61. VALUE LOST (thousands) $21. P ROJ ECTE J: g LOSS ES PERCENT :r: en FISHERY 10 - CJ) 0 864- LL~ unsalable sa a u.~ unsalable salable 2246- Z g :J :J - Q. unsalable salable unsalable sa a :J ~ :J ~ ..J 40- ..J ~ (It ct c:( 0 unsalable sa a Ie unsalable salable ..J c:( :J: Figure 24. Proj ected fishery losses from pinniped- damaged Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries , 1981. salmonids The statistical significance two years ' these increases, and other comparisons between the for specific seasons. fisheries, will be presented below Winter Seasons, 1980- 1982. Winter gillnet seasons target on spring chinook, opening at the end of February so as to harvest the early run (Galbreath 1966) bound for hatcheries and spawning grounds on the Willamette and Cowlitz Rivers (ODFW /WDF 1979). The fishery is managed to protect the electric dams, later spring runs which have been impacted by hydro- and also to reserve 75% of the harvestable lower-rivet 1981). surplus for sport fisheries (Columbia River Fisheries Council These limitations February). Although restricted the fishery to 24 hours in 1980 (28 our sampling procedures were first tested this fishermen and sampled 61% of the 87 season, we interviewed 53% of the chinooks landed in Zone 1. Twenty percent of landings and 15% of the 86 Cl). chinooks sold in Zone 2 were sampled dockside, and 5% of landings (9% of fish) were in the field sample in Zone 2 (Appendix Damage rates were high: 11. 5% in the Zone in the Zone 2 field fish 1 dock sample, and 12. sample (Appendix C4). However, this only proj ects C4). to 10 and 11 respectively (Appendix season losses of $400 in Zone 1. If Zone 2 losses are proj ected from added. If dock and This represents total field data only, an additional $600 would be field samples are combined, four fish would be proj ected lost in Zone (Figure 25), worth $200. The 1981 winter season was open for seven days February and the first week of March. Zone 1made in the last week of landings of 6400 chinooks were valued at $408, 200. Three- fourths of these landings were Zone and most marine mamma 1 interactions were also concentrated in Zone The dock unsalable) to dockside in Zone 2, damaged by but 4. 2% of salmon sampled in the field were pinnipeds. Since the field sample was of adequate size this zone revealed chinooks (Figure 25). No damaged samp le damage fish (mostly were sampled Table 20. Proj ected total number of pinniped-damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River t Winter, 1980- 1982. PROJECTED YEAR SEVERITY OF DAMAGE NUMBER OF CHINOOKS PERCENT OF FISHERY 1980 Unsalable Salable Total Unsalable Salable Total Unsalable Salable Total 191 100 291 1981 1982 113 Table 21. 1981- 1982 comparison of sampled pinniped- damaged spring chinooks, Winter Season, Columbia River Zone 1981 1982 dock # damaged chinooks dock 18 (3. total 6%) 1981 1982 fie ld 16 (7 . 7%) fie ld 1(2. 6%) total 229 26(4. 5%) # undamaged chinooks 547 Total chinooks 477 1024 1068 192 573 495 208 1 . 246 Chi-square 55, not significant 28, not significant PROJ ECTED FISH DAMAG E NUMBER OF CHINOOKS unsalable ~. salable PERCENT OF FISHERY unsal able c:J salable 1 - 1980 11. 1 - 1981 232 1 - 1982 113 2 - 1980 2 - 1981 Figure 25. Proj ected total number of pinniped~damaged chinooks and percent of fishery damaged , by zones , Columbia River , Winter , 1980- 1982. (Appendix Cl), the proj ection of 21 unsalable and 38 salable chinooks to was accepted. Added valued at $13, 232 Zone 1 fish (Figure 25), in total damages 100 were proj ected , nearly all in the unsalable category. Very similar fishery conditions prevailed to be the 1982 winter from season. Harbor arrival of the seals and California sea lions were observed in widely distributed upriver pre-season surveys annual smelt run until two weeks before the time of the opening. during Fishing commenced for two 4- day periods on 24 February. Average catches (1350 salmon landed per the first 24 day) were obtained hours. Thereafter, catches fell to only 500- 700 per day. Fishermen held that river conditions (rough bar , high river flows, and alkaline run-off) kept fish from entering the river until conditions improved the last day of the season. Hence most fishing effort was concentrated near the mouth, and most of the chinooks (3200 in all) were landed in Zone 1 and lower Zone the dock sample (Figure 25) . Neither sample produced damage rates 1981 (Table 21) . significantly different from those obtained lower catches, and resulting However, these rates were applied Damage to 3. 6% of chinooks landed in Zone 1 was observed in projections were lower damage was observed in than in 1981. Furthermore, no marine mammal Zone 2 in 1982. The total estimate was 113 damaged chinooks valued at $5, 000. Almost apiece. all of this loss stemmed from unsalable fish worth over $64 Early Fall Season, 1980 Fall chinook season was opened for hours (3 September 1980) in Zone 1 only, to minimize impact on upriver bright chinooks. Fishing effort was extremely intense, with 1, 082 landings at an average of 22 hours this fished. The run was at its peak at time, and 58, 000 chinooks worth over 1. 2 million dollars were landed. Thirteen percent of over the fishermen were interviewed dockside, and 12, 300 chinooks (21% of the catch) were sampled (Appendix Cl). Total chinook damage was 1%, and over half of this was salable (Table 22) . Fishermen, some of whom had a ton of salmon in their boats, were little concerned about harbor seal problems. The 266 unsalable chinooks proj ected from dock data (Table 22) losses $6), nevertheless represented a third of total Columbia River chinook for the entire year. Even though the percent of the average fisherman income lost to seal damage was very small (half of one percent, or these accumulated unsalable chinooks). to fishery losses of $6, 780 ($5, 760 of this Only one of the 1478 coho sampled was damaged. Fall chinook season was closed in 1981. A 12- hour opening in 1982 (which was not sampled) produced over a million pounds landed in Oregon. Table 22. Proj ected total SEVERITY OF DAMAGE number of seal- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River Zone 1, Early Fall, 1980. PROJECTED NUMBER KING COHO TOTAL PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL COHO KING Unsalable Salab le 266 314 266 319 685 Total 680 Mainstem Columbia River target species managemen t insofar gillnet fisheries are only selective for as mesh size and season openings can resul t controlled. To prevent the incidental catch of depleted races of salmon (most importantly the upper Columbia and Snake River " bright " chinook), restrictions escapement large numbers harvestable surplus hatchery fish beyond the fishery area. Attempts to target harvest on these runs have recently been focused on opening seasons within tributaries, the so-called terminal area for the run. Youngs Bay Terminal Fishery Columbia below the City of Youngs Bay, Oregon, opens to the; Astoria (see maps, Figs. and 26). Commercial gillnetting of surplus hatchery coho first began here in 1962 (Weiss 1966). In the 1980 season (24 August to 31 October), 12, 500 coho and 5, 900 chinooks were landed. Despite longer openings in 1981 (16 August to 17 November), fewer fish were caught: 8, 000 coho, 4, 700 chinooks and 200 chum. Effort varied from an average of 40 landings per day in August and September to less than one in November, as most gillnetters participated in other fall openings. According to fishermen, harbor seals did not interact with this fishery five years ago. Many respondants fishing the upper bay (to six miles above the old highway bridge) remarked to interviewers that they had never before seen seals so far upriver. Perceived interactions were reported with virtually every harbor seal sighting, resulting in fish mid- October) were damage or seal harassment in 17- 19% of trips sampled per year. The first two months of the fishery (through sampled in 1980, but damaged fish were not observed in the dock sample beyond mid- September. A field survey in the first week of October sampled salable- damaged coho. (Only one other field sample was made, during opening week. Combining dock and field-sampled salmonids, a stable damage rate of 4% of fishes landed was proj ected until October September accounted for over one-third of the (Table 23) with one exception. An extremely high damage rate (8. 8%) the first week of proj ected total losses for the season (Table 23). PROJECTED FISH DAMAGE NUMBER OF SALMONIDS salable unsalable . PERCENT OF FISHERY aIab1e 1;:::::,1 uns t:::J sa lab 1 - 1980 ,585 7 - 1980 476 7% 7 - 1981 399 5% " 1 K - 1980 109 1 K - 1981 246 0% 1W 1980 Figure 26. Proj ected total number of seal-damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged , Columbia River Early Fall Season (Zone ' 1), Youngs Bay (Zone 7), Grays Bay (Zone 1K), and Skamokowa/Elokomin (Zone 1 W) Terminal Fisheries , 1980- 1981. Table 23. Proj ected number 1980. FISHERY ZONE AND SAMPLE of damaged salmonids per sampling period (Y), damage as percent of total sold (%), and cumulative total damaged (~I), by zone and source of survey, Columbia River and Terminal Fisheries, FEB AUG SEPTEMBER OCTOBER Columbia 1 dock 585 1562 1562 988 1806 11. 2550 2233 2233 4356 2850 1 field 806 5083 753 753 Columbia 2 dock 2 field Youngs Bay 7 both 315 315 1288 1603 102* 102 178 157* 319 280 33* 110 476 476 Grays Bay 77* lK both Skamokawa Elokoman 22* lI/W both *Projected from combined dock and field data. 309 damaged salmonids proj ected from dock sample data (Appendix C4) could be increased by 157 salable coho and 10 damaged chinooks if field data were included (Table 24). This would raise Thus the proj ected dollar valuab le . losses from $3, 680 to $4, 640. About 90% of these losses stemmed from chinook taken early in the season when this species was more A similar time period was sampled more chinooks were proj ected damaged. $4, 890 in 1981, almost entirely from increasing in Youngs Bay. dockside in 1981. Damage rates for chinook (5. 5%, Table 24) were significantly higher (Table 25) and 59 losses were estimated at chinooks averaging 57(;. a pound. Dollar Thus our data support the fishermen s contention that seal problems are Grays Bay Terminal Fishery Grays Bay forms the estuary of the Grays and Deep Rivers in Washington, and the fishing area is northeast of the Zone 2 boundary (see maps, Figs. 2 and 26). Gillnetting during the last three weeks of August was first opened in 1980 to target on hatchery chinooks. After the first WDF because so many fishing week, an emergency stocks. closure was enacted by that they suspected an chinooks were landed (5, 000) Coho impact on upriver Columbia Fishing was re-opened the final week, when 180 chinooks were landed. fishery. (760) were also taken by this Small numbers of harbor seals have occasionally been observed during this study hauled out on sand bars at the mouth of Grays Bay, including Fishermen reported that seals four sighted when five boats were fishing. moved into the bay at high tide, but it seemed most of the damage occured at night. Only chinook were damaged. All of the unsalable damage was sampled dockside during the first week. Salable- damaged final week. For proj ecting total chinooks were only sampled in the field during the samples were combined for this reason, the two damages throughout the season. Both methods of proj ection for unsalable chinooks produced the same Table 24. Proj ected total 1980- 1981. FI SHERY number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River Terminal Fisheries, & YEAR Youngs Bay SEVERITY OF DAMAGE Unsalab le PROJECTED NUMBER TOTAL COHO KING PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL KING COHO 212 274 202 202 1980 Salable Total Unsalable Salable Total 212 264 476 Grays Bay 1980 109 109 Skamokawa/ Elokoman 1980 Youngs Bay Unsalable Salab le Total Unsalab le 304 333 100 146 246 334 399 100 146 246 1981 Salable Total Unsalable Salab le Grays Bay 1981 Total Table 25. 1980- 1981 comparison of sampled pinniped- damaged salmonids by ecies, Youngs Bay and Grays Bay Terminal Fisheries. Entire 1980 YOUNGS BAY # damaged chinooks # undamaged chinooks Total chinooks Sample, Zone 7 1981 Zone 7, Weeks 341980 1981 both 21(3. 2%) 628 649 dock 23 (8. Total 6%) both 17 (3 . 4%) dock 23 (8. Total 5%) 246 269 874 918 483 500 248 271 731 771 Chi-square # damaged coho # undamaged coho Total coho 11. 77, 25, 8 (2. 2 (1. Chi-square GRAYS BAY 2%) 9%) 7%) 2(1. 8%) 637 109 362 102 111 648not significant 370 104 02, not significant 01, 11(1. 746 759 464 474 # damaged chinooks # undamaged chinooks Total chinooks 1980 1981 1981 1980Zone lK Total fieldZone lK Total field both field 1(4. 8%) 7(6. 5%) 5(1. 7%) 7(6. 8%) Chi-square 293 103 298 96 9, p ~ . 389 401 20 100 21 107 116 124 12, not significant estimate: 76- 77 fish (Appendix C4). These losses were valued at $2, 170. An additional 33 salable- damaged chinooks were proj ected combined sample (Table from the 24). The damage rate for chinooks increased in 1981 to 7% Although still highly variable, field data indicated (Table 25). 100 chinooks (worth in poundage $3, 200) were unsalable and 146 chinooks (worth $640 were damaged but salab le . Skamokawa/Elokomin Terminal the town of Skamokawa in losses) Fisheries. Three small waterways near Washington (see map, Figure 26) were opened for chinook gillnetting during the last three weeks of August in 1980 and 1981. Although the drainages were managed separately by WDF, due their close the 4, 880 proximity they were combined in our analysis to increase overall sample size. Most sampling was of Elokomin Slough, where 90% of chinooks landed were caught. Fishermen in 1980 reported seeing from 1- 3 harbor seals in the water near both areas, , but no chinooks and coho were before they were active interactions occurred. Salable- damaged gillnetted, but these may have been damaged caught. (Free-swimming salmonids often return damaged to the Beaver Creek hatchery off the Elokomin, as discussed in a later section. ) Fish damage rates were low and variable fish worth $111 in poundage losses were (Appendix C4). Thirty-six proj ected from the dock sample, 24. and 50 chinooks ($188) were predicted from the field sample (Appendix C4) . The combined estimate of 50 salable fish is given in Table Other Washington Terminal Fisheries Fishermen interviews resulted in no marine mammal reports in 1980 fisheries above Longview, Washington (Cowlitz River and Camas Slough). further. These fisheries were not sampled Late Fall Seasons, 1980- 1981 Late fall gillnet season was open for coho four days a week from 28 September- 16 October 1980. Effort averaged hours fishing time per trip. Coho landings in this area totalled 107, 000 fish, with the maj ority landed in Zone 1. Chinook (13, 000) were also caught. The coho were worth over $8 apiece and the chinooks over $21. 50. 185 trips/day in Zone 1 and 118 in Zone 2, at 7 The fish damage rate (caused principally by harbor seals, although some California sea lions were present) but decreased with was fairly time (Table 23) distance upriver (Figure 27). map, Figure 2). stable over damage was reported above the estuary in , Zone 3 (see In the dockside sample chinooks were damaged damaged coho were zones, 4. 4% of coho and 3% of (Appendix C4). This proj ects to 4, 700 coho and for both 390 chinooks. Sixty percent of damaged chinooks and three- fourths of salable. Field data for coho in Zone 2 showed 6. 9% damage, or 1470 unsalable and 100 salable damaged fish (Appendix C4). Since the field coho sample in Zone 2 was twice as large as the dock sample (Appendix Cl), the field projection of $12, 100 in raised the This proj ection for damaged coho to 5. 3% of those landed (Table as the this with the dock projections for Zone 1 ($28, 000) and coho losses was taken estimate. 26). Combining chinook losses ($5, 600), for three- fourths of the season total was close to $45, 800. Thus (Table the fall fishery was the most expensive season for fish loss, accounting the 1980 Columbia River total of $60, 000 18) . The coho season in 1981 opened 27 September and extended four weeks longer, through 12 November. Three or four days fishing time a week was allowed. Many fishermen and biologists believed that the late opening, coupled with ~ainy weather conditions, allowed the bulk of pass through the estuary before the season the run to. began. Opening catches were light (around three coho per boat), and many fishermen holding Willapa Bay permits removed their boats from the fishery. Others changed to catches sturgeon nets and fished these exclusively (allowing most coho to pass through the large~ mesh). The only consistently larger salmon PROJ ECTED FISH DAMAG E NUMBER OF SALMONIDS unsalable salable PERCENT OF FISHERY ~:::::::::1 unsalable c::J salable 1 - 1980 4357 4% - 1 - 1981 1454 16 . 0 2 - 1980 1601 2 - 1981 4688 14. Figure 27. Proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged , by zones , Columbia River , Late Fall , 1980- 1981. 100 Table 26. Proj ected total number of pinniped- damaged salmonids and percent of fishery damaged, Columbia River, Late Fall, 1980- 1981. YEAR SEVERITY OF DAMAGE PROJECTED NUMBER KING COHO CHUM PERCENT OF FISHERY TOTAL KING COHO CHUM TOTAL 1980 Unsalable Salab le 227 4695 942 4922 1036 Total 1981 Unsalab le 321 5637 5958 4134 1993 4149 1993 10. Salable Total 6127 6142 15. 13. Table 27. 1980- 1981 comparison Late Fall Seasons. 1981 of sampled pinniped- damaged Zone 1, Weeks 40- coho, Columbia River, 1982 dock II dock total 520 8581 9101 field 305(6. 8%) 4154 4459 1981 field 8(6. 2%) 120 128 1982 total 313 damaged coho 459 (5. 3%) 61(15. 6%) 330 391 II undamaged coho 8251 4272 4587 Total coho 8710 Chi-square II 74. 14, 07, not significant 6 (5 . 1%) damaged coho 35(1. 9%) 1790 1825 Zone 2, Weeks 40141(3. 8%) 1902 1943 65 (8. 6%) 206 /I undamaged coho 112 118 3559 689 754 4248 4454 Total coho 3700 Chi-square 35, 32. 85, 101 were made in landing) . main channel drifts in Zone (around 14- 17 coho per Final coho landings were under 40, 000 fish, four- fifths of which were landed in Zone these zones for 1980. 2. This was only 37% of the total harvest in conditions, damage rates were As expected under " scratch fishing significantly higher (Table 1 (dock sample) and 14. 8% 27). Sixteen percent of coho landed in Zone in Zone 2 (field sample) were damaged by seals (Appendix C4). Again using the larger field sample, this proj ected to 134 unsalable and 1, 993 salable damaged coho, worth $39, 50'0. An additional $135 was predicted for unsalable chum salmon damaged in Zone No damaged chinooks were sampled. Even without chinook losses, fish value lost in 1981 from pinniped This season of $61, 000 damages approached that proj ected for fall of 1980. * losses accounted for 64. % of the projected total for 1981 (Table 19). *The impact of this loss on the fisherman was further heightened by other (non-related) factors. The value of the fall fishery was 1980 season, while expenses were higher due to $ 7 30, 000 less than more days fished. the 102 Gear Damage The causes gear damage from interviews stemmed fishing operation. five maj or gillnetters during sources including marine mammals. reported These are listed below with an indication of how they impacted the Snags tears in the far the most common cause damage, snagg ing submerged stumps and logs usually resulted in lead line breaks plus mesh. The lead line had to be lashed together before the net could on the dock. be used again, or further web damage would result. The fisherman could make temporary repairs while aboard the boat or Backlash. If net webbing looped around corks and was caught in folds on the reel during net setting, or if too much tension was applied during net retrieval, the resulting strain would snap meshes loose from their hanging at the corkline. Webbing damaged by backlash" also had to be immediately rehung, or it would worsen on the next set and retrieval. Boats and buoys While uncommon, serious gear damage resulted from catching the gillnet in one own or another propeller (which tugs usually disabled the vessel as well), or by wrapping a buoy during a drift. Such accidents occurred most often at night, while the gillnetter was asleep or unobservent. (Large freighters and made little effort to avoid gillnets in their path. In most of these cases (plus instances when a fishing vessel was endangered by breaking waves on the beach or bar), the net was cut loose and sometimes sacrificed. Lost fishing time (or at least reduced effort due to fishing a shorter remnant of net) nearly always resulted from these accidents. Fish Removal. When ungilling a large or tangled fish, the fisherman often cut one several meshes catches of sturgeon Acipenser Large ) or spiny dogfish shark Squalus facilitate removal. left the net riddled with these one- foot-square holes. Gillnetters claimed that harbor seals similarly tore meshes when removing large salmon, and that California sea lions would bite a salmon through the webbing and make a larger hole. Such damage 103 generally accumulated until the season closed, salmon. progressi vely reducing the efficiency of the net to catch Marine mammal entanglements The most severe gear damage caused by marine mammals occurred when the animals broke through a gillnet or entangled to the point where they had to be cut out. Behaviorial gillnet differences between species resulted in various amounts of damage. Gray whales One gray whale reportedly swam through a at the Columbia River mouth in February of 1981, destroying a 30- fathotU panel. California sea lions. Sea ions are capable In many breaking through a taut gillnet, and seem inclined to do so rather than swim over or around a net in their path. instances, appeared to be travelling, or chasing a school of smelt, rather than Occasionally, individual sea targeting on gillnetted salmon. fishermen reported that the sea lions causing damage lions were seen to swim back and forth through a net, creating multiple holes. Such holes reduce fishing efficiency, and are usually patched during weekend closures or at the end of a winter season. Sea lions mostly entangled in the heavy twine hangings at the corkline leadline. In their struggles free or to themselves they may rip quantities of mesh and/or create a tangle by rolling. Harbor seals sea lions. Smaller seals can entangle in the gillnet mesh itself, where they cause damages similar to those described for Unless they break free, or roll out of the net as it is being picked, entangled harbor seals usually must be cut out of many wraps of gillnet. In such cases, the damaged mesh is usually trimmed away, and a replacement panel of webbing spliced in and hung between the original lines. Since repairing gear damage and replacing nets is a routine cost of doing business for gillnetters, we did not compute the value of damages in our sample unless caused by marine mammals. Steve Warner, commercial net mender in Astoria, estimates that gillnetters normally expend $200 to mend an average season wear and tear (pers. comm. 104 ) . new or replacement gillnet incorporates $2500 worth of large mesh chinook web or $1600 - $2000 worth of lighter coho mesh Astoria Marine (pers. comm., Dick Kelley, $10 per fathom to Supply). Thus major repairs cost $8 - replace webbing, plus $1. 50/fm in , labor (pers. comm., S. Warner). Instead, the rate and proj ected total incidence of gear damage was computed to compare marine mammal causes and other causes (Appendix C5). Overall, we proj ected that 550 cases of marine matnnlal damage and 1617 cases from other causes occurred in 1980. There were only two fishing areas where marine mammal-caused gear damage was more frequent than other types of gillnet damage: Zone 2B in (Figures 28 and 29). Grays Harbor and Zone 2 in the Columbia River all other zones, marine mammals caused less gear damage than was attributed to other causes. C5). No marine mammal damages were reported from terminal fishery areas in Washington, where damage from other causes was very high (Appendix Gear damage rates from harbor seals were highest in fisheries at the mouths of Grays Harbor of 1980; Figure (25. 7 cases per 1000 fishing hours in the - summer 28) and the Columbia River (21. 4 cases/l000 hours in the fall of 1981; Appendix C5). Most of these were entanglements in which the seal had to be cut out of the net. In the winter of 1982, California sea lions, combined with harbor seals, drove the damage rate up to 31. 2/1000 hours in the lower Columbia (Figure 29). In most of these incidents sea lions broke through the nets. The greatest monetary i' losses predicted in 1980 were accumulated during fall seasons in Willapa Bay and the Columbia River (both roughly $2, 000; Appendix C6). (No projection was made for the fall season in The estimated 1980 study area total was $4880 (Table 28). Grays Harbor. This figure was met and surpassed during the opening weeks of 1981 winter season on the the Columbia. Sea lions, entangled harbor seals, and gray whales created large holes in nets that averaged over hole, for combined fishery losses of over $8, 000 in eight $50 per days. Columbia River fall season losses in season extended four 1981 were also up $1, 600 from 1980, in a weeks longer. Damage worth $1, 200 was predicted 105 GEAR DAMAGE RATE PER 1000 HOURS Seal - caused CJ Other 25. =:J cause 16. 33. 35. 11. Rates of gillnet gear damage ' from marine mammals and other causes by zone , Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, 1980. Figure 28. 106 GEAR DAMAGE RATE PER 1000 HOURS 1 - CJ Other Marine mammal - caused cause 1980 16. 1 - 1981 15. 20. 1 - 1982 31. 46. 2 -1980 13. -1981 -1982 40. 7 - 1,980 14. 7 - 1981 20. Figure 29. Rates of gillnet gear damage from marine mammals and other causes Columbia River (Zones 1- 2) and Youngs Bay rerminal Fishery (Zone 7), 1980- 1982. 107 from harbor seal entanglements in Youngs Bay, where none was sampled in 1980. The estimated annual losses for only the Columbia system totaled nearly $13, 000 in 1982 (Table 28). in Seal and sea lion damages the winter of 1982, although more frequent, resulted in fewer holes per net and a smaller amount of gear destroyed. The under $1, 300. projection for this one season sampled in 1982 was just Table 28. Proj ected incidence and value of gillnet gear damage caused by marine mammals, by fishery, zone and season, 1980- 1982. PROJECTED INCIDENCE FISHERY ZONE SEASON (S) VAL UE Grays Harbor Summer 1980 Summer, Fall 1980 Fall 1980 Fall 1980 Fall 1980 TOTAL 238 Willapa Bay 244 $ 2476 Willapa Bay Columbia River 1980 Winter, Early & Late Fall 1980 Winter, Fall 1980 282 201 $ 2668 $ 1674 300 227 $ 1974 $ 4880 Columbia River STUDY AREA TOTAL TOTAL 1980 1980 550 Columbia River Winter, Fall 1981 Winter, Fall 1981 Youngs Bay 1981 TOTAL 290 238 $ 8933 $ 2710 $ 1296 Columbia River 1981 576 $12939 Columbia River Winter 1982 $ 1095 Winter 1982 TOTAL 172 Columbia River Winter 1982 113 $1267 108 Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Contrary to our original supposition, reported to dockside interviewers than large enough sample sizes, dock and incidental takes were field samplers. However, with more field proj ections were remarkably similar (Appendix the larger sample Table 29. C7). For this reason, the projection resulting from of fishing effort was taken as the estimate shown in Harbor seal entanglement and kill rates were - extremely high Grays Harbor (25/1000 (56/1000 hours) (Figure hours), as were harassment rates in Willapa Bay 30). From 2- 4% of the observed seal populations in Grays or Willapa were taken by entanglement or by killing In both areas, harbor seals reached peak population (Table 30). densities during summer and early fall gillnet seasons, and the vast maj ority of study area pups were born there just prior to the season opening. Many of the seals taken were pups or Harbor Seals, juveniles (see " Biological . On one occasion, a Analysis of Gillnet- killed while the pup was I\ 209). mother/pup pair was observed to become entangled; the adult escaped 1980. The killed. Only 1 of 17 entangled seals (6%) sampled by interview in Grays Harbor escaped or was released, whereas 41% escaped death in Willapa Bay and the rest of the study area in remainder drowned (asphyxiated) or were shot or clubbed to death. of non-entangled seals were also reported by fishermen, and proj ected into the totals shown in Table 29. The Direct kills estimate of total take was 335 harbor seals taken by killing estimate, made in all three bays in 1980. The 1981 for the Columbia River season. only, was 334 harbor seals (Table 29) taken over a longer High-risk fishing areas for seal entanglement were located adjacent to haulouts. The only instances during summer seasons where 3- 4 seals entangled and drowned during one trip (2 interviews) occurred off Sand Island haulout in Grays the Harbor. During the 1982 winter season in the Columbia, 70% of all harbor seal deaths (11 of 16 sampled) took Taylor Sands place in the Washington channel adj oining Desdemona and 109 INCIDENTAL TAKE RATE PER 1000 HOURS ENTANGLED KILLED ::::4 HARASSED 25. 33. 28. 33. 37. 67. :::1 Rates of incidental take of harbor seals , by zone and category of take Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, 1980. Figure 30. 110 INCIDENTAL TAKE RATE PER 1000 HOURS ENTANGLED KILLED ED HARASSED 1 - 1980 17. 1 - 1981 70. co:::':':',::':::::::'::::::::,::':::':',:::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::",:::,:::::::::,::,,::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::'::,::::::::::::::: :":::;:::':,::::,:::::::::::::,:,::;::::::::,:::::,co::::::,:" 2 - 1980 3. 2 - 1981 47. 1980 7 - 10. 1981 7 - Rates of incidental take of harbor seals , by category of take Columbia River (Zones 1- 2) and Youngs Bay Terminal Fishery (Zone 7), 1980-1981. Figure 31. 111 Table 29. Annual summaries of incidental take of marine mammals in gillnet (by estuary, year and type of take), study area, 1980- 1982. fisheries PROJECTED 1 NUMBER ENTANGLED NUMBER NUMBER YEAR AREA SPECIES KILLED HARASSED MINIMUM TOTAL TAKEN 1980 Grays Harbor harbor seal northern sea lion 3 harbor ~eal 147 1980 1980 Willapa Bay 1754 193 1823 1121 Columbia harbor seal California sea lion 928 River 1980 TOTAL STUDY AREA harbor seal Ca~ifQrnia sea lion 232 335 2756 3091 northern sea lion 1981 Columbia harbor seal California sea lion 349 334 2477 2811 135 River 432 Cal i f ornia gray whale 1982 Columbia River (winter season harbor seal California sea lion 210 210 184 394 only) Take proj ected by season and zone from dockside sample data unless , field of fishing effort was larger (see Appendix C7). Minimum total taken is sum of # killed + # sample harassed. Not proj ected. 112 Table 30. Proj ected incidental observed populations take of pinnipeds in gillnet fisheries as a percentage of maximum (by ~pecies, area, season and type of take). NUMBER SEASON TYPE OF TAKE II PROJECTED TAKEN TAKEN PERCENT AREA (DATES) SPECIES PRESENT* Grays Harbor 7/6- 8/15/80 1921 harbor seal killed harassed entangled entangled 9/24- 10/18/80 460 harbor seal killed harassed entangled 950 Willapa Bay 7/6- 8/24/80 1638 harbor seal killed harassed entangled 58. 9/7- 10/31/80 491 harbor seal killed 1%' harassed 804 163. Columbia River 2/24- 3/3/81 harbor seal 898 entangled killed 596 10. harassed 231 25. 7% 8/17- 10/31/81 harbor seal killed 190 entangled 271 242 harassed entangled 2246 432 45. 40. 376. 227 . 2/24- 3/3/81 California sea lion killed 23. 7% harassed 47 . *Maximum aerial survey counts from Appendix B1. haulouts (see map, Fig. 12). All were entangled, and all drowned. One boat that continued to fish there took from 1- 3 seals per trip; all six were discovered dead also took harbor in the net upon retrieval. Only one damaged these takes. Fall fishermen and by in this area chinook was associated with seals by entanglement from hauled shooting. One daylight water after a entanglement resulted seals entering the fisherman set his net in front of the haulout. area in Willapa Bay was a fishing drift just south of the entrance shoals, where several hundred seals hauled out A similar problem during the summer. Nearly half of the incidental take by harassment for the summer of 1980 in Incidents were reported Willapa Bay involved this haulout group. to interviewers where fishermen either fired haulout. The illegally into the herd, or fired repeatedly at many seals that entered the water when the fisherman set his net adjacent to the proj ected take of summer 950 harbor seals (Table 30) represents over half the observed seal population in Willapa Bay harassed at some point during season (Table 30). Extremely high rates of California sea lion entanglement (17. 5 - 21/1000 hours) were observed in the lower Columbia during winter gillnet seasons (Figure 32). Multiple takes were common (63% of the sample) and the proj ected total of 432 entangled represents more than twice the maximum observed population (Table 30). Although each instance of a sea lion breaking through a net was counted as an incidental take, in fact the animals were rarely seriously entangled (14%) or killed (8%) by these encounters. Gear damage was of maj or concern to the gillnetters; 1981- but 42- 45 California sea lion deaths a year were proj ected from data (Table 29). 114 I NCIDENTAL TAKE RATE PER 1000 HOURS ENTANGLED KILLED ED HARASSED 1 - 1981 18. 1 - 1982 17. 2 - 1980 2 - 1981 21. Figure 32. Rates of incidental take of California sea lions , by zone and category of take , Columbia River , 1980- 1982. 115 DISCUSSION Suitability of the Methods The maj or drawback to the interview method is that the evidence accepted for fish and gear damage and incidental take is defined most conservatively. Only a damaged salmon carcass was counted as a lost Indirect evidence that additional predation occurred underwater was shown by the observation that a live fish pulled the corks down, a seal swam to that point on the net, and only a hole was left by the time fish. the fisherman got there. * This occurred frequently but could not be consistently quantified. The consequence is an underestimation (of unknown magnitude) of the impact marine mammals have on fisheries. This may also contribute to the extreme variability within damage samples. The probability that a seal will chew or tug, or that a fish will fall out completely or leave a jaw or gill plate ' in the net, is conceivably influenced by many unmeasured variables. As a relative measure of minimum losses, however, we found no fault other preferable with the interview method, and considered Personal communication with the logbooks) . approaches (such gillnetters was felt to enhance the accuracy and completeness of all reports. Especially valuable were contacts in the field for creating an This extended to dockside attitude of mutual trust and problem-solving. interviews, and even to first acquaintances when the reputation of the proj ect had preceded us. Positive results also included a larger collection of incidentally-taken harbor seals than anticipated, as fishermen and buyers would cal~ us on the radio or telephone to report them. *This is because conditions for observation (weather, illumination, observer on deck) were not standardized. It should be noted that a damaged salmon was accepted in gillnetter report Although the interviewer asked clarifying examining the questions about the fish species and severity of bites, it is possible that fisherman observations like the above, and also exaggerations, were estimates reported as damaged salmon. This would tend to somewhat, and also to increase variability. of catch. lieu raise loss 116 be considered between the two types of field surveys employed. In the early part of the study, a large and representative sample of field interviews was sought. In some areas Tradeoffs had to this was more practical larger sample sizes. to experience than dockside interviewing, and resulted in For example, in Zone on the Columbia River, equally likely Moreover, many landings were made to cash ports were far apart and local fishing drifts were not interactions. buyers operating from their own boats. The drawback of this type of field interview survey was that complete trips were not sampled. For this reason, sample. variances were computed (see p. 65) based on average catches rather than average fishery landings. The other type of field sample, where observers were placed aboard one gillnet boat for the duration was of the trip, lower sample sizes. judged cause-and-effect relationships such as harassment methods. the produced drastically superior for measuring efficacy of various seal In this case, however, each net set was considered one trial. The precision gained by sampling a complete trip (for proj ecting fishery losses) was off set by the small sample sizes obtainable for trips. Stratifying the samples into the smallest units supportable by our sampling effort (weeks) and fish landing records (zones) proved to be necessary. Proj ecting from proj ecting gear with fish the entire sample would have produced a biased result, plus variances larger than the values we were measuring. An additional measure of effort (hours fished) also proved necessary for damage and incidental take, as these were not correlated catches. Stratum results were informative in themselves, as they pointed out trends over time and between locations. Relationship of Fish Damage Rates to Salmon Catches Much of the discussion of fish damage rates presented above dealt with the distinction between percen t damage the fisherman (or Percent damage is fishery) and the projected number of damaged fish. 117 important to the fisherman, as it represents a portion of his This proportion may earnings. be extended to the fishery in terms of value so it helps us comprehend the importance of lost, the problem. The total number of fish lost also lends perspective. Fishery managers concerned with allocation and escapement should have a method of projecting the numbers lost to predation. The use of percent data alone can be misleading, as in the example given in Figure 33 below. The rate of harbor seal damage to the ODFW spring chinook test fishery at Woody Island* showed a significant linear increase over ten years (Figure 33-A). The catches, however, decreased significantly during this same period (Figure 33- B). In the test fishery, all of the damaged fishes were sampled directly. The absolute number of seal- damaged fishes showed no linear trend (Figure 33- C). It is obvious that percent damage is mathematically related catches because the total number of fish is used in the denominator of the equation to find the damage rate. An example Figure 34- of the " scratch fishing effect lowest. is demonstrated in the summer improved, Damage rates were high at the beginning of fishing period, when catches were As fishing success the damage rate dropped, until the run had peaked and begun to decline in the fall. mirror- image Then damage began to increase, finally fluctuating in near to the catches. A significant linear relationship and the number of between the sampled damage rate fish landed is graphed in Figure 34- Thus the scratch fishing effect first pointed shown to be an accurate explanation of out to us by fishermen, was damage trends. What is unknown at this time is how much of the residual variance is due to sampling error, and how much can be explained by seal behavior over time. *Data provided courtesy of Paul Hirose, ODFW. at River Mile 28 on the Columbia. Woody Island is located 118 5~3 . ' 0 '..:'I :'1 AGE F' E P 'l E A P '= w 4 ~3 'I 35 ~OODY 1:;- 1912-81 =0. 576 (I: .-J' ,I:" .-J' 2 r1 a:: ~ co (' oJ - 1~3 .:1 ..J 1:- f") (1'1 If) .:r' 11' ':r' I:::J t... CT't (I) 'J', IJ' ,:r' IJ', ,:r' IJ'I 8~3a 7130 :r: t-f SA L r't 0 t,~ I CATCH/'lEAF.: ~JOOD'l 'J. 1972-81 =0. 687 60 500 40' 3 ~1 l1.. U:: 200 100 (\J t... (I) If) '..D .:0 1"'J"t (1'. ':7', I=:;) I'(1') I'IJ", r-... 'J"t C1't .:r' (I) 1 0~) :r: DAMAGED ~l 0 0 0 ' t-f l1.. ISLAND 8ALt'10t,~ ' I lq7?- IDS =0. 046 8~) 6~) a:: a:: 2 (1 I::::) 1 ~3 Ii') 1'.... 1"- I:;:) 1'... 1"C1't r... C1't 1"- I'C1't I)) 'T. .J') IJ"I IJ) IJ) 'J", Figure 33. Ten- year trends in salmonid catches and seal damage , Woody Island Test Fishery, 1972 - 1981. ll9 Damage Catch tI.O "'-1 po- - 2 c:: :z: c.:J :IE ::E -..I CI: U') ClIO c::n C"'-.I c--..I '"'" 0 - f',/ r""') '"'" '"'" Lr') C'Y) f"') (T) c::n o M~ FISHING WE EKS , JULY 1 - OCT. 18 1980 A. RELATIONSHiP OF SALMON CATCH AND DAMAGE OVER TIME FOR CONTINUOUS SAMPLING PERIODS , ALL ZONES , 1980. 2 = 0. - -1 tI.C') a: -3 c:: c-5 SALMON CAUGHT ( fog) 8, RELATIONSHIP Figure 34. OF SALMON CATCH AND DAMAGE FOR ALL SAMPLING PERIODS AND ZONES 1980- WINTER 1981 Relationship of salmon catches and pinniped damage over time , all gillnet samples , 1980 -1981. 120 Relationship of Damage Rates to Pinniped Abundance and Distribution Damage rates most severe Willapa Bay also seem related to relative seal abundance. The rates were found in downbay. portions of Grays Harbor and during July (" scratch fishing conditions). This is also The maximum number of harbor seals in the study area the period when seals are moving into these areas for the breeding and molting seasons. can be counted in these two bays during the summer (see " Abundance and Distribution , above). Figure 35 shows the progression of damage rates through October in areas of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. As salmon runs increase in the mid- and lower Willapa areas in mid- August, damage rates decline there. Initial chinook runs into seals to feed from the Palix River (Zone 2K) apparently draw gillnets. In September, seal damage was most severe for coho in the Shoalwater Bay area (Zone 2J). chum runs are little impacted in the main By October, the large bay. But seals have dispersed by then from spending more the large haulouts used during molting. They may be the water, - time in hunting and feeding energy stores lost during the molt. It appears (from recover the Figure 35) that to insofar as seals prey on gillnetted salmonids during this month, they are taking them from the terminal areas of these runs. in Harbor seals begin to move into the Columbia the late fall shows (according to population and radiotelemetry data). Examination of the damage rates in early and late fq.ll fisheries (Figures 26 and 27) that th~ highest abundant, such rates are generally found where seals are relatively as in areas with maj or seal haulouts. Damage rates general. decrease with distance upstream, as does pinniped abundance in California sea lions are highest in the Columbia. More upriver haulouts are utilized by harbor seals during this season (Figure 36). Interactions with the 1982 winter gillnet fishery were most frequent near maj or In the winter, populations of harbor seals as well as haulouts of sea lions (area that VI in Figure 36) and harbor seals (areas I and II), and the main channel corridor upstream (area III). It can be seen from Figure even when few or 121 no fish are bitten ...... -AUGUST 1980 Target Species: Chinook JULY 1980 Target Species: Coho SEPTEMBER 1980 Target Sp!cies: OCTOBER 1980 Chum Target Species: Chinook Figure 35. KEY: PERCENT DAMAGE IN TOTAL CATCH- II None 0 00 EJ 1. 1-20 ~ 50 100 ~ 2. I....u) SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SALMONID DAMAGES IN GRAY S HARBOR 1980. BAY AND WILLAPA .... :;) :::::::: ----- ----- Key Behav lora I 1::::::::( f-' Interactions IV V,) III 446. 5 hours hours hours &V not sampled Fl Interactions wI Damage Damaged Chinooks MM-Caused Gear Damage :I: ..J ..J 0-----1- ..l damage 68 hours VII 46 hours Accidental Entanglements Harrassed no interaction 63 hours IV Fishing Are. Designations not sampled Seal Haulout 294 hours VIII Locations Figure 36. Geographic distribution of pinniped-gillnet fishery interactions (interaction rates per 100 hours, by category), Columbia River winter chinook season, 2/24 to Sample sizes are given for each area. 3/4/82. gillnets, behavorial interactions, seal entanglements, and/or harassment of animals can frequently occur in these high- density areas. Impact of Fisheries Interactions on Marine Mammals Only a small proportion of the harbor seals in a given area one time. This is demonstrated apparently interact with gillnets at any by low-tide interactions, when most fishing occurs and most of the seals are hauling out. For example, a maximum of nine seals were seen around the Woody Island test fishing vessel at observed hauled out in the Columbia the same time that 900 were estuary. Another indication that not all seals routinely prey from nets that proj ected fish losses divided by the number of seals present in the system is generally low. For example, in the Grays and Willapa summer fisheries where damage rates to fishermen were very high, the total number of salmon taken was fewer than the number of seals counted in one census. This wQuld not have allowed every seal to bite even one fish during the entire season. When proj ecting the average number salmon taken per seal, apparent. During fall seasons when the greatest number of salmon are bitten, counts of harbor seals on haulouts are low in all areas (see " Abundance and above). Average consumption rates (based on damaged Distribution however, an inverse relationship to seal abundance is salmon found in nets) were 0. 4 1981 Columbia fall fall season and 1. 6 fish/ seal/ day in the 1980 early fall Willapa and seasons, 1. 1 fish/seal/day in the 1980 Columbia late fish/ seal in the season. Three hypotheses might account for this trend: (1) A significant portion of the seal population is at sea or outside the study area during the fall, and the remaining seals are consuming salmon at their usual rate; is (2) significant portion of are artificially low; and/or the seal population in the counts estuaries but not hauling out during the fall, so our 124 (3) A significant portion rest of the of the seal population is in estuaries and rivers consuming salmon at a higher rate than is usual the year. did not produce clear-cut evidence to This study support one of these interpretations over the others. If there is a period when salmon are relatively more important to seals, however, we would hypothesize that it occurs during the fall dispersal of seals from haulouts and the fall spawning migrations of salmonids. If this is the case, the pattern was probably established long before there this area. were gillnet fisheries in the Individual seasons. seals might benefit physiologically from eating skin, fat and organs of prime chinooks as was observed during summer There was no evidence, however, that this is important to the majority of seals or that gillnet fisheries influence summer movements of seals into Grays the spring and Harbor and Willapa Bay. Instead, the high rates of interaction there were considered artifacts of the scratch fishing effect (low effort and low catch per effort) and the presence of nets in the vicinity of large concentrations of seals. Gillnets set at estuary mouths and shown to have the highest interaction adj acent to maj or haulouts were rates. It is suggested that they impact animals in excess of those attracted to the salmon. Harassment rates at the mouth of Willapa Bay and entanglement rates for seals in or these Grays Harbor and California sea lions at the mouth of the Columbia were considered high. No adverse effects on marine mammal populations haulout utilization patterns were observed to result from interactions, however. Interpretation of the higher incidental take rates observed in the during 1981 and 1982 (Tables 29~30) is more problematical. A greater percentage of the observed seal population seems to be affected, but since seal numbers here are lower than in other estuaries, the number of seals taken annually may be fairly constant. A proj ected 335 harbor seals were killed incidental Columbia River fisheries in 1980, and 334 in 1981. Forty- five 125 California sea lions were projected killed in 1981, and 42 in 1982 (Table 29). population counts of both these species increased during this Overall study. Some possible impacts of previous seal control programs on the (pers. and Columbia River are the reduction in pupping here since the 1950' s comm., W. Puustinen) and a temporary reduction in seal abundance distribution in the river (reported by Pearson and Verts in seals (if not their reoccupation presence grounds) has certainly been reestablished in the 1970). The previous pupping Columbia. Increasing pup counts have been noted annually in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay since 1975 (Table 7). It is probable that the present incidental take system permits greater survival of pups and/or pregnant females than did prior seal control programs. Impact of Marine Mammal Interactions on the Individual Fisherman Virtually no one depends on gillnet fishing in the Columbia River and adj acent waters for his total annual income as the limited seasons in recent years preclude this. Most gillnetters nature of participate in other fisheries, most significantly the herring roe and Alaskan salmon gillnet fisheries. Due to the sporadic individuals may depend on a good river fishing income, however, season to help them through improvements. certain months of the year, or to provide capital for gear In order to participate in this fishery (around 1100 individuals have permits) each must purchase and maintain a selection of specialized nets only. This investment is expected to return a profit, after such expenses as licenses, insurance, moorage, fuel, and crew shares have been paid. and a fishing vessel, many of which are used for this purpose The average any salmon. landing of salmon in 1980 was sold for $358. (The average income per trip was lower, as trips were made without catching The average was fairly consistent between seasons, since winter and summer chinook fisheries produced the low-volume higher- valued fish ($28-$65) than the high-volume coho and chum fisheries 126 ($7-$8). An exception was the 1980 early fall chinook season on the Columbia, where landings averaged reduces the average landing value for the rest $1224. Excluding of this one- day season 1980 to $274. Table 31 shows pinniped- the frequency of dollar losses per trip from area damaged salmonids in the study in 1980. trips. losses. Two-thirds of the trips experienced no losses, but this includes those that also earned no income (zero catches). Thus area fishermen had some demonstrable dollar loss due to seals on $50 - one of every three Chance s were 1 in 4 trips they would lose up to $50, and there was a 5% chance per trip that they would lose $100. The ceiling on trip losses seemed to be $200, although two interviews reported $400 Table 31. Frequency distribution pinniped- damaged (n=2522) . dollar losses per trip from of salmonids, all dockside interviews, 1980- DOLLAR LOSSES* PER TRIP $ 0 $10 Number $1049. 318 $5099. 133 $100199. $200 trips Percent 1705 307 trips Total dollar loss Percent 67 . 6% 12. $1535 12. 2%\ $38, 805 $9375 17 . $7240 $1035 dollar loss 65. 13. *Based on average season prices per fish, by species. whole fish prices. of salmonids valued at 15% **Based on frequency at midpoint of Salable- damaged $10 ranges. 127 The gillnetters were aware seals underwater. that for every damaged salmon they pulled up in their net, there could have been others that were eaten by Indeed, in some cases they raced the seals toward a freshly-netted salmon, and in some cases the fish was almost aboard when a seal surfaced next to the boat and pulled the salmon out of the rising net. considerable, especially marginal. Unlike the other frustrations facing the when fishing the competition with foreign fisheries, gillnetters ( such The frustration attending such losses is is trollers, Indian gillnetters, and sports fishermen for these stocks, and the mortality of salmonids at hydroelectric dams), the seal is damage on the spot and the individual responds to it directly. Also dealing causing frustrating is the memory that gillnetters once had options for with the seals (either by direct hunting or trapping, and/ or by paying a license surcharge to employ a government seal control agent) that they felt were successful, but are no longer available options to them. The average area gillnetter lost 3% of his income to seal damage in 1980. However, made 43% of season. the Columbia River gillnetter who fished every his annual income The chinook season in one day - the season early fall chinook of his His dollar loss to seals in this season was only 8. 7% annual loss. season opened was not opened in 1981, and the coho late. Sales were lower, expenses were higher, and seal the damages ate up a higher percentage of the annual income in Significant increases in damage rates between 1980- 81 were shown 1981, 8. 8%. for coho season, as well the Youngs Bay ago. fishery where harbor seal interactions were unknown five years The 10- year example of the Woody shows that even if seals and their Island Test Fishery (Figure 33) interactions do not increase, the chinook season, good fall impact of seal predation on the fishermen is sure to increase if fishing conditions worsen. The highest damage rates occurred when fishing was poorest. Only by making a good winter chinook season and a good coho season will the fisherman s annual income be high enough that the percentage lost to seals will seem low. 128 OTHER FISHERIES INTERACTIONS Marine Recreational Fisheries During the 1980 summer field season a total of 470 interviews of both individual and charter boat anglers (4040) were conducted to ascertain the nature and extent of interactions with marine mammals (Table 32). Interviews were conducted at public docks and popular fishing locations from Netarts Bay, Oregon to Westport, Washington. Fishermen observed or interacted with marine mammals during 7% of their trips (34 interviews). A general impression of sport fishermen was that the presence of marine mammals caused fishing success to diminish. This was usually not considered a problem since success of sport fisheries (particularly offshore charter fishing) was quite good during 1980. Often the observation of a marine mammal by a full charter boat contributed to passenger enj oyment of the fishing experience. The lack of adverse impact was further evidenced by the miniscule amount of fish damage inflicted by marine mammals, presumably Only 39 of the 8, 678 pinnipeds. coho and chinook (0. 45%) which were examined showed any damage, and most of these were old wounds. There was no damage recorded for other marine sport fishes. Direct interaction, in which a marine mammal was observed following a charterboat and removing fish or terminal gear from lines, was noted on only five interviews. (Three of these incidents were reported to interviewers as having occurred at some prior point in the season. The animals which were involved in these cases were one harbor seal, three California sea lions, and one northern sea lion. This last animal, a young northern sea lion accompanied by an adult, became hooked and the line was cut to release it. Additional indirect evidence salmon sport fisheries (and was the presence of terminal harbor seal interactions with commercial troll fisheries, in one instance) fishing gear on the Desdemona '- Sands harbor seal haulout. Found on the sands were fishing line, troll hooks (one broken), lead weights, plastic " divers " used by salmon sport fishermen, and one " flasher " used by commercial trollers to attract salmon. 129 ...... ;::. ::: ....... ~ Table NUMBER OF FI SH CAUGHT Summary of sport fish sampling for marine mammal interactions and fish damage, by fishery and species caught, Oregon- Washington coast~ Summer, 1980. INTERACTIONS .rVI Q) EFFORT NUMB~R DAMAGED .fJ Or- ..c: 0') .fJ or..c: Q) r-s- ..c: ::5 VI s- VI 0') ..c: ..c: to r-s... co Q) sVI .fJ ..c: .fJ to r-- 0') s- a ..c: r-- "0 .ra r-U ~ ...J c:t: 0') Q) ...J ..c: ..c: c:t: Or- ..c: 4to to ::: e or..c: Q) e Fi s her y/ Port ==h:: ::c:t:: ==h:: VI e c.. .r- ~ 4-.r. r.fJ ..c: .fJ Charter Boat Sa 1 mon fi s hery 11 waco, WA 326 3291 15451 535 ( 6 . 4 %) ( o. 9%) 7397 332 7987 ( 0 . 9% ) ( 0 . 4 % (0:5%) Westport, WA 461 3244 322 (7 . 1 %) (4. 8%) - (00 3%) 438 654 100 103 ( 0 .2% ) Boat & Bank 1in 102 1291 288 ( 4 . ~% ) 770 Neta rts Bay, OR Ti 11 amook Bay, OR Neha 1 em Bay, OR Columbia River 7810 868 Wi 11 a pa Bay, WA Tota 1 Ma Fishin Sport (6.29 2%)(1. 1%) ri ne 470 4040 19986 469 101 103 9411 (00 7%)(0. 4%) (0:4%) The physical evidence and interview data indicated that pinnipeds do interact with local salmon sport fisheries, but the rates were so low that further interviewing was deemed inappropriate. therefore discontinued after the first proj ect Sampling was year. Commercial Salmon Troll Fishery Eight (8) fishery interaction interviews were conducted with commercial ocean salmon trollers docked at Westport and in 1980 Tokeland, and Washington. " Seals (including fur dolphins " were reported near boats, but coho was noted. seals, Callorhinus ursinus no fresh damage to chinooks and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife troll Astoria were asked to note salable- damaged processors. Seven (7) damaged chinooks (0. 6% of Damage was not remarkable in other market salmon samplers in fishes observed at the 1137 fish sampled) were reported from two catches landed at Newport, Oregon in late June, 1980. samples. Neither fisherman available interviews nor information from this on unsalable damaged fishes were source. indicated that Informal interviews with trollers marine mammal damage was insignificant compared to losses from is interactions with California sea lions during this species southbound migration in early May (the opening period for this sharks. The exception fishery). One troller estimated he lost $1, 000 in chinooks and terminal gear taken by sea lions off Washington during May of 1980. Northern sea lions may also be involved, as evidenced by pyloric sphincter of a northern sea early June of 1980. a troll hook collected from the lion found dead on the beach Incidental take of sea lions by shooting has been reported for troll fisheries in California (Miller, Herder and Scholl 1982), but was not investigated of sea lions (particularly here. Of particular concern was the illegal shooting jetty of Zalophus ) hauled out at the tip of the south the Columbia River. Many of these carcasses were collected from nearby beaches immediately following the opening of troll salmon 131 season (see " Beach Cast and Incidentally Killed Marine Mammals , below). Virtually every fishing vessel (including sport boats) crossing the bar could pass by shooting. within rifle range of the hauled animals. The NMFS Enforcement Branch has been investigating specific cases of illegal take Other Commercial Fisheries. During the course of this marine mamma 1 accounts sample. Among ocean fisheries, line, pot, and trawl study, we received occasional anecdotal interactions with fisheries outside our interactions were reported from long fisheries. Long fimbria) , line fisheries target either on sablefish Anoplopoma or halibut and rockfish. We received one account of a Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ) hooked presumed Pacific whitesided dolphin and drowned (asphyxiated), and another of a California sea lion taken similarly. It is possible that these animals were attracted to the bait as it was being lowered. Dungeness crab fishermen near the entrance to Willapa Bay seeing a California gray whale entangled in the buoy line to a reported crab pot. This unit of gear was missing the next day, and the whale was not Oregon within reported further. Two gray whales that stranded dead in the last several years had crab line wrapped around the through the baleen (pers. comm., Robin Brown, OSU). tail stock or Trawl nets are fished variously for groundfish species, shrimp, scallops and hake. One dead in a bottom trawl report was received of a northern sea lion found net. Three relatively small fisheries on the Columbia River show a for limited potential for marine mammal conflicts. A long line season sturgeon has opened during the past two years from August to March, we received a attracting 10- 15 fishermen on the lower river. In 1982 report from one fisherman who stated that he hooked and drowned three harbor seals during the course of the season. Another longliner 132 reported he was bitten by harbor seal which he was attempting to release from a hook baited with squid. study Shad and smelt were formerly fished with gillnets within the area. In to have recent years these fisheries have moved upstream to tributary nets mouths and the reaches below Bonneville are most commonly used to catch smelt Dam. Round haul and dip today. The only gillnetter known fished smelt near Tongue Point during February-March If smelt reported fish and gear damage from harbor seals. interactions would be expected to of 1982 or shad gillnet fisheries were to resume on the lower Columbia and Youngs Bay, increase. 133 DAMAGE TO FREE-SWIMMING SALMONIDS Methods and Results 1980, observat ions were made fish coun t ing windows Bonneville Dam and Willamette Falls fishways to determine the incidence of injuries on salmonids. Records were kept marks, and other/unidentified wounds, by of predator marks, net fish species. First-year chinooks results from Bonneville indicated predator damage to 0. 6% of and 0. 4% of steelhead and coho, with similar frequencies of net marks and other wounds. These figures, published in the 1980 annual report (Everitt et al. Cowlitz River 1981), were at odds with the experience of certain biologists who handle fish their terminal destinations. In particular, steelhead and cutthroat trout seemed more heavily impacted. Data were forwarded to our office indicating 4. 4% of sport-caught chinook (pers. comm., H. Fiscus, WDF) and 39% of sea-run spring chinook, cutthroat trout (pers. comm., J. Tipping, WDG) carried predator wounds. In order to clarify these apparent discrepencies, correspondence Consensus was reached on the was continued with the latter informant. following series of observations and hypotheses: 1. Fish counting stations provide a conservative estimate of injury rates, as only one side of the fish is seen for a brief moment. Close examination of but produces smaller anesthetized or dead fish sample sizes. is more accurate, frequent Healed scars (most often near the peduncle) are much more than fresh wounds. In order for wounds either: heal, they would logically have to be inflicted On downstream steelhead smolts (Roffe 1981; also reported for harbor seals in the Columbia by comm. 23 October W. Puustinen, pers. salmonids comprised 1967- 1972 1982). reported In the among ocean (Fiscus 1980 taken 36. 3% of northern fur seal stomach contents by volume animals annually between off Washington) . 134 estuaries, only returning adults of (such cutthroat) hold for long enough periods to allow wounds to heal (Giger 1972 reported 58% On spawned-out " kelts Different species, races and wild sea-run attack). once). cutthroat and 67% of hatchery yearlings in Oregon coastal streams showed scarring indicative of predator returning to the ocean . (only differential affecting 5- 10% of steelhead which spawn more than runs migh t have vulnerability to predation based on their life cycle and migratory patterns. So-called " seal northern fur marks " could potentially be caused by harbor seals, seals, California preyed upon. or northern sea lions, or other an predators. These wounded fish repres-ent survivors from a population of unknown size that was In addition to immediate kills, unknown amount of mortality occurs from predator wounds between the time of infliction and the time of sampling (and between the dams and spawning grounds; Gibson et al. 1979). Mortality probably increases with time, distance, and water temperature (promoting bacterial and fungal Steelhead are a infection). valuable recreational resource, estimated 1980). to be worth $211 apiece in angler expenditures (Petry et ale In 1981, data forms and explanatory materials were prepared (see could be Appendix A4) so that observations standardized. Interested scratches fishery biologists were asked to tally injuries noted on chinooks, coho, and steelhead, seal bites in one of four defined categories: " seal' and unidentified" net marks , and " other (Definitions appear in Appendix A4, and characteristic marks are discussed below. Results were returned* from two fish counting stations at dams, and from two sport salmon samples. Comparison of Willamette Falls fishway *Data courtesy of C. Galbreath (Willamette S. King (Columbia ), D. Bennett (Willamette and Clackams R. ), and B. Metzler (Umpqua ), ODFW. The fishway samples were useful to analyze annual trends in injury frequencies among the various salmonid species and The Falls), Umpqua River, although outside our study area (on runs. the south-central Oregon coast), was included as a control because no gillnet fishery operates nearby. 135 results with creel samples also be seen taken nearby on the lower Willamette and Clackamas Rivers (Table 33) showed that considerably more seal damage could be noted by closely examining both sides of a fish in hand. It can that damaged chinooks were less frequent upstream (4. 7%) than in the lower Columbia (10. 6%) during spring of 1981. two possibilities. This raises Higher rates of seal scarring may be inflicted on spring chinooks from the Cowlitz stock as opposed to the Willamette stock. Alternatively, if both races are equally vulnerable to mortality from these injuries might increase with distance attack, upriver. contrast, predator- damaged steelhead were noted more frequently upriver (11. 7%) than below (10. 9%; Table 33). On an annual basis, more salmon bear injuries from other causes than from predators (Table 33). samples are shown in Table 34. time after the run entered the Monthly breakdowns from the two fishway Generally, other wounds increased with river. new An accumulation of injuries among fishes holding plus wounds received from obstructions once high river flows have stimulated continued crossing migration, are believed to account for this trend. This may also help explain the relative scarcity of " other marks " on sport-caught salmonids (Table 33), versus those seen on fish which were passing falls and dams. At Willamette Falls (Columbia system) , seal- damaged chinooks appeared in two peaks, from April through May and again in August (Table 34) . These corresponded with peak passage of spring and fall chinook respectively. As seal damage was uncorrelated with gillnet marks (which , were infrequent) this indicates that seals were striking abundance. free-swimming chinooks when the fish were in greatest local The high rates of seal marks observed among sport-caught spring chinooks (Table 33) support this interpretation. Columbia River system steelhead were also heavily damaged by during these months, with wounded fish appearing at seals Willamette Falls from January through early May (winter damage rates run) and in August (summer run). This pattern was reflected in the Umpqua (Table 34), although reported were generally (Table 34). much higher. The little information impacted most heavily available on coho indicates this species is also during peak run 136 Table 33. of injuries on free-swimming and sport-caught salmonids (by species, river, and data source), Incidence and causes 1980- 82. CHINOOK STEELHEAD COHO River System Source of % wi t h % with Sample Dates Sam led seal other marks fish sam % with marks led marks seal % wi t h other fish % wi t h marks other led marks marks seal % wi t h fish sam led Columbia River Sport Fishery Mar 1- 31, 1981 10. . 1. 340 351 Feb I- Jun 30, 1982 Willamette and Clackamas Rivers Sport Fishery 10. 229 Mar 15-Jun 30, 1981 1571 11. 171 Willamette River Willamette . Fishway Falls May 5- Aug 2, 1980 2237 Mar I-Nov 14, 1981 6791 2440 1860 179 Jan II- Jun 27, 1982 Umpqua River Winchester Dam 10. 2616 Mar 29- Aug 29, 1981 11. 17 . 5 2915 20. 15. 2219 3662 21. 198 Jan l- Aug 22, 1982 2514 25. 137 In January through April 1982, Marine Mammal Proj ect visited salmon/ steelhead hatcheries on Columbia spawned fish, investigators tributaries Washington (Cowlitz, Kalama, and Beaver Creek). Working alongside WDG biologists assigned to these hatcheries as they sorted or artificially fish. possible proj ect observers recorded and photographed injured At the Cowlitz hatchery, the steelhead causes of wounds followed (or biologist (Tipping) assessed injuries independently. Discussion with hatchery employees of accompanied) each work session. Several independent observers had previously noted a characteristic wound consisting of two overlapping arches (shown in Appendix A4). this mark often appeared on both sides of the fish, we concluded it was caused by the canine teeth of a large predator (seal or sea lion theorized that as the tips of the canines penetrated the skin, the fish to escaped by flipping its tail, causing the teeth to rake up, then down, as the fish slid forward. noticed and recorded, with This mark was found significant degree be consistently inter-observer reliability** . Scratch marks " resembling the " arches " wound were also observed, either singly or in more closely-spaced pairs or believed to he caused in like manner by (tentatively identified as harbor seal) attempting as " scratch marks threes. This the claws of a mark :was Also recorded scratches, often on both sides of were series of the fish. predator to grasp fish. curved, parallel Consequent to these observations, fish damage recorders in 1982 were asked to tally separately the " arches " marks and " scratch" marks *Otters were considered too small, and bears too infrequent in the reaches below hatcheries, to have caused these bites around the body of a large salmonid. **The appearance of " arches " marks in a small sample taken at Chambers Creek Hatchery near Tacoma, WA (southern Puget Sound), and in photographs from the Umpqua counting station, show that this injury pattern is not restricted to the Columbia system. 139 (the latter only if they appeared in series of two indicative of " seal damage (Appendices A4- 7). Obvious bites in the between or more) flesh were also noted (especially Elokomin) . Other injury at Beaver Creek near the mouth of the types were not only. reliably identified observers as predator marks, further analysis was based on tne frequencies of these marks Chi-square comparisons of steelhead hatchery samples collected for this purpose showed no difference in the frequency of predator marks and between male and female fish, wild and hatchery 3-sal t stocks, or " 2-salt " It steelhead. (This latter factor refers to years spent in the ocean, and can be roughly determined from the size of the fish based on prior regressions more vulnerable. to scale annuli. If of fish size, we and was independant more seal predation had occurred at sea, would expect the " 3-salts " to be One sample (Kalama, April 1982) showed significantly marks among summer-runs (" brights than winter steelhead arriving at the hatchery at the same time, but more data are needed here. When frequency of predator marks was compared between steelhead the damage rates per month observed Using what we feel are reliable indicators samples collected* from January through April (Table 35), no significant difference was found widely~separa ted locations. of pinniped attack, we conclude that the predators must be concentrating on steelhead in rivers during this time of year. To show in Figure annual trends, monthly seal damage rates recorded on the appear Umpqua were graphed with the data presented in Table 35. Results 37. The increase in damage rates on the Columbia in January through April corresponds with maximum pinniped abundance and greatest as distribution in the river, ** and also with the annual smelt run, *Umpqua data courtesy of B. Metzler, ODFW; Cowlitz data courtesy of Tipping, WDG: Lewis data courtesy of Larrie LaVoy, WDG. **Harbor seals have been observed, or reported by ODFW biologists, far biologists (pers. upstream in many Oregon coastal streams during the winter. These comm., D. Snow) have also noted damaged steelhead in hatchery and creel samples. 140 Table 35. Observed and expected frequencies of " arches-type " seal marks on selected steelhead samples, January to April, 1981- % Frequency of Area Umpqua River Umpqua Ri ver Beaver Creek Cowl i tz River Cowl itz Non t h Year 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 March Apri 1 Cowl i River River Lewis River Cowl itz tz Ri ver River January January February March Ap ri 1 Observed 24. 22. 21. Sea 1 Marks Expected?=: Kal ama April February 21. 25. 20. 23. 22. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 11 Data for 1981 did not distinguish " arches " from other types of seal marks. Chi-9quare = 8. 89, 8 d. f., p/0. 10. roo ~ 20 CJ) +J 10 Month Fi gure 37. Annual cye1 e of seal damage to steel head , 1981- 1982. Samp1 e data from the Umpqua, Cowlitz, Ka1ama, Lewis Rivers, and Beaver Creek. 141 shown elsewhere in this report. Free-swimming spring chinook are also most heavily impacted during this period (Table 33). Discussion It must be kept in mind that all of the salmonids sampled for this investigation survived predator attack. Nothing is yet known concerning mortality during or following these attacks, and not enough is known to predict the feeding rate Columbia River harbor seals upon free-swimming salmonids (see " Feeding Habits , below). Other researchers have stated that harbor seals have low success catching free-swimming salmon in open water (Fiscus 1980) and that success might be somewhat improved within river channels (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; Spalding 1964; Bowlby 1981; Brown 1981; Roffe 1981). The low incidence of predator marks in our troll sample (described above) indicates that the type of attack that causes marks rarely occurred in the these ocean. The high frequencies of " struck and escaped" fishes noted in some hatchery samples indicates that seals are hunting salmonids means certain. in river channels, but that fe~ding success is by no Evidence was presented above (see " Abundance and Distribution that seals and sea lions follow winter smelt runs up the Columbia and into tributaries. Once there, t hey may find teelhead and spring chinook available for attack. Data on damage rates among various runs of salmon show differential vulnerability to predator attack, which may increase with the amount of time the run is present in lower reaches of rivers. Returning steelhead distance Spring chinook, arriving some can remain in fresh water up to a year before spawning, and are known to the fall back" tributaries (Chilcote, many months before Columbia after travelling 1981). Leider and Loch they spawn, may also hold up or fall back if river fall chinook and coho are more nearly conditions change. In contrast, ripe when they run. Quicker migration may account for the lower damage rates among these fish. 142 The predator or predators responsible for these attacks could be better described if a larger sample of measurements is taken of the suspected " inter-canine " and " inter- digital" scars in arch- or scratch- marked distances between adjacent fish. These distances could then be compared to skull and pelt samples in available collections. More field study is needed, however, to assess the impacts on fish mortality. A tag-recapture study would appear most definitive, using several hundreds of fish from each run in question. Surplus steelhead could be trucked from hatcheries to the Columbia River mouth, tagged and released. Intensive sampling effort would be required to monitor harbor seal haulouts daily for tags and otoliths in scat, and to obtain creel way, samples from a large majority of recreational anglers. In this mortality or further scarring could be assessed between the release site and the hatchery. 143 AESTHETIC VALUE OF MARINE MAMMALS A literature review on non-consumptive wildlife value was presented in the 1980 Annual Report Proposed (Everitt et al. 1981) . This material was incorporated into a research proposal to assess marine mammal values. interviewing of special interest group members (fishermen and enumerate tasks included questionnaire development and pretesting, protectionists), analysis of key items delineating attitude types, and a general population survey resource use. attitude types and overall The interested reader is referred to this proposal (Geiger 1981), obtainable from the WDG Marine Mammal Proj ect office, for more complete details on research methods, reviews, references and recommendations. In this section, major findings summarized from previous reports will be highlighted. 1. The term aesthetic values is a catch-all phrase intended to dollar values encompass both: ac tual and potential related non-consumptive wildlife enj oyment, and abstract human values identified by various authors as educa t ional , scientific, aesthetic, recreational, ecologistic (biological) and historical (heritage, cultural) yalu~s. These are contrasted with utilitarian, commercial and nuisance values (costs, losses and benefits). The u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Surveys of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Recreation (USDI 1977) show tremendous growth in the number of days spent in non-consumptive wildlife activities since 1970. Although dollar values for recreational hunting and fishing have been well-researched (see Everitt et al. 1981), the most recent 1975). figures availab le for non-consumptive wildlife expenditures Washington were collected in 1964 and 1968 (Oliver et ale A number of authors have stated that sentiment against hunting or predator control is increasing, or that mammalian predators and birds of prey are gaining in popularity with the general public. 144 Animal interest organizations have proliferated during the last years in terms of numbers, membership (Scheffer 1980), income and influence. Nongame Wildlife Programs were initiated by WDG in 1973 and ODFW in 1980. Substantial funding contributions. All pinnipeds, sea concern 7. generated through voluntary otters and large cetaceans Washington State are designated as " nongame species of Major marine mammal protective legislation was enacted by the State of Washington in 1970, and by the U. S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and Endangered Species Act of 1973. A national wildlife attitude survey following results: The (Kellert 1979) produced the Americans was wildlife issue most familiar the killing baby seals for their fur The maj ori ty had lit tle controversy knowledge " tuna- porpoise , but most would pay extra for tuna to save porpoise from drowning in nets. Indian and Alaska Native subs~stence hunting was approved by a large maj ority, though commercial killing of animals for fur coats was not. Over three- fourths agreed " whales for a useful product as long all right. to kill over four- fold the animals are not threatened with extinction Whale-watching charters from Grays Harbor, Washington, increased in number of boat trips, participants, and gross income from 1980- 1981 (Beach et al. 1981). Charter businesses for whale-watching tours have recently become established in Anacortes, Washington and Newport, Oregon. Participation and revenue trends for marine mammal viewing in California have been researched by Kaza et al. (U. C. Santa Cruz Center for Coastal Marine Studies). 145 10. Additional income aquaria. is generated by displaying marine mammals in Communities benefiting are Seaside and Depoe Bay, Oregon; Westport, Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. Marine mammal exhibits scored highest in public demand in survey conducted Tacoma, Washington. by Pt. Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, independent of Maintaining captive animals is virtually the status and stability of wild populations. 11. Viewing access to wild marine mammals is available: to a limited Na t ional extent in Oregon State Parks and Olympia overlooking Park, Washington, headlands coastal rookeries; at one private, Oregon) ; commercial viewpoint (Sea Lion Caves, to many recreational boaters, primarily in the San Juan Islands, Washington. 12. Any additional increase haulouts (particularly in in viewing activities at harbor seal estuaries and southern Puget Sound) is likely to result in disturbance. possibility. Kenyon . (1973) reported decreased pinniped and sea bird Haulout disruption or abandonment is a abundance at rookeries off Baja which were visited tour groups. 13. the methods available measure the dollar value nonconsumptive wildlife uses (direct expenditure, consumer surplus 1981), Meyer see Everitt et willingness to pay or " etc.; al. (1978; 1980) claims that the highest values are generated using the preservation " A. i. e., "What would someone have to pay you in order for you to give up your enjoyment of this resource?" The assumption of this method is that under the Public method. Trust Doctrine, the public already owns resources. 14. all wildlife Direct recreational dollar losses could be attributed to marine mammals if fishery interactions alter the spending patterns sport anglers and crabbers (pers. comm., D. Snow, ODFW). 146 15. The net impact on potential predation is unknown. fishery values due to marine mammal Additional variables which haven been measured are: indirect competition for valuable fish species, marine mammal possible fisheries enhancemen t due predation on other fish predators and competitors, and the role of marine mammals as vectors for fish parasites. as 16. Many sources indicate that the public believes preda tor- prey relationships the balance poss~ible of nature should be disturbed know little until more ecosystem inter- dependancies. 147 148 FEEDING HABITS OF MARINE MAMMALS FROM GRAYS HARBOR, WASHINGTON TO NETARTS BAY, OREGON Stephen D. Treacy INTRODUCT ION The natural diet of seals and sea lions of the Columbia River area has been a controversial subject for many years. As early as 1887, a local newspaper stated that seals were killing " thousands and thousands of salmon daily at the mouth of the Columbia (Anon. 1887). Another early news article mentioned that in summer, thousands of sea lions devour or mutilate thousands of salmon every time a school of these fish approach the mouth of the Columbia River (Smith 1904). What may have been the first scientific report on the prey of local pinnipeds stated that salmon flesh was found in lions near the mouth of the Columbia River association with sea Scheffer and (Smith 1904). Sperry (1931) found evidence of salmon in the stomach of a harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardii ) from the Columbia River. They also examined the stomach contents of harbor seals from nearby Willapa Bay. More recent studies of feeding habits in nearby coastal estuaries were done on harbor seals in Grays Harbor (Johnson and Jeffries 1983) and Netarts Bay (Brown 1981). seals and other marine mammals between Grays Harbor, Washington, and Netarts. Emphasis was Bay, Oregon, with emphasis on the Columbia River estuary. natural feeding habits of harbor This study deals with the placed on identifying the species consumed study area. by marine mammals in the 149 METHODS Collection of Samples Scats were collected year-round on sandy shoals and beaches which were exposed at low tide and which were known to be maj or resting areas for harbor seals. These haulout sites were approached by boat, usually in daylight hours. During 121 surveys to haulout sites from April 1980 to May 1982 (Appendix Dl), attempts were made to collect all suspected 1088) were collected in separate Most scats harbor seal scats. (n = plastic bags to facilitate quantitative analyses. Areas sampled bag. were Grays Harbor, Washington (n=403) , Columbia River Willapa Bay, Washington (n=211) , the (n=436), and Tillamook Bay, Oregon (n=38). In addition, 5 scats from Netarts Bay, Oregon, were collected in one Approximately 11 sea lions (probably to 16 scats were collected from a hauling area for These scats found on rocky Zalophus californianus substrate during two hikes to the tip of the South Jetty, Columbia River, were bagged collectively on each occasion. Gastrointestinal tracts were collected from 96 marine mammals found dead between Grays Harbor, Washington, and Netarts Bay, Oregon. The stomach and/or intestine were placed in a plastic bag and frozen. Gastrointestinal tracts were later thawed, dissected, the contents weighed, and volumes taken of the stomach content. An auxiliary data set consisted of a series of 35 mm slides (n=128) taken of gillnetted chinook bitten by harbor salmon which showed noted. signs of having been seals. These slides were examined and the frequency of damage to various portions of the fish was Prey Species Identification and Quantification To retrieve small calcareous prey remnants, techniques described by Treacy and Crawford (1981) were used on all feeding habits samples. This method includes freezing the samples rather than preserving them in 150 formalin solutions. It also includes a technique for placing suspension for more efficient sorting using a fine mesh sieve scats in 355mm) . In addition to prey remnants retrieved, the presence of parasitic worms was noted. Prey species were identified from five major types of remnants: primary (sagitae) otoliths (or earstones) from bony fishes; teeth from j awless fishes; crustacean shell fragments; cephalopod beaks; and hard parts from miscellaneous invertebrates. These structures were often the only undissolved parts of prey to be found in scats or intestinal contents of marine mammals and were identifiable to species, genus, or family' in most cases. few bony fishes remnants in addition to were considered identifiable in scats using their primary otoliths. Such identifications analyses, however, were not used quantitative by their avoid overrepresentation of a few species relative to the many others which were identifiable only primary otoliths. The presence of agnatha cartilage and cephalopod eyelenses was noted and included in the prey analyses as " unidentified" The otoliths were with California Fish agnathans or cephalopods. identified by the late Mr. John Fitch, formerly and Game. Mr. Jeffery Cordell, Fisheries Research This writer identified the agnathan Institute, University of Washington, identified the crustaceans and most of the miscellaneous invertebrates. and cephalopod remains, salmonid vertebrae, preopercular bones, and a few of the miscellaneous invertebrates. Identified prey species were initially segregated ca tegories into two maj or : (1 ) Primary-type prey species were those presumed all to purposely consumed by marine mammals, and included all bony and j awless fishes, cephalopods. While it decapod crustaceans, and all that was possible some of these species may have been ingested first by larger fish, it was assumed 151 these species were of a size and nutritional value to be of direct interest to marine mammals. (2) Secondary-type food species included to be all remaining of invertebrates found in food or fecal matter. Some these species could have been consumed directly by marine mammals but these were thought mamma 1 s . fish. fish lice) This category also included a few species (e. which would have only been ingested incidentally by marine by originally consumed Primary-type prey species were ranked by the percent of occurrence of various remnants in harbor seal scats during each month (June 1980 to April 1982) for which samples were collected. Whenever data existed for the same month in two different years, the percent of were ranked both separately and in combined occurrence data form. were In annual summaries month (combined for an estuary, frequent prey species determined on the basis of their average monthly percent of occurrence. This was calculated by adding the percent frequencies for each calendar sample) and then which primary-type prey were dividing by the number identified in that estuary. of months for 152 RESUL TS Primary Prey of Harbor Seals (from scats) All Areas. species in Harbor seals ate a wide variety of primary-type prey Identified from remains in scats were a the study area. minimum of 52 species of bony fish, 3 species of j awless fish, 3 species of decapod crustaceans, and 2 species of cephalopods (Appendix D2). The primary-type prey were mostly marine or anadromous species, indigenous to the Columbia River (Durkin 1980) or Grays Harbor (Smith et al. 1976). Most harbor seal In the scats contained identifiable primary otoliths. * total sample, the otoliths which occurred most frequently were from the following families of bony fish: anchovies (Engraulidae), smelts (Osmeridae) , codfishes (Gadidae), surfperches (Embiotocidae) , sculpins (Cottidae) (Appendix D3). , and righteye flounders (Pleuronectidae) The most frequently occurring otoliths in scats were northern anchovy from Pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi whitebait smelt Allosmerus elongatus longfin Engraulis mordax smelt ( Spirinchus thaleichthys Pacific tomcod ( Microgadus proximus shiner perch ( Cymatogaster aggregata snake prickleback ( Lumpenus sagitta ), Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus English sole Parophrys vetulus and starry flounder Platichthys stellatus (Appendix D3). The otoliths retrieved were primarily from fish which inhabit flat- bottomed areas of mud and sand rather than rocky habitat. Although harbor seals in the study area often competed directly for individual salmon netted by Oncorhynchus steelhead trout fishermen, otoliths from salmon from ) did not appear often in the scats. Otoliths Salmo gairdneri ) appeared more frequently than salmon (Appendix D3). When salmonid otoliths did occur, single scats usually contained otoliths from 1- salmonids. There were no otoliths in our sample from salmonid smolts (J. Fitch, pers. commun. identify all fishes *Primary otoliths (sagitae) were used with the exception of common carp Cyprinus carpio ), since the tertiary (asterisci) are larger than the primary ones in this species. to teleost otoliths 153 The possibility that heads of adult chinook salmon may be too large to be readily ingested by harbor seals (Pitcher 1980, Treacy in prep. found that only was addressed in this study by comparing a series of slides taken of 128 gillnetted chinooks which were damaged by seals. It was 24% of seal bites included that portion of the head containing the otoliths (Figure 38). Because otoliths are found in a part of the head near the eye of a fish, fish eyelenses found in scats were utilized as an alternate method for determining whether heads of large (adult salmon-sized) fish were ingested by harbor seals. A very subjective analysis was made of number of scats containing small fish eyelenses and single the vertebrae of A pattern appeared in which the larger were the fish finding similar-sized vertebrae, the lesser were the chances The number of scats with small eyelenses was eyelenses (n = 1116). 94. 8% of the number containing small prey vertebrae. For medium-sized various sizes. remains, the number with eyelenses was 41% medium-sized prey vertebrae. The number the freque~cy teeth of seal the number with scats with large eyelenses was only 25% of the number containing large vertebrae. This comparison suggested that of bi~es to the head may be inversely proportional to the size of the fish being consumed. Harbor seal scats contained of P~cific lamprey ( Lampetra Eptatretus with tridentatus occurrence river lamprey Lampetra ayresi ), and hagfish The occurrence of these j awless fishes, when combined unidentified agnathan fragments, constituted the very frequent prey category for area harbor seals (Appendix D3). Several invertebrates were considered were crab ( Cancer ) and primary-type prey of area harbor seals. The two most frequent decapod crustaceans (Appendix D3) inside an estuary, it is fairly certain that seals were feeding Crangon shrimp. If these prey were obtained 154 ...,:g_ ....:.... -:.. ;.. _..-..~ . , '.. _\ " Figure 38 Location of pinniped bites appearing on gillnetted chinook salmon (n=128), showing the percent of bites which inflicted damage to designated portions of the fish. MID DORSAL AREA (41%) ~"1:- I-' TAIL HEAD (64%) MID VENTRAL AREA (23%) (77%) JIl primarily on juvenile Dungeness crab ( Cancer magister ) commun. and bay shrimp (Crangon franciscorum), both of which are bottom- dwellers associated with sandy habitats (Jeffery Cordell, pers. market squid (LoJ:i.go ,.op alescens (Appendix D3). In addi t ion, there was some occasional predation upon ghost shrimp Callianassa and benthic octopus ( Octopus Grays Harbor . Primary-type prey species found in harbor seal from Grays Harbor were ranked by percent frequency of scats occurrence for each month (Figure 39). Seven fish species were found here in more than 5% of scats during several months throughout the year: Pacific staghorn sculpin, English sole, Pacific tomcod, Pacific sand lance ( Ammodytes sole ( Isopsetta hexapterus ), shiner perch, starry flounder, and butter isolepsis Five fishes occurred only seasonally in scats from Grays Harbor but were considered frequent prey species on an annual basis longfin (Figure 40). These were northern anchovy, herring, rex sole ( Glyptocephalus lepidus) . smelt, Pacific (Lepidqgobius zachirus), and bay goby Predation upon northern anchovy and longfin smelt was widespread in certain months. Northern anchovy were the most frequently found diet (34%), and August item of Grays Harbor seals (56. 9%) (Figure 39). In during May (50%), August of 1980, 54. 8% of July seals consumed northern anchovy almost to the exclusion of other prey species. Longfin smelt was by far the most frequent prey species during the month of April when this fish was eaten by 64. 9% of area harbor seals. Otoliths from steelhead trout occurred in Grays Harbor (Figure 41) in 4. 3% of seal scats for the month of July and in 5. 1% in August. in 14. 3% of Steelhead trout otoliths from occurred most frequently during July this salmonid were found scats. The only of 1981 when chinook other salmonid otolith in the Grays Harbor sample was from a salmon ( Oncorhynchus ~sha~tscha) found in one (6. 7%) of 15 scats collected here in June. 156 Figure 39. Primary- type of vari ous prey species of Grays Harbor harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats food rema ins. January 1982 (n-5) Agnathans Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. Pacific lamprey March 19B1 (n-27) Bony fish Staghorn sculpin 40' 40' English sole Pacific tomcod Star ry flounder Pac if ic sand lance Whitebait smelt Butter sole Sand sole 11.1\ 18. Snake pr ickleback Bay goby Pacif ic 3. uoident. otolith Agnathans Sculpin ( Cottus !E. hen ing 3. Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. Decapod crustaceans Pacific lamprey c==J 7. ) OJ. !E' Cr lingon shr imp Cr ab ( Cancer l.--.J 22. 2t Apr il 1982 (n-lll) Bony fish Longf in smelt Pac if ic tancod 64. Eng lish sole Pac i f ic her r ing Starry flounder Surf smelt 1.8' Agnathans Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. Aqnatha (un ident. ) 3. 6t Decapod crustaceans Pacific lamprey 17. Crab ( Cancer Crab (unident. Crangon shr imp Ghost she imp 157 Figure 39. Grays Ha rbar (cant. May 1981 en-6) Bony f isb Northern anchovy Longf in smelt 50' Pacific hen ing Pacific tOllcod perch Sh iner Agnathans River lamprey 16. June 1981 (nalS) Bony fisb Pacific toIIIcod 33. 33. Shiner perch 40' 26. 20' Bnglish sole Rex sole Bay goby Brown Ir ish Stag horn sculpin lord l3. 13. Butter sole Chinook salJlon Dover sole Lingcod Longfin smelt Pacific hake Pacific 8anddab Pacific sand lance Sculpin Myoxocephalu8 Sl ender 801e Starry flO\mder Whi te 8eaperch Aqnathan8 River lamprey D 6. D 6. Decapod crustaceans Cub (~!E.:.) 158 Fi gu re 39. Grays Harbor (cont. ) July 1980 (n-80) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin Eng lish 36. sole la' Pacific tancod Shiner perch Rex sole Butter sole Pacific herring Pac if ic sand lance Sand sole Speckled sanddab Dover sole Snake pr ickleback Starry flounder 5\' Steelhead trout Unident. otolith 1. Agnathans Rockf ish ( Sebastes Lingcod1. Pacific hake (Hemile idotus !.E. !.E. ) 1. Ir ish lord L 3' L 3\ River lampreys D 6. Lillllprey ( Lampetra !.E. ) 01. Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !.E. Crab (unident.) Crangon shriJr,p 15\ Shr imp (unident.) 1.3\ 1.3\ 1.3\ 1.3\ Cephalopods Cephalopod (unident. Mar ket squ id July 1981 (n~14) Bony fish Northern anchovy Steelhead trout Engl ish sole Longf in smelt 21. 4\ 14, Pac iHc heer ing Rex sole Shiner perch Staghorn sculpin Decapod crustaceans Crangon shr imp Ghost shrimp Cephalopods Cephalopods (unident.) 0 7, 159 Fi gure 39. ' Grays Harbor (cant. July 1980-1981 (combined Bony fish Northern anchovy n-94) Staghorn scuipin English sole Shiner perch Pacific tomcod Rex sole 341 17\ Pacific herr ing Steelhead trout Butter sole Pacific sand lance Sand sole Speckled sanddab Dover sole Snake pr ickleback SlDelt 1. PaCific hake 1.1\ Sebaates Longtin Rockf ish ( Lingcod Starry flounder Ir ish lord (Hemile p'i ootu8: ,!R 1. 1\ unident. otolith 1. Agnathans !E. ) 1. River lamprey c:=J 5. Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. ) 01. a 12. Decapod crustaceans Crab Crab (unident. !I?) Crangon shr imp Ghost shr imp Shrimp (unident. Cephalopods 1.1\ 1.1\ 1.1\ Cephalopod (unident. Market squid 160 Figure 3f . Grays Harbor (cont. August 1980 (nc62) Bony fish Northern anchovy Pacific herring Staghorn 8cu~pin Eng 11 ah 54, 801e 1.6\ 1.6\ 1.6\ 1. 6' Pacific pompano Pac ific Starry taacod launder Agnathans Agnathan lunident. Cephalopods Market &quid 01.6\ 0 3. August 1981 (n-751 Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin Pacific taacod Sh iner per ch English sole 18. herring Sand sole Steelhead trout Butter Bole Starry flounder Pac if ic Pac if ic sand lance 17. 13. Snake ~ ick1eback Speckledsanddab Bay goby Longfin s_lt Pacific sanddab Whi tebait smelt Lingcod Surf smelt Buffalo sculpin Northern ronquil Rex sole Rockf ish 1.3' 1.3' 1.3\ Sablet ish Sandt ish Sebastes !E. Whitebarred pc icklebac Agnathans River lamprey 1.3\ 1.3\ Agnathan (unident. Hagfish ( Eptatretus Decapod crustaceana Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. I 2. 1 2. !E1 1. Crab ( Cancer ,!R. Crangon shr lIIIp Cephalopods Cephalopods (unident. ) 02. Crab (unident. 20' 17. 161 Figure 39. Grays Harbor (cant. ) August 1980-1981 (combined n-137) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin Pacific tomcod 56. &\glish sole Shiner perch Pacific herring Pacific sand lance 10. 10. Sand sole Steelhead trout Starry flounder Butter 801e Snake pr ickleback Speckled aanddab Bay goby Longfin smelt Pacific sanddab Whi tebai t SIDe 1t Lingcod Surf smelt Buffalo sculpin Northern ronquil Pacific pcnpano Rex 801e 1.5' Rockfish ( Sebastes !2. Sablef1sh Sandfi sh Whitebarred pricklebac Agnathans Agnathans (unident. ) 2. Lamprey ( Lampetra !E. ) 1. Hagfish ( Eptatretus !2) 0. Decapod crustaceans River lamprey Cub (~!E. 10. Crangon ehrialp Crab (unident. Cephalopods Cephalopod (unident. Market squid 1. 5' November 1980 (n=8) Bony fish English Bole Staghorn sculpin But ter 50\ 50' Bole Pacific sand lance unident. otolith 12. 12. 12. 12. 5' Decapod crustaceans Crab (~!E. 162 Figure 40. Frequent primary-type prey of harbor seals from three estuaries , ranked by the average monthly percent of occurrence (~2%) in scats of various food remains GRAYS HARBOR Ibny fish Stacjlorn sculpin Northern anchovy fngl1sh sole Pacific tomcod Longfin SIIIelt Shiner perch Pacific herring Pacific sand ance Starry flounder Butter sole 22. 17. 17. 16. 13. Rex sale 8ay goby Agna thana Lamprey Lampetra Pacific lanaprey River lamprey Decapod crustaceans Cub ( Cancer !E. 7:2' Crangon shrimp ~. WILLAPA BAY JIOny fish Northern anchovy Stag horn sculpin Shiner perch fngliah sole Pacific tomcod 32. 27. 19. Star ry floWtder Bay gQby Pacific herring Sand sole 14. 13. lO. Lingcod Steelhead trout Petrale Bole Snake prickleback Whi te 4. B' seaperch 2. Aqna thana River l..prey 08. 14. Decapod crustaceans Crab (~!.e. CrAll9on shrimp Decapod (Wt1dent. COLUMBIA RIVER Ibny fish Northern anchovy Eulachon Stacjlorn sculpin Lonq fi n SIDe1 t Pac i f1 c tCCDCOd 'H. 5. 16. Snake prickleback Starr y flounder English Bole Whitebait BIIIelt Pacific hen 109 Pacific bake Aqnathans Lamprey River lamprey 3. 163 !E. Pacific lamprey 3. (Lampetu ....... Figure 41~ Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Percent of occurrence of steelhead trout otoliths in harbor seal s6ats collected June 1980May 1982 in the study area, by month. Es tuary I 4. I 5, (n=5 ) Grays Har bor (n=27) (=111) (n=6) (n=15) (n=94) (n=l37) (n=8 ) . Willapa Bay 0'\ .po. (n=ll) (n=l) (n=ll) (n=26) (n=l44) (n=l7) (n=1) Columbia Ri ver (n=30) (n=15) (n=9) (n=33) (n=l9) (n=22) (n=1l5) (n=69) (n=72) I l. (n=l2) (n=l6) (n=24) Tillamook Bay (n=25) (n=13) Both Pacific lamprey and river lamprey were found frequently on an annual basis in harbor seal scats from Grays Harbor (Figure 40). 5) for January (Figure 39). Pacific lamprey continued Pacific lamprey was the only prey species of any kind identified in the small sample (n = to appear in more than 5% of area scats through was found in scats collected from May through April. River lamprey August. Crangon shrimp were frequent prey of Grays Harbor harbor seals on an annual basis (Figure 40). Crab ( Cancer Both Cancer crab and was found in more than 5% of scats during most months of scats contained. identifiable of the year (Figure 39). In March, 22. 2% Crangon which was the highest percentage of seals to eat this shrimp during any month in the study area. Willapa Bay . Eight species of bony fish were found in more than 5% of harbor seal scats during several sole months . throughout the year in starry Willapa Bay (Figure 42). These were northern anchovy, Pacific staghorn sculpin, shiner perch, English sole, Pacific tomcod, flounder, bay goby, and sand Psettichthys melanostictus Six other fish species, which were frequent on an annual basis (Figure 40), occurred in more than 5% of scats during one or two of (June-August) the summer months herring, ling . These more seasonal prey fish were Pacific cod Ophiodon elongatus steelhead trout, petrale sole, snake prickleback, and white seaperch (Phanerodon furcatus). Northern anchovy was the most frequently occurring prey species of Willapa Bay harbor seals during the months of June, August, and September (Figure 42). Unlike the other Washington estuaries, however, in Willapa Bay northern anchovy was not consumed in any month near exclusion of other at the prey. in Otoliths from steelhead trout were identified scats collected This estuary here in June 1981, July 1980, and August 1980 (Figure 41). was the only one in the study area where steelhead trout was a frequent Chinook prey species of harbor seals on an annual 165 basis (Figure 40). salmon otoliths were the only other salmonid remnants identified in Fi gure 42., Primary- type prey species of Willapa Bay harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of vari ous food rema ins. March 1981 (nell) Bony fish Pacific tomcod Bay goby Staghorn sculpin Dlgl ish 80le unident. otolith Decapod crustaceans Crab (~!.e. Crangon shrimp 18. May 1982 (n-l) Nothing identifiable June 1980 (n-l0) Bony fiBh Northern anchovy Shiner perch Pacific tomcod Staghorn sculpin Bay goby petrale sole sand Bole Starry flounder 40' 10' 10' 10' 10' Agnathana River lamprey c::J 10' 30' Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !.e. Crangon ahr imp lOt June 1981 (n=l) Bony fish Northern anchovy Shiner perch Stag horn sculpin Steelhead trout 100' 100' June 1980-1981 (combined n-ll) Bony fish Northern anchovy Shiner perch Pacific tomcod Bay goby Petrale sole 45. 36. 27. 18. Stag horn sculpin Sand 80le Starry flounder Steelhead trou t Agnathans River lamprey c:J 9. Decapod crustaceans Crab (~!.e. Crangon shrimp b9. 166 27. Fi gure 42. Willapa, Bay (cant. July 1980 (ns26) Bony fish Staghorn sculpin Nortnern anchovy Shiner perch Pacific herring Starr y flounder Lingcod Engli8h 801e Pacific tcmcod Bl uebarred prick leback Kelp perch Pacific sand lance petrale sole Whi te Snake pr ickleback seaperch Hemilepidotu& !E. Butter 801e Irish lord Pacific pompano aainfin aidshipman Rex 801e Sand sole Speckled sanddab uaident. otolith Agnathans River lamprey Steelhead trout Hagfish ( Eptatretus Decapod crustacean8 23. !2) 7. 23. ~ab (~!2. Decapod (unident. Cub (unident. Crangon shrimp Ghost shrimp Cephalopods Benthic octopus 03. 167 Fi gure 42. Willapa Bay (cant. August 1980 (n-65) Ibny fish Northern anchovy 58. 30. 23. 20' 15. Staghorn sculpin English sole Shiner perch Starry flounder Steelhead trout Lingcod 10. Pacific herr ing Snake prickleback Sand sole Whi te seaperch Bay goby But ter sole Chinook salmon Kelp greenling Pacific hake Pacific tomcoo Rex sole unident. otolith American shad Buffalo sculpin 1. 5' 1. 5' Eulachon Northern ronquil Pac ific sanddab Redtail surfperch Rockfish ( Sebastes !E. Agnathans River lamprey 13. Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !E. Crab (unident. Crangon shrimp 1. $' August 1981 (n"'79) Bony fish English sole Staghorn sculpin 22. Northern anchovy Shiner perch Sand sole Pacific tomcod Starry flounder Pacific herring Bay goby 38\ 34. 30. 12. 11. 10. Snake pr ickleback White seaperch Buffalo sculpin Pile perch Speckled sanddab pr ickleback or gunnel Rex sole Lingcod Longfin smelt Pacific sanddab Northern ronquil Pacific hake Pacific sand lance Petrale sole Dover sole 1.3\ 1.3\ 1.3\ 1.3\ 1.3\ Redtail surf perch Surf perch SUr f smelt Agnathans River lamprey Decapod crustaceans D 5. Crab ( Cancer !E. Crangon shr imp Ghost shr 1IIIp Cephalopods Cephalopod (unident. Market squid 168 Fi gure 42. Willapa Bay (cant. August 1980-1981 (combined na144) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin 43. 34. 29. 21. S' EfI9Ush sole Shiner perch Starry flounder Sand sole 12. S' Pacific heni"9 Pacific tomcod Snake prickleback Bay gOOy : 9t White seaperch Li fl9Cod Steelhead trout Rex sole Buffalo sculpin Speckled sanddab Pacific hake Pacific 8anddab Pile perch 3. S\ pr ickleback or gunnel Chinook salmon Kelp gr eenling Lofl9fin smelt Northern ronquil Redtail 8urfpercb unident. otolith l.U American shad Dover 80le Eulachon Pacific sand lance Petrale 80le Rockfi8h ( 5ebastes !2. Surf 8881t River lamprey O. O. O. Agnathans Decapod crustaceans c:J W'. B 0. Crab ( Cancer Ghost mrimp crangon shrimp !2. Crab (unident. Cephalopods Cephalopod (unident. Market squid September 1980 (n-I7) Bcny fish Northern anchovy Englbh 801e Bay goby Sand 801e 29. St.4aghorn 8culpin StArry flounder unident. otolith November 1980 (n-l) Nothing identU lable 169 scats from Willapa Bay. These occurred in two of scats (3. 1%) collected here in August 1980 (Figure 42). River lamprey occurred in more than 5% of scats in the months of This was the only species of lamprey identified June, July, and August. in the Willapa Bay sample, and was a frequent annual basis prey species here on an (Figure 40). ) and Crab ( Cancer Crangon shrimp were both more frequent annual prey species in Willapa Bay (Figure 40) than. elsewhere in the study area. The higher annual occurrence of Cancer crab (14. 6%) resulted from of crab identified here in the months of 1%). relatively high occurrences Crangon shrimp was also March (18. 2%), June (27. 3%), and July (23. identified in more than 5% of scats in March, June, and July. Columbia River . These were Pacific Seven species of bony fish were identified in more throughout the year than 5% of scats during several months (Figure 43). staghorn sculpin, longfin smelt, Pacific tomcod, snake prickleback, starry flounder, English sole, and Pacific herring. Four fish species occurred only seasonally in the diet of Columbia River harbor seals, but were considered frequent prey on an annual basis Thaleichthys (Figure 40). These included northern anchovy and eulachon pacificus ), which were the most frequent prey of seals in this estuary, as well as whitebait smelt and Pacific hake Merluccius productus Northern anchovy and eu lachon were Columbia River annually abundant eaten by the (Durkin 1980) and were sometimes May almost all were harbor seals. scats collec ted August. There was an 89. 5% occurrence of northern anchovy in identified in more than for this estuary. 20% of. scats here from Anchovy otoliths the month of May through for The Columbia was the only estuarine source eulachon in the study area. of the year This anadromous smelt was eaten by 50% of harbor seals in the month of January, 86. 7% in February, and 44. 4% in March. This part Bay corresponded with a seasonal shift in harbor seal abundance the Columbia River Discussion , p. 188). from Grays 170 Harbor and Willapa (see Fi gure 3." Primary-type prey va ri ou s species of Columbia River harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in scats of food rema ins. January 1981 (n-18) Bony fish Eulachon Agnathans SO, Agnathans (unident. Pacific lamprey E:J 5. January 1982 (n-12) )D Bony fi8h Eulachon 50\ January 1981- 1982 Bony fish (combined n-30) Eulachon Agnathans Agnathans (Wlident,. 50\ Pacific lamprey 3. February 1982 (n-15) Bony fish Eulachon Longfin BID.It Agnathan8 Lamprey ( Lampetn sP. )O 20' 86. 6. March 1981 (n-6) Bony fish D'lglish 801e Eulachon . (==:J 1 fi. 7\ (==:J 7\ March 1982 (n-3) Bony fish Eulachon Staghorn 8culpin Agnathans Lamprey (Lampetn Pacific lamprey !E. ) 100\ 33. 66. 33. March 1981-1982 (combined n-9) Bony fi8h Eulachon D'lgli8h 801e 44. 11. 11. Staghorn sculpin Agna thans Lamprey (Lampetra sp. Pacific lamprey 11. 22. 171 Fi gure 43. Columbia Ri ver (cant. ) April 1981 (n-28) Bony fish Starr y flounder Snake prickleback 17. 14 . Eulachon Stag horn sculpin D\glish sole Pacific tomcod Sand sole Stee1nead trout Whitebait smelt 10. 10. Agnathans Lamprey ( Lampetra !!E. ) Pacific lamprey 17. Agnathans (unident. ) 3. 21. 4\ Hagfish ( Eptatretus !E) Cr angon shrimp 3. Decapod crustacenas 03. 0 3. Cephalopods Market squid April 1982 (n-5) Bony fish 81gl ish sole Eulachon Longfin BIIIelt Pacific tomcod Snake pr ickleback SOckeye salJlDn Sblghorn sculpin 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Agnathans Pacific lamprey 20' April 1981-1982 (combined n~33) Bony fisb Snake pr ickleback Starry flounder Eul achon Staghorn sculpin English sole Pacific tomcod 15. 15. 12. 1 , 12. 1 , Longtin saelt Sand sole SOckeye salJlDn Steelhead trout Whitebait smelt Agnathans Agnathana (unident. 18. Pacific lamprey 18. Lamprey (L amp etra !E. Hagfish ( Eptatretus !E n Decapod crustaceans Crangon ahrimp Cephalopods Market squid 172 Fi gure 43., Columbia River (cant. May 1981 (n-19) Bony fish Northern anchovy snake prickleback 89. Stag horn sculpin B 5. June 1980 (n-12) Bony fish Northern anchovy Shiner perch Pacific herring Staghorn sculpin Longfin s.elt Slim sculpin unident. otolith 25' 25' 16. 16. Ii. Agnathans Pacific lamprey 8. River lamprey . 8. Decapod crustaceana Lamprey ( Lampetra Crab (Cancer 08. June 1981 (n-lO) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin 20' 10' Agnathans River lamprey 10' Cephalopods Lampetra 10' Pacific lamprey 10' LaIIIprey ( Market squid c:J 10' June 1980-1981 (combined n-22) Bony fish Northern anchovy Sh iner Staghorn sculpin Pacific herring Long fin SlDelt perch Slim sculpin Unident. otolith Agnathans Lamprey ( Lampetra Pacific lamprey 9. !,i?) River lampcey 9. 0 4. Decapod crustaceana Crab (~~. Cephalopods Market squid 173 Fi gure 43. Co 1 umbi a River (cont. ) July 1980 (n~24) Bony fish Staghorn sculpin Whitebait smelt Butter sole Snake pr ickleback 12. 12. I 4. Longfin 8IIIelt Northern anchovy Pacific hake I'acific herring 2' Rex sole Sablef ish Sand sole Sh iner perch Agnathans River lamprey c==J 8. Linpcey ( Lampetra ) 04. D 4. Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !,I?) Crab (unident. Cephalopods Benthic octopus 0 4. 04. July 1981 (n"91) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin Longtin smelt Pacific tamcoo Snake prickleback Whitebai t smelt 36. 13. Pacific hake Carp Pacific herring American shad Dover sole D1g1ish sole Pacific sanddab Shiner perch Surf smelt LIt 15. . 6. l.U Agnathans River lamprey Agnathans (unident. ) 1. Decapod crustaceans Lamprey ( Lampetra !!E, Crab (~ !!E. D4. 174 Fi gu 43. Co 1 umbi a Ri ver (cant. July 1980-1981 n-115) Bony fish Northern ahchovy Staghorn sculpin Longfin I18elt snake pr ickleback 13\ 29. Pacific toIIcod Whitebait smelt Pacific hake Pacific hen ing Carp Shiner perch AIDer ican shad Butter sole Dover sol. English sole Pacific .anddab 1. '\ 1. Sablefish Agnathans River 11U11prey Agnathan (unident. ) Decapod crustaceans Sand sole Surf smelt Lamprey ( L&mpetra ) 6. 13. 0. Cub (unident. Cephalopods Crab ( Cancer !2. 0 3. (J0. 0 0. Benthic octopus 175 Fi gure 43. Co 1 umbi a Ri ver (cont. ) August 1980 (n~37) Bony fish toIDCod Whitebait smelt Northern anchovy Pacific hake Longtin smelt Speckled sanddab Redtail surf perch Pacific 43. Sand sole Staghorn sculpin Starry flounder AIDer ican shad Carp &'Iglish sole 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. It ish lord Sandfiilh Hemilepidotus !E. Pacific sanddab Whitebarred prick~ck Agnathans Agnathan (unident. Hagfish ( Eptatretus sp River lamprey 5. Decapod crustaceans Lamprey ( Lampetra BP. Decapod (unident. Cub (~!E' Cr angon shr imp 2. 6=1. August 1981 (0-32) Bony fish Northern anchovy Staghorn sculpin Paci tic 46. tomcod Snake prickleback Pacific hake Longfin smelt Pac if ic herring Starry flounder Dover sole Rex sole Righteye flounder English sole Pleuronectid Steelhead trout Whitebait smelt Agnathans River lamprey Lamprey ( Lampetra !J!. )L-.J 9. U c= 21. 9t 176 Fi gure 43. Co 1 umbi a Ri ver cont . ) August 1980-1981 (combined n-69) 34. 31. 9' Bony fisti Northern anchovy Pacific tomcod Whitebait BIIIelt Staghorn sculpin Pacific hake Longfin BIIIelt Snake pr ickleback Starry flounder Speckled sanddab English sole Pacific herring Redtail 8urfperch Sand 80le AJner ican 8had Carp Dover 801e Irish lord Hemilepidotus Pacific 8anddab Rex 80le Right.ye flounder Pleuronectid Sandfi ah Whitebarred prick~k Agnathan. River lamprey Steelhead trout 1.4\ 13' Agnathan (unident. ) HIIgfi 8h ( Eptatretus Decapod cru8taceans Lampr.y ( Lampetra ~ 2. ) 7. 2. Decapod (unident. Crangon ahr i8p Crab (Cancer 177 Fi gure 43. Co 1 umbi a Ri ver (cont. ) September 1981 (n=72) Bony fish Northern anchovy Starry flounder Pacific tomcod 15. English sole Staghornsculpin Pacific herr ing Petrale sale Whitebait smelt Butter sole Snake pr ick leback Dover ' sole 1.4% 1.4% Long~in smelt Pacific hake Righteye flounder Sand Bole Agnathans Lamprey ( Lampetra River lamprey 2. ) 1. Agnathan (unident. Decapod crustaceans Crab (~!p. Cr angon shr imp Ghost shrimp October 1980 (n-12) unident otolith Engl ish sole Sablefish Starry flounder Whitebait smelt November 1980 Bony fish (n-16) 31. 3' Staghorn sculpin Longfin smelt Pac iHc Snake pr ickleback 25' 18. herring Pacific tomcod Butter sole 12. 12. Gunnel ( Pholis Northern anchovy Pacific hake English sale Rockfish (Sebastes s Sandfish Sculpin (Icelus Speckled sanddab Starry flounder unident. otolith Decapod crustaceans erangon shrimp 06. December 1980 (n=24) Bony fish Longtin smelt Pacific herring Pacific tomcod Snake prick1eback Staghorn sculpin Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !J2. 0 4. 178 There were only two instances of otoliths from steelhead trout in scats from Columbia River seals (Figure 41) and one instance of otoliths from sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka Both Pacific lamprey and river lamprey wer~ consumed frequently on an annual basis by Columbia River harbor seals (Figure 40). Pacific greatest August. lamprey appeared in scats from January to June with their frequency in March and April. River lamprey were identified from June to September with greatest frequency in July and Oregon Estuaries In Tillamook Bay, scat samples were collected in September and October. Rex sole was the leading prey fish in both months (Figure 44). Cancer crab was a very frequent prey item (30. 8%) scat, in October. One otoliths from a minimum collected here 10 September 1981, contained of 19 small steelhead trout, by far the most study. salmonid otoliths found in a single scat during this An independant analysis of harbor seal scats from Netarts Bay has already been reported (Brown 1981). Of the 5 scats obtained. for the present study in September 1981, the only primary-type prey species were Pacific hake, Pacific herring, rex sole, fimbria ). A appears in Appendix D4. and sable fish Anoplopoma listing of prey species found here earlier by Brown (1981) Secondary Food of Harbor Seals (from scats) Invertebrates other than cephalopods and decapod crustaceans were classified as secondary-type food species of harbor seals as they were probably contained primary prey species. These species were represented in the scats by: whole or fragmentary mollusc shells (especially small clams), unidentifiable bits of crustacean carapace, in parts of barnacle shells (mostly from acorn barnacles), isopods, and amphipods. Other particles were too fragmentary to identify whatsoever. The occurrence of these miscellaneous invertebrates is shown by month and estuary in Appendices DS, D6, and D7. Secondary-type food species found 179 in harbor seal scats may have Fi gure 44. vari ous food rema Primary- type prey species of Tillamook Bay harbor seals by month, ranked by the percent of occurrence in sca ts of ins. September 1981 (n-25) Bony fish Rex sale &\glish 80le Pacific sanddab Northern anchovy Pacific sand lance 12' 12' Dover sole Pac~fic herring Staghorn 8culpin But ter Steel head troUt 80le Flathead 80le Chinook salJllon Longfin smelt Rock sale Sablefish Slender: sale Speckled sanddab Starry flounder Surf IUllelt Decapod crustaceans Crab (~.!2. Ghost shrimp 12' Decapod (unident. Cephalopods Cephalopod (unident. )0 October 1981 (n-13) Bony fish Rex sale Sablefish Spotted cusk eel 23. 15. Pacific herr 1ng Pac if ic Pacif ic sand lance Pacific tomcod sanddab 7. Blender sole Decapod crustaceans Crab ( Cancer !E. Crangon shr iJap b7. 30. at 180 been initially consumed by predatory fisht which were in turn eaten by harbor seals. Pacific hake and Pacific tomcod both eat northern anchovy; Pacific hake and Pacific staghorn sculpin eat smelt (Hart 1973, T. Durkin, National Marine English sole consume Fisheries Service, ret., pers. commun. clams as well as small crabs and shrimp (Hart eaten some of the polychaetes 1973). Starry flounder may have first (Clemens and Wilby 1961). Adult Pacific herring could have eaten young fishes such as eulachons, herring, starry flounder, sand lance, hake, and rockfish (Hart 1973). Shiner perch may have eaten some of the barnacles found in scats (Hart 1973), while steelhead trout may help to explain the presence of the ) (NMFS 1981). amphipods ( Corophium (NMFS 1981), shrimps, clams, and small fishes . Gastrointestinal Parasites Found in Harbor Seal Scats Gastrointestinal parasites found in food samples may have value as indicators of migration and feeding habits in marine mammals (Daily 1979). Parasites found in harbor seal scats are still being identified to species (Steve Tinling, pers. commun. but basically include few Anisakis simplex and strongyloid nematodes (possibly acanthocephalans ( Corynosoma The percentage of nematode infection was found to be more or less similar in several outer coast estuaries (Appendix D8). warmer half of the the year (April- September). These months correspond The infection rate appeared generally higher in predation upon loosely with seasonal known host for northern anchovy (Figure 45), a nematodes (D. Law, O. U. Seafoods Laboratory, Astoria, OR, pers. commun. Sea Lion Scat Analysis Ten to 15 scats were collected in February 1982 from a haulout sea lions located at the tip of the South Jetty in the Columbia for River. These scats, collected in one bag, contained remnants of eulachon, sand s()le, Pacific staghorn sculpin, steelhead lamprey, trout, surfperch (Embiotocidae) , whitebait smelt, Pacific Crangon shrimp, and collected in benthic octopus. In addition, secondary-type prey remnants included the isopod, Gnorismosphaeroma oregonensis second sample lamprey. April (1982) contained only remnants of Pacific 181 Figure 45 . Percent of occurrence of northern anchovy otol iths in harbor seal scats collected June 1980May 1982 in the Washington estuaries, by month. Es tua ry Jan Feb Mar Apr t1ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Grays 56. Harbor n=5 n=27 n=111 n= 8 Hi 11 apa Bay 45. Ll3 . 1 . 46. 2 29. :JO n=ll 89. n= 144 n=17) n=l Co 1 umb i Ri ver 34. 22. 7 ' 29. 15. n=115 n=69 Analysis of Gastrointestinal Tracts from Stranded Marine Mammals Gastrointestinal tracts were collected from 96 marine mammals found dead in the study area (Appendix D9). Some For ten of eleven marine mammal species, some evidence was found of predation upon bony fish (otoliths, vertebrae, eyelenses, scales).. type salmonid remains were identified in the gastrointestinal tracts of two California sea lions, six harbor seals, one striped dolphin, and one harbor porpoise (Appendix D9). By using salmonid vertebrae, salmonid flesh, salmonid eggs and salmonid scales obtainable from the stomachs, it was found that the total percent occurrence case occurrence of salmonids was of salmonids based upon otoliths alone the was increased for three species of marine mammals (Table 36). In harbor seals (and Calif ornia sea lions) , the percen t doubled. The primary-type prey species retrieved from marine mammals found dead in the study area are shown in Figure 46. Prey and species were ranked (Figure 46) by the percent of occurrence of various food remains in the gastrointestinal tracts. which was These rankings were derived opportunis tically from a sample collected sizes are not considered sizes representative of the year-round diet of marine mammal predators due to small sample certain months of or, in some cases, the year. inflated sample during California sea lions consumed many of the species eaten by harbor seals (Figure 46), especially small schooling fishes like eulachon and northern anchovy. They also ate two species not often found Pacific lamprey in the and Columbia River estuary, arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) walleye pollock ( Theragra chalcogramma prey species. Northern sea lions was also a Eumetopias jubatus ) consumed fishes eaten by harbor seals (Figure 46) but with more emphasis upon marine fishes such as Pacific hake and rockfish Sebastes D9). 183 These sea lions also ate Pacific lamprey. Miscellaneous stomach stone weighing 759 grams (Appendix contents included one large Table 36 . Percent of occurrence of salmonid otoliths found in marine mammal gastrointestinal tracts compared to the percent of occurrence of any salmonid remains (otolith, vertebrae, flesh, scales). ecies % with Salmonid Predator S Sam le Size Otol iths % Wi th Any Salmonid Remains 12. California sea lion (n= 16) Northern sea lion Northern fur (n=9) seal (n=3) (n=50) 12. Harbor sea Elephant seal Striped dolphin (n=2) (n=l) (n =2) 100. 100 . Pacific whiteside do 1 ph i n Northe rn ri ght wha 1 e dol ph in (n=l) (n= 7) Ha rbor porpoi 14. Dall' s porpoise Beri ng Sea bea ked (n=4) wha 1 e( n=l) 184 Figure 46. Primary-type prey species of marine mammals found dead in the Columbia River and adjacent waters; by common name (Rice 1977), ranked by the percent of occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of various food remains. California sea lion (n=16) Bony fish Elephant seal (n=2) Bony fish Dover sole Eulachon Northern anchovy 43. Pacific herr ing Pacific tomcod Sand sole Jlmerican shad 18. 12. 12. 12. Pacific hake Rockf ish Sebastes sp 50% 50% . 50% Arrowtooth flounder Pacific hake Pacific sanddab Pacific sand lance Redtail surfperch Shiner perch Agnathans Hagfish ( Eptatretussp ; 50% Cephalopods Benth ic octopus , 50% Staghorn sculpin Steelhead trout Surf smelt Striped Dolphin en"l) Bony fish Northern anchovy Pacif ic tomood Walleye pollock Whitebait smelt Whi te seaperch Agnathans Pacific lamprey Lamprey ( Lampetra ~) 6. 18. Steelhead trout Surf smelt Whitebait smelt Northern sea lion Bony fish Pacific hake (n-9) 33. Bony fish Pacific whiteside dolphin (n-2) Lanternf ish Hvctoph idae Rockfish ( Sebastes !E) Eulachon Northern anchOvy Pacific herring I 22. 11. 11.1\ 11. 11. Northern anchovy PAcific herr ing Cephalopods Squ id Staghorn sculpin Agnathans Pacific lamprey 50% 11. Cephalopod (unident. Market squid Octopoteuth is 50' 50' deletron 50' 50' 50' 50% Squ id Northern fur seal (n-3) 33. Ommastrephidae Squ id Cephalopods Market squid Onychoteuthis Squid (unident. Harbor seal Bony fish Eu lach (n-50) Cephalopoda Northern right whale dolphin (n-l) 40' Squi d on Northern anchovy Pacif ic tanood Onychoteuthis sp. Pacific herring Pacific sanddab Rex sole Staghorn sculpin Whitebait smelt Dover sole Sh iner Wh ite Harbor porpoise (n=7) BOny fish Eulachon Northern anchovy Pacific hake Pacific sand lance Pacific tomcod perch seaperch Pacific hake Sand sole Steelhead trou Chinook salmon Kelp perch Pac if ic 14\ Whitebait, smelt Whi te seaperch Cephalopods Slender sole 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. Petr ale sole Pile perch Sablef ish sand lance Market squid 14. Slender sole Agnathans River lamprey Sculpin (~!E. Bony fish Call' Eulachon Lanternfi sh ise n-4) 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 50' Pac if ic Hagfish ( Eptatretus f,p lampr ey (Myctc.phiBae) Northern ~nchovy Pacific sand lance Whi tebai t Decapod crustaceans Crangon shr imp Crab ( Cancer !E. smelt Cephalopods Market Cephalopods Benthic octopus 02' 185 :::::ron) 250 !.E.:.) 25' stomachs contained some fish bones and one contained bird feathers (Appendix D9). Two three northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) 46). Another had eaten market squid (Figure Harbor seal stomachs and intestines contained many of the same prey species as were found in the scat sample (Appendix D4). The stomach of one harbor seal found dead in March 1981 contained a slightly digested lamprey approximately 50 cm in length, indicating one size of Pacific prey acceptable to seals. When similar. prey species for the male harbor seals containing identified prey in their gastrointestinal tract (n = 27) were compared with those of female harbor seals (n = 13), prey for both sexes (12i~) sample of 50 Six harbor seals . appeared generally in a had some evidence of salmonids in their gastrointestinal tracts. these 6 seals containing salmonids, 5 were males. The primary-type prey species of harbor seal pups which may examined separately have been recently weaned were (Table 37). The only gastrointestinal tract from a pup available for the months May through July, when weaning might be expected, contained remnants of staghorn sculpin, eulachon, plus Crangon shrimp. Two elephant seals Mirounga angustirostris ) ate fish species which were primarily marine in origin, along with hagfish and benthic octopus (Figure 46). three species striped dolphin trout. Two Pacific whiteside dolphins Lagenorhynchus obliquidens had eaten a total of five different species of squid along with deepwater lanternfish small schooling fish along with steelhead Stenella dolphins (Delphinidae) coeruleoalba ) had eaten (Figure 46) , one several species of Myctophidae One northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis had eaten only squid Onychoteuthis Of two species of " porpoise , (Phocoenidae) (Figure 46), the harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena an inshore odontocete, had eaten small dalli ) had consumed a mixture of schooling fishes along with other species eaten by harbor seals. Four Dall' s porpoises ( Phocoenoides small schooling fishes and three species of squid. 186 Table 37 . -Primary-type prey species of small harbor seals ( ~96cm) found dead, May-August, in the study area identified from various food remains found in the gastrointestinal tract (n= 6) . Bony fish May-June (n=O) July (n=l) August (n=5) Dover sole Eulachon Northern anchovy Pacific sanddab Pacific tomcod Rex sole Whi tebai t Staghorn sculpin smelt Decapod crustaceans Cr angon shr imp (Milk) 187 Nothing was identifiable throughout the entire length of the alimentary canal for a Bering sea beaked whale Mesoplodon stejnegeri although a piece of fish spine was retrieved. DISCUSSION Usage of Scats The usage of scats to analyze feeding habits has several advantages over techniques such as lavage, direct observation, or killing the animal to investigate its gastrointestinal contents. The collection of scats causes a minimum of harassment to the animal, while allowing for a large sample size. Also, key remnants retrievable in scats, i. e., fish otoliths, agnathan teeth, crustacean parts, and cephalopod beaks, are fairly resistant genus, or at least to digestion and are often identifiable to species, family. that One problem encountered when analysing pinniped scats certain remnants (cephalopod beaks) may be underrepresented due to selective vomiting (Pitcher 1980). Treacy (in prep) found that interpretation of hard parts in scats may be complicated since there was considerable range in the passage times of otolith-sized beads ingested by captive harbor seals. Another problem in analysing harbor seal feeding habits is that otoliths from large salmon may not always be ingested with the rest of the fish (Figure 36; Pitcher 1980; Treacy in prep) . Harbor Seal Predation on Eulachon and Northern Anchovy There is an apparent correspondence between seasonal predation upon eulachon in the Columbia River and an annual shift in the population of harbor seals between 1983) . the Washington estuaries (Treacy and Jeffries increased in During January- April, the number of harbor seals the Columbia, while their populations decreased in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. It appears that the entry of the anadromous eulachon into the Columbia may be the cause for the shift. Eulachon are widely available in the Columbia from January to April, and their otoliths appeared frequently (usually in large numbers within each scat) at this 188 time of the year. Other months year-round prey fish were readily available to during these eulachon. (Durkin 1980) but seals appeared tributaries. select for Harbor seals (and sea lions) were observed moving far upriver during eulachon runs in the Columbia and its Such obvious targeting on eulachon, (Imler and Sarber 1947, at the exclusion of other prey, has been noted previously during eulachon runs in the Copper River Delta area, Alaska Pitcher 1977). At the end of the eulachon run in late April, the harbor seal population appeared to shift back adj acent estuaries (Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and Tillamook Bay). The season in which eulachon is consumed at other species Eulachon the near exclusion of late pregnancy in area harbor seals. corresponds moderately oily fish (Stansby 1976) , the extremely frequent consumption of which may help seals build up fat reserves prior to pupping. Increased fat reserves may benefit prepartum diet pregnant animals since is thought to affect the milk yield (Church and Pond 1974) . Fat reserves should especially benefit harbor seals ~ince their milk contains 45% fat and since the maj or fatty acid components in seal blubber are found, in identical proportions, in milk fat (Lavigne et al. 1977) . Northern anchovy is also a moderately oily fish (Stansby well and Hall 1967) which is consumed extremely frequently by area harbor seals. Such (as predation throughout the summer (Figure 45) may be of particular value in maintaining fat reserves during lactation as as during the molting cycle. Molting in the study area occurs primarily in August determined by the presence of seal hair on haulout sites and adherent to scats) . Harbor Seal Predation on Salmonids Of all scats collected, 2. 7% contained otoliths from salmonids found Brown (Appendix D3). This was more frequent than the 0. 7% of scats containing salmonid frequency otoliths (1981.) occurrence may, however, Netarts Bay.. The 2. still underrepresent the importance of salmonids in harbor seal diets if otoliths were not found for all adult salmon consumed. Several reasons why otoliths from adult 189 salmon could foll OWR: have been underrepresented in the scat sample are Few scats were collected in the vicinity of actively fishing gillnetters in order to avoid chasing large numbers of harbor seals off a haulout and into nearby reduced the number of gillnets. This may have scats containing salmon otoliths seals. times when gillnetted salmon were known to be eaten by Few of the salmonid otoliths found were from chinook salmon. Most were from heads than steelhead trout. Adul t chinook have larger steelhead trout of similar fork length, making it difficult for relatively more harbor seals to swallow that Only 24% portion of a salmon s head containing the otoliths. the of seal bites to gillnetted chinooks included otoliths not often ingest the head of large fish was that only 25% of the number of scats containing large vertebrae contained large (Figure 38). Another indication that harbor seals may eyelenses. It is very possible that the low incidence of salmon otoliths in the sample indicates that harbor seals catch very few adult chinook or coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the wild. This may be due to the difficulty of fish in open capturing these large returning to Whiskey estuaries. Harbor seals did catch between one and six percent of chum salmon Creek hatchery in Netarts Bay, Oregon, keta ) for years 1978 to 1980 (Brown 1981). This rate of predation may have been only because concentrated numbers of here in a narrow channel of shallow comm. possible weakened chums collect ideal conditions water. Robin Brown (pers. appeared have states that even under these sa lmon , catching harbor them. seals for great difficulty capturing Depredation upon gillnetted salmon may have been caused by only a small percentage of local harbor seals, in which case the expected frequency of occurrence of salmon otoliths found in large numbers of scats could be relatively low. 190 Twelve percent of 50 gastrointestinal tracts contained some type of salmonid from harbor seals otoliths, again indicating scat sample , probably \ due to remains. Only 6% of these 50 contained that heads were not always eaten. The percentage of gastrointestinal tracts containing salmonid otoliths (6%) was higher than the 2. 7% frequency of salmonid otoliths occurring in the the association of tracts with salmon found that 6. 7% and Jeffries gillnet fisheries. In previous research of the gastrointestinal (1931) gastrointestinal tracts of area harbor seals, Scheffer and Sperry contained salmon in Willapa Bay/Columbia River. Johnson (1983) found 1. 4% seals sampled from had eaten salmon in Grays Harbor. There were no otoliths in Fitch, pers. commun. ) In separate studies, Treacy (in prep) found that seal used in our sample salmonid smolts (J. smolt otoliths can survive the gastrointestinal tract of a harbor as well as retrieval methods ocean (NMFS this study. Because scats were collected during times of smolt releases and because subyearling chinook may spend a considerable time in estuaries before migrating to the open 1981), the absence of otoliths indicates that harbor seals eat few if any salmonid smolts. steelheads. W. William Puustinen, former seal He reported seeing herds of harbor hunter for the Oregon Fish Commission, indicates that this may not be the case for juvenile seals pursuing downstream-migrant steelheads of nine to eleven inches in length (Contos 1982). Harbor Seal Predation on Jawless Fishes frequent prey items in season (March- August). At least one of these prey items was an adult since a whole Pacific lamprey approximately 50 cm in length was found in a harbor seal stomach. Lampreys are very oily fishes which, like eulachon, may help harbor seals build up fat reserves before and after parturition. Lampreys were very Lampreys are sometimes utilized by man as smoked fish product (Hart 1973) and as educational specimens but they are more widely viewed as formidable parasites or predators upon fish. ' The extent of their damage to salmon is not yet known and may be considerable. Lamprey scars might be counted on salmon but there is presently no estimation of the number 191 of commercial fish which are killed outright by encounters at sea with large lamprey. Considering the problems caused by lampreys in the Great Lakes, harbor seals (and sea lions) may be performing a valuable service to area fishermen by keeping the population of these j awless fish check. Harbor Seal Predation on Crangon Shrimp harbor seals. Nishiwaki (1972) stated that harbor seals prefer crustaceans at weaning The abundance of Crangon shrimp may have some critical value time. Bigg (1973) stated that Crangon shrimp is the preferred prey of recently weaned harbor seals. A relationship has also been reported between geographic variation in pupping seasons and Crangon shrimp to recently weaned harbor seals the availability (Bigg 1973). Among all scats collected in the Washington estuaries, Crangon was a relatively frequent diet item from June--August in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay (Figure 47) when most area seals were weaned. Crangon shrimp in its Also, the youngest harbor seal pup of examined had gastrointestinal tract (Table 37). Availability of Prey to Columbia River Harbor Seals The prey species consumed in highest frequency by Columbia River This harbor seals (Figure 40) were found to be available to harbor seals in the immediate vicinity of Desdemona Sands (NMFS unpublished data). haulout site was utilized by the greatest number of harbor seals in the Columbia River and it was here that the greatest number of scat samples was obtained for the estuary. This would indicate that most area harbor seals may be feeding adj acent to their hauling area. Even those prey species which were only seldom found in seal scats were usually (Durkin 1980), indicating that harbor seals may have fed entirely within the estuary. available somewhere inside the Columbia River at the time of predation It may be of interest to point out that certain types of fishes, which were readily available in the area surrounding Desdemona Sands 192 Fi gure 47 CranQon shrimp rema ins in harbor sea 1 scats co11 percent of occurrence of ected June 1980- May 1982 in the Washi ngton estuari es, by month. Estuary 22. jan Feb Mar Apr May jun JUl Aug Sep Oct Nov bec Grays Ha rbor I-' v.J Wi 11 a pa Bay Co 1 umbi a River n=lrs (NMFS unpublished data), were not commonly preyed upon by harbor seals. large One such category includes several fishes which may have been too for easy consumpt ion seals, e.g. white sturgeon transmontanus), most salmonid species, common carp, American sapidissima) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Other fishes such (Acipenser shad (Alosa as the threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ) sculpin ( Oligocottus rimensis ) were available but may spiny to ingest. It is more and have the prickly proved too such as difficult to speculate why such species surf smelt (HYQomesus pretiosus) and Pacific sand lance 1981). were not found more often in scats from the Columbia River since Pacific sand lance in particular was a frequent prey species in Grays Harbor (Figure 40) and in Netarts Bay (Brown Dietary yerlap between Harbor Seals and Salmonids There is some dietary overlap between harbor seals and adult salmon since both chinook and coho salmon are known to eat northern anchovy in the ocean off the Columbia River (Heg and Van Hyning 1951). Adult coho salmon eat Pacific herring, squid and miscellaneous invertebrates, including crab megalops (C. magister Al though whereas chinook also eat Pacific sand lance, rockfish, and miscellaneous invertebra tes the feed feeding habits of adult salmon and seals are similar, there is probably little direct competition for food since local seals appeared to inside an estuary while adult salmon are primarily ocean exception to this occurs in Grays Harbor and Willapa chinook enter the estuaries with the tides to feed on anchovies during the months June- August. feeders. The Bay where feeder There does not appear to be dietary overlap between harbor seals and salmonid smolts. Relationship of Marine Mammal Diet to Area Fisheries The most frequent prey species of area harbor seals (Figure 40) were compared to rankings of the species most heavily caught by fishermen of coastal Washington (Chiabai 1978, Culver 1978, Hoines et Several species of commercial al. 1980, King 1980, Ward et al. 1980). value eaten frequently by 38) were: harbor seals in Washington estuaries (Table 194 Table 38. Frequent prey species of harbor seals in 3 Washington state estuaries (Figure 40) having commercial or sport fishery value coastal Washington (Chiabai 1978, al. 1980, King 1980, Ward et al. 1980) to Culver 1978, Hoines et FI SHERY VALUE Commercial BONY FISH ort Harbor Grays Willapa Columbia FREQUENT PREY OF SEALS Bay River Clupeidae Pacific herring Salmonidae Osmeridae Eulachon Steelhead trout Gadidae Pacific bake Pacific tomcod Hexagr ammidae Lingcod Cottidae Pacific staghorn sculpin Pleuronectidae Petrale sole Rex sole But ter sole English sole Starry flounder Sand sole DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Cancridae Crab (Cancer ~. 195 Pacific herring, eulachon, Pacific hake, petrale sole, rex sole, butter sole, English sole, sand sole, and crab ( Cancer Frequent harbor seal prey having value to steelhead trout, eulachon, area sport fisheries* (Table 38) were: Pacific hake, Pacific tomcod, lingcod, Cancer sculpins, starry flounder, sand sole, and crab It was not possible to quantify which prey species were eaten small that to year-round by marine mammals found dead in the study area due to and unrepresentative sample sizes. It is apparent, however, some extent, overlap exists between species fished by area fishermen and many species consumed by local sea lions, harbor seals, elephant seals, striped dolphin, Pacific whiteside dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall' s porpoise (Table 39). Predation by harbor seals or other marine mammals for free-swimming fishes, even though some of these fishes have commercial or sport is not perceived as the maj or marine mammal problem in the value, study area. It has mainly been the direct interactions over salmon already caught in commercial nets that has given harbor reputation with many gillnetters. seals (and sea lions) their bad Natural Predation by Marine Mammals Natural predation upon free-swimming fishes by marine mammals, piscivores populations riverine mammals, sea birds, larger fish, sharks, and other may have a limiting effect upon the ultimate size of fish but natural predation is an unlikely culprit for historic declines of commercial fish runs. These same predators were no doubt present during the early years when " salmon was king " on the Columbia. Conceivable adverse impacts of marine mammals should be considered in context and measured against a continuing history of man- made assaults upon fish These factors include illegal fishing, popula t ions and habitat. overfishing, non- biological management decisions, construction of dams, *Rankings for sport fish species were taken from catch data, and thus represent species most frequently hooked rather than those most sought after. 196 Table 39. Fish species, eaten at least occasionally by area marine mammals, having commercial or sport fishery value to coastal Washington (Chiabai Kin 1980)1980, Ward et FISHERY VALUE ale 1978, Culver 1978, Hoines et ale 1980, 0"," MARINE MAMMAL PREDATORS V'I It! -+J Fish Species BONY FISH 04~o ",-0 0::" 0:: V'I0'1 I- 0:: 0:: II "'0"," 00"," U...J Z:...J "," 0:: ...., 0:: 1-0 I1-000 Q.N -0 ..a LO ..c:- a..- U ~ ..a......-~ I- 11 I-0:: ~ ...., II to a '" 0:: '" II I- 0:: '" VI- c..o :::- 0:z:W 0:: C 0","w-~0a ..c:'....,N a. '=0:: 3UO:: '"," II 4- ..c: 0",""'" '"," c... QJ 11 L.LJ- 0:: Clupediae American shad Pacific herring Salmonidae (unclass. Chinook salmon Steelhead trout Osrneridae Surf smelt Eulachon Gadidae Walleye pollock Pacific hake Pacific tomcod Embiotocidae Redtail surf perch Pile perch corpaenidae Rockf ish (unclass. Anop lopoma t idae Sablefish Sculpin (Cottus Cottidae S;p Pacific staghorn sculpin Bothidae Pacific sanddab Pleuronectidae Petrale sole Rex sole Dover sole Sand sole DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Canc ridae Crab (Cancer ~. *Salmonid occurrence in harbor porpoise stomach was otoliths. not' determined from 197 destruction of streambeds by logging and dredging operations, dumping of urban and agricul tural wastes, water diversion proj ects, genetic manipula tion of salmon stocks, etc. free-swimming by On balance, the net effect of natural predation upon fishes by marine mammals could be beneficial to selectively eliminating the weaker fish. Also, the frequent predation species. fish populations upon lampreys by area harbor seals may be limiting the amount of damage caused by these j awless fishes to more valuable fish 198 BEACH CAST AND INCIDENTALLY KILLED MARINE MAMMALS Richard J. Beach INTRODUCTION Stranding Network the study area to: (1) supplement abundance, distribution and natural history data; (2) gather baseline data on the natural mortality of the An extensive marine mammal stranding network was developed in animals; and (3) determine the extent of marine mammal mortality due to human interaction, most particularly those which we~e fisheries related. Agencies and of groups which participated included: Washington Department Game (Regions and 6), Washing.ton Department of Parks, Oregon State Department of Parks, Oregon Department of Region), Oregon Police, Oregon Fish and Wildlife (Marine State University (Newport), National Marine Fisheries Service (Hammond Lab) , National Marine Enforcement Division, National Marine Mammal Fisheries Service Laboratory, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, Cannon Beach Police Department, Seaside Police Department, Columbia River Fishermen s Protective Union, commercial and sport fishermen and numerous private individuals who live along the beach. During the third proj ect year (1982), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) organized a Northwest Regional Stranding Network. were designated as a primary team to respond to strandings in northwest Oregon and southwest Washington. The southern Oregon coast and the rest of the waters in Washington were covered by the OSU Marine Science Center and the Marine Animal Resource Center (MARC), respectively. 199 NECROPSY AND SPECIMEN PREPARATION METHODS In the first year of research, measurement and full necropsy of all specimens were undertaken using methods described in Miller et (1978) and Stroud and Rolfe al. (1979). The types of cranial, skeletal and tissue samples taken from a particular specimen were condition of the dependent upon the On moderately carcass. On fresh animals, those presumed dead one to three days, a full complement of samples was taken. decomposed animals, dead four to ten days, all samples were taken with the exception of environmental contaminates and gastrointestinal tracts. On extemely decomposed animals, samples were taken as the carcass would allow. Usually only the skull and baculum could be salvaged. In the second and third year of study the scope of this work unit was As a result, a full complement of samples was taken from reduced. those animals thought to have been killed in a fishery. Other specimens underwent a varying degree of necropsy dependent on time and resources available. After removing a tooth for aging, skeletal and cranial material were boiled, partially f lensed and transferred to Washington State University Connor cleaning, Museum or the National Marine Mammal Lab. After the material was catalogued into the respective museum Testis and ovaries were stored in collections at these institutions. sectioned for ten percent formalin solution until they could microscopic examination using criteria described by Bigg (1969). were unable to process environmental contaminants or histopathological samples; however, these materials were either frozen or stored in ten percent formalin solution for analysis other interested investigators. for food habits Stomach and intestines underwent a thorough examination data. Detailed methods used in these analyses are in the feeding habits chapter of this report. The eight fetuses which were recovered underwent the same necropsy procedure as other animals. Rarer specimens such as the borealis (MMP # la), two near-term Phocoena phocoena (MMP' s Lissodelphis 20a and 105a) (MMP 169) was were frozen or placed in ten percent formalin for examination by other investigators. The fetus from a Mesoplodon stejnegeri perfused with formalin and shipped to the U. S. National Museum. 200 canine or postcanine including tooth was removed pinniped specimens Mirounga angustirostis Microtechniques Laboratory, to Matson Missoula, Montana, for preparation for cemetum layer aging analysis. Basic methods entail decalcification , paraffin mounting, microtome Eumetopias jubatus Teeth were cleaned and sent Phoca vitulina Callorhinus ursinus, and from the skulls Zalophus californianus sectioning, staining in Giemsa solution and mounting on glass slides for examination (G. Matson unpub. ms. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION During the period March 4, 1980 to August 12, 1982 a total of 237 marine mammal carcasses representing 16 species were recovered from the study area (Table 40). A maj ority of these specimens were pinnipeds, 56 California sea lions Eumetopias jubatus ), 17 including: 104 Northern fur harbor seals Phoca vitulina Zalophus californianus ), 23 Northern sea lions seals (Callorhinus ursinus) angustirostris ) (Table and five Northern elephant accounted for 32 phocoena seals ( Mirounga 40). Cetaceans of the specimens, including 12 harbor porpoise ( Phocoena five Dall' s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli three California gray whales Eschrichtius robustus three Pacific white-sided dolphins Lagenorhynchus obliquidens two Minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata two northern right-whale dolphins pilot whale Globicephala borealis and single specimens of Lissodelphis macrorhynchus beaked whale ( Mesoplodon ), a stejnegeri) striped dolphin ( Stenella coeruleoalba Stenella ., and a sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus ) (Table 40). Sex Ratios of Strandin~ The sex ratios and sample size of marine mammals found dead in the study area are shown in Table 40. Of note were the high percentages of seals (64%), and Dall' s males in the sample of harbor California sea lions (100%), California gray whales (100%), there were high percentages of porpoise (80%). Conversely, females found for northern sea lions (76%) and northern fur seals (63%). 201 Table 40. Summary of marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982. II SEX II SPECIES PINNIPEDS II MALES II FEMALE UNKNOWN TOT AL Harbor Seal 104 Calif. Sea Lion N. Sea Lion N. Fur Seal N. Ele hant Seal TOTAL 205 CETACEANS Harbor Porpoise Dall Porpoise P. White-sided Dolphin N. Right whale Dolphin Striped Dolphin Stenella sp. Bering Sea Beaked whale Sperm whale Pilot whale Gray whale Minke whale TOTAL TOTAL SPECIMENS: 237 202 Distribution of Strandings The location of specimens collected was widely dispersed throughout the study area (Table 41), ranging from Copalis Beach, Washington in the north, to Tillamook Bay in the south, with specimens being recovered as far inland as Svenson, mouth of the Columbia Oregon on the Columbia River. factors: Overall, most specimens were recovered from Clatsop and Long Beaches, adjacent to the River. The concentration of specimens in these areas may have been due to a combination of three (1 ) Prevalent on-shore currents off the Columbia River which run north in wint~r and fall, and to the south in the spring and sunnner. (2) (3) These beaches have heavy public use and specimens are highly visible on these broad expanses of sand. or due to Animals which die in the Columbia River or at the mouth Willapa Bay, either by natural causes interaction, may be swept deposited on these beaches. to sea by tides fisheries and currents and Most harbor seals (69%) were recovered within the estuaries. The highest number of animals (36) was recovered from the Columbia River followed by 19 noted that from Willapa Bay and 16 from Grays Harbor. It should be the Columbia River was emphasized in all three years of were study, and stranded and incidentally (fisheries) taken specimens more apt to be recovered due to concentration of effort in this the close Zalophus proximity of our lab and area. Eumetopias The more pelagically and oriented Callorhinus Mirounga specimens were taken from the outer coast with exception of 21 Zalophus , which were primarily taken during winter gillnet seasons on the Columbia and one Eumetopias recovered from each of the Columbia River and Tillamook Bay. The maj ority of cetaceans were also recovered of one from the outer coast with the exception taken in Willapa Bay, one Eschrichtius and one and one Phocoena Eschrichtius Balaenoptera was taken from Puget Sound, and 3 Phocoena recovered from the lower Columbia River. 203 +:-- Table 41. General location within the study area of marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982. Columbia Puge t Willapa Bay SPECIES River Tillamook Grays Bay Harbor Sound Wash. Outer Coast Ore. Total PINNIPEDS Harbor Seal 36(6)3 21 (9) 19(5)3 1 (5) O( 1) 16(5)~ 104 0 (2) 1 (4) Calif. N. Sea N. Fur N. Ele Sea Lion Lion Seal hant Seal 0(4) 58(23) 20(11) 16(9) 0(2) 205 TOTAL CETACEANS Harbor Porpoise 3 (1) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0(1) Dall Porpoise P. White-sided 0(1) Dolphin N. Right Whale Dolphin Striped Dolphin 0(1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1) Stenella sp. Bering Sea Beaked Whale Sperm Whale Pilot Whale Gray Whale Minke Whale TOTAL 3 (3) 2 (5) 0(3) Notes: 1- Includes animals recovered from Strait of Juan de Fuca. 2- Does not include animals recovered within 5 miles of an estuary mouth. 3- Numbers in parentheses indicate animals recovered on coast 5 mi. from estuary mouth. Cau se of Death The cause of death was first of evaluated at gross necropsy. Based upon a comparison of the original data sheets by B. Troutman (Appendix into El, Table 42), the causes death were categorized five types: salmon gillnet fisheries related, other fisheries related, other human-caused, natural causes, and unknown. The primary cause of knpwn mortality of pin~ipeds was attributed to interaction with the salmon gillnet fishery within the study area. animal was deemed to have definitely died due to the salmon gillnet recovered by proj ect personnel. fishery if it was given to us by gillnet fishermen or if it was observed to have been taken in the fishery and Specimens were also categorized in this manner if they were entangled in a net. From both our fisheries interview and these data it would that indicate Phoca is the species most heavily impacted, with 36% of the animals killed or suspected to have met their demise in and around a salmon gillnet. fisheries Although Zalophus were often observed on the fishing grounds, particularly during winter chinook season on the Columbia, only 4 (7%) of the specimen deaths could be , directly attributed to salmon gillnet interaction. estuaries and none were Eumetopias were not often observed within the suspected to have died in this manner. Deaths caused from fisheries other than for five marine mamma 1 specimens. salmon gillnet accounted Three Callorhinus were found June 4, entangled in scraps of trawl net whose weight was such that the animal probably died of a combination of starvation and exhaustion. On 1981, an immature gray whale was recovered entangled in 16. 8 comm., B. Walker, NMFS-SW Fishery kg of what was later identified as Channel Island, California, shark gillnet (pers. on bridge supports in Vertebrae of a Stenella Center). The animal became entangled the Palix River, Washington, and drowned. dolphin were found . in Japanese monofilament area. sockeye salmon gillnet originating outside our study Human related deaths other were noted in than those associated with fisheries (Table 42). Only one cetacean, 205 27 (11%) of the specimens Table 42. Summary of the cause of death for marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to 12 August 1982. Salmon Other Gillnet Other HumanNa tural Unknown Fishery Caused Fishery Causes Causes Total PINNIPEDS Harbor Seal 9 (7) 2( 1) 2(4) 0 (1) 1 (2) 1(2) 104 Calif. Sea Lion N. Sea Lion N. Fur Seal N. Elephant Seal 0(1) 13(13) 5 (5) 125 TOTAL 205 CETACEANS Harbor Porpoise Dall Porpoise P. White-sided Dolphin N. Right Whale Dolphin Striped Dolphin Stenella sp. Bering Sea Beaked Whale (1) Sperm Whale Pilot Whale Gray Whale Minke Whale TOTAL 1 (1) Note: 1- Numbers in parentheses indicate animals tentatively assigned to cause-of- death categories. a pregnant female LissQ~~l~his, died in this manner. It was found March 4, 1980, on Clatsop Beach, with a high powered rifle bullet in the back. In contrast, human related deaths were the second leading cause of death in pinnipeds. Due to the highly visible sea lion haul being located the tip of the south jetty of the Columbia River, these animals were being shot and even rumored to have been dynamited by passing commercial and sport fishing boats traveling to offshore fishing grounds. Consequently, many of these specimens were found in or estuary. A maximum of 19 sea lions (16 Zalophus , 3 adj acent to the Eumetopias ) were thought to have died from other human causes, e. g., gunshot wounds and at least one incidence in which Zalophus died of an apparent underwater concussion. Technically. these deaths might be categorized as other the state fisheries related interactions. However, because decomposition and no direct documentation, they were recorded as human related deaths. specimens ( . vi Human related deaths were noted in only six Phocid tulina) . Verifiable natural caused deaths were evaluated at gross necropsy for only 12 (5%) of the specimens. The cause of death in the remaining 152 (64%) of the specimens was not known. This was, in many cases, a result of the advanced state of decomposition in many because of the reduced scope of this research unit we animals. Also were unable to to which a contract analysis of samples which would have provided information on pathogens, histopathology, and environmental contaminates, particular animal may have succumbed. 207 208 BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF GILLNET-KILLED HARBOR SEALS Barry L. Troutman INTRODUCTION In addition to collecting information entanglement in gillnets on rates of harbor seal lID9) , (see " Incidental Take of Marine Mammals an attempt was made to collect those seals which had died as a result of entanglement. It was hoped that a study of these animals would yield a net robber profile; i. e. an identification and description of that involved in portion of the harbor seal population which was likely depredating gillnet-caught salmon. METHOD S Our proj ect acquired gillnet- killed harbor seals by several means. Most of our specimens during field or gillnetters dockside interviewing, or were placed on docks by were obtained directly from local gillne~ters and then reported to us either by the gillnetter responsible for the take or by other persons. definite gillnet deaths, dead On two occasions stranded harbor seals entangled in remnants of gillnet were recovered from beaches in estuaries during gillnet seasons. In order to limit our analysis to stranded seals which showed evidence of having died as a result of human interaction but which could not be with a postively associated gillnet fishery were not categorized were. as gillnet related deaths even though some of them probably All gillnet- killed animals underwent a complete necropsy whenever possible, wi t h special attempt being made to collect stomachs & intestines. These S. Treacy gastrointestinal tracts were examined and analysed by Tracts , p. 183 (see " Gastrointestinal Canine teeth were also collected. These were sectioned microtome, stained with Giemsa solution, and mounted on glass slides for microscopic examination and age determination. Unfortunately, the staining technique employed did not provide an adequate resolution of cementum growth layers, and it was impossible to determine exact ages in 209 ...... Table 43. Summary of harbor seals killed incidental to gillnet fishery, July Stomach Contents 1980 to March 1982 Estuary 7 Fishing Season/ Not Month Salmonid IIMales IIFemales Total Other Empty Collected 1a Columbia River 1980 Early Fall Chinook (Sept) 1980 Late Fall Coho (Oct-Nov) 1(0, 1981 Winter Chinook (Feb-Mar) 1982 Winter Chinook (Feb-Mar) 1(0, 2(0, 4(0, 7(0, 4(0, 10) 11(0, 19(0, 13) 1(0, 3(0, 4(0, Subtotal 14(0, 5(0, 2(2, 2(0, 1(0, 1(1, 1(0, 12(4, 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 Willapa Bay Summer Chinook (July- Aug) Early Fall Coho (Sept) (Oct) Chum Summer Chinook (July- Aug) Early Fall Coho (Sept) 1(0, 4(1, 3(2, 6(1, 1(0, 1(1, 1(0, 1a Subtotal 3(1, 1(0, 1(0, 5(1, 25(3, 16) 1 (0, ~(2, 1(0, 6(2, Grays Harbor 1980 Summer Chinook (July- Aug) 1980 Early Fall Coho (Sept) (July) 1981 Summer Chinook 4(1, 1(0, 1(0, 0 , 1) Subtotal 6(1, 12(2, lZ..(5, 10, 22) TOTAL (all estuaries, all seasons) Numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of: (pups, subadults, adults) b = Steelhead = Chinook Salmon most cases. year old), Pending preparation of new tooth sections for rereading, we assigned gillnet-killed seals to one of three age classes: pups subadults (1 to 3 yrs old), and adults (~ 3 yrs. old). Age class determination was based on tentative readings of the prepared tooth slides whenever possible. For length, sex, seals from which no teeth had been collected or in cases where the prepared slides . were unreadable, the and seals were assigned to an age group after a subjective evaluation based on the seal' s collected. S. weight, the time of year when it was Jeffries performed the aging and age class determination. The decision to classify harbor seals greater than 3 years old as adults was based on the assumption that at least some of these animals were reproductively mature. In sexually mature between British Columbia female harbor seals become and 4 years of age, and male harbor seals the become sexually mature between 3 and 6 years of age (Bigg 1969). In mature. following discussion, seals greater than 3 years old will be referred to as adults although some may not have been reproductively RESULTS Recovery of Gillnet- killed Harbor Seals The recovery of gillnet- killed harbor seals is shown by year, and fishing season in Table estuary, 43. Of the 37 definite gillnet- killed seals, 19 were recovered from the Columbia River, 12 from Willapa Bay, and 6 from Grays Harbor. The numbers of seals recovered from each of the 3 estuaries are more indicative of the opportunistic manner by which we obtained the animals than they are of the the incidental take in each estuary. collected per year sampled represents projected rates of Our average of 12 harbor seals about 4% of the total annual the estuaries projected harbor seal mortality due to gillnetting in sampled (see " Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Sex Ratios , p. 109). Our sample of gillnet- killed seals contained males (25) than females (12) ( 2 = 4. 56, 1 d. f., significantly more 05). Male harbor seals comprised 86% (5 of 6) of the gillnet-related mortality in Grays 211 Harbor and 74% (14 of 19) in the Columbia River, but only 50% of the gillnet mortality in Willapa Bay. Sample sizes were too small to permit statistical comparisons between the number of males and females taken in different fishing seasons or estuaries. our The sex ratio of gillnet- killed seals in sample did not differ significantly (Chi-square test) from that of those stranded harbor seals recovered by our proj ect which were categorized as having died from natural or unknown causes (35: 24) . Age Classes The age classes of gillnet- killed as follows: males - 3 pups, 6 sample were 2 pups, 4 harbor seals in our subadults, 16 adults; females - subadults, 6 adults. All of the pups taken were recovered from Willapa pup was Bay (4) and Grays Harbor (1). Four of the pups were collected in August following the end of the weaning period and the remaining animals were collected in mid September. Columbia River and Willapa Bay Subadul t taken f rom the from all 3 only. Adults were recovered coming from areas with the largest number (13) being taken in the Columbia River, but the highest percentage (83%) Grays Harbor. Seventy three percent of all adult animals taken (16 of 22) were males. Length Profiles of Gillnet-killed versus Stranded Harbor Seals comparison between the ages of gillnet-killed seals and those which were recovered not presented in this report because we lack age data for the latter group. In lieu of a comparison based on actual ages, a comparison of the sex/length profile of each as strandings is group is given in Figure 48. obtained. The data for the stranded seals include only those animals which died of natural or unknown causes and for which measured lengths were A chi-square goodness-of- fit test of the length group distribution gillnet- killed seals showed no difference from that all length groups uniform distribution. Therefore we conclude 212 of seals between 81cm and 170cm are equally likely to be taken in gillnets. KEY: Female Male::::::::::::::::: Gillnet- killed Harbor Seals (n=37) lJ.J 0:::: l.J.. Stranded Harbor Seals 0"\ (n=48) 0"\ "-J "-J -.J C'\ :::J \..0 \..0 0"\ '::::::J C'I "-J ::J') "-J C;:) \.0 r"0 i..,., ::J') "-J '-.J i..," G:J c:::: LENGTH (cm) Figure 48~Length/ sex distribution harbor seals of g illnet- killed versus stranded *Includes only those seals which died 213 natural unknown causes. Stomach Contents of Gillnet- killed Harbor Seals Gastrointestinal tracts from 35 of the 37 gillnet- killed remains. Two harbor seals were collected and examined for evidence of prey Of the 24 seals whose stomachs contained remnants of food items, only 3 showed any evidence stomachs con tained In the otoliths from steelhead and one contained bones from a salmon. of having ingested salmonids. latter case the salmon was presumed to be a chinook since otoliths from a chinook salmon were found in the seal' s intestines. This was the only seal of the 35 examined whose intestines contained salmon. It should be noted that in each of the 3 above-mentioned cases where salmonid Of the 21 stomachs prey remains were found, the state of digestion of the prey remains suggested that the ingestion of the salmonids had occurred sometime prior to the seal' entanglement and subsequent death. which contained non-salmonid prey remains, 12 contained eulachon as the major prey item. These were all seals taken during the winter chinook seasons (Feb. - Mar. ) on the Columbia River. Prey species in the remaining 9 stomachs varied widely depending on the season and estuary where th~ seals were recovered, with small bait fish species (anchovy and/or Pacific herring) predominating in 4 of the DISCUSSION At the outset of the proj ect it was hoped that by studying those harbor seals taken in gillnets we would be able to identify and describe that portion of the harbor seal population responsible for depredating gillnet-caught salmon. Evaluation of the data collected from our sample of 37 gillnet- killed seals has instead led to the following conclusions. First, there is no one group of harbor being most likely to become gillnet seals which stands out as entangled. Statistical analysis of the length group distribution of gillnet- killed seals show that all length groups of seals between 81cm and 170cm are impacted equally by mortality due to gillnet entanglement. The presence of very small seals -( 81cm) in our sample of stranded harbor seals probably represents natural mortality of neonates. The proportionately higher number of 214 very large animals in our sample of stranded seals may similarly reflect natural mortality due to old age. The sex seals, though containing significantly of gillnet- killed more males, does not differ ratio significantly from the sex ratio of our sample of stranded seals. cannot be determined to what extent, if any, this latter comparison might be biased due to the fact that some of the stranded seals were probably gillnet-related deaths. Second, no clear evidence was found to indicate that the harbor seals which we received entanglement. Only 3 as a ~esult of gillnet entanglements had been involved in depredating gillnet-caught salmonids at the time of their cases of the 35 gillnet- killed seals whose stomachs were examined contained evidence of salmonid ingestion, and in all 3 the state of digestion of the prey remains suggested that the salmonid ingestion had occurred sometime prior to the seals ' entanglements. above-mentioned results. The first Two hypotheses are suggested which would explain the hypothesis is that most seals which we recovered actually were " net robbers " but of the gillnet-killed evidence was not found to support this because: the seals became entangled before being able to feed on fish in the net. the seals may have dropped food held in their mouths or regurgitated recently ingested prey items entangled or while upon becoming in extremis the seals may have ingested only non-bony parts of salmonids which were subsequently examina t ion. digested prior to our this first hypothesis were correct then our samp le gillnet- killed seals would indicate that all seals are equally likely be involved in net to robbing. second hypothesis would be that most of the seals but: which we recovered via gillnet entanglements were not net robbers 215 had simply run into the nets while swimming through an area where gillnets were being fished. had been attracted to the nets out of curiosity and had become inadvertently entangled. had been bottom-resting and were unaware of the presence of gillnets drifting through resting. the area where they were If this second hypothesis were true then it would suggest that those seals which learned (although they may be more have gillnets seldom become entangled susceptible to being shot and are hence rob unrecovered) . It is likely that the real situation reflects some facets of each of the proposed hypotheses. For example, some of . the gillnet-entangled seals may have been first time net robbers or infrequent, and therefore possibly inept net robbers, or even experienced net robbers which just made a fatal mistake. In order to gain a more complete picture of the age and sex make-up of net-robbing seals we would need to significantly increase our sample size of gillnet- killed seals (currently ~ 4% of the annual projected kill-take). In addition, an attempt interactions order robbers may be less needs to be made to collect a sample of those seals which are shot and killed as a result of gillnet are test the hypothesis that experienced net entangled in gillnets than likely to become other seals in the population. 216 GENERAL SUMMARY Marine Mammal Abundance and Distribution Twenty-nine species of study area waters. marine mammals are reported to occur in by Species present in the study area were censused total coverage aerial surveys. The most important species relative to population abundance and seasonal movement into regional waters the harbor seal, California sea lion and northern sea include lion. Maximum counts vary seasonally with harbor seal numbers greatest during summer months. Sea lions are abundant during fall and spring movements into the study area. Es~imated numbers present in the study area are 6, 000- 000 harbor seals, 150- 200 California sea lions, and 350- 400 northern sea lions. Of the cetacean species, the California gray whale is the most abundant. This species is frequently sighted close to shore during annual migrations along the coast. Harbor seals are the most important marine mammal species in study area waters, and are moving seasonally among the various etuaries in Regional response to prey availability and annual reproductive cycles. movements are directed into the Columbia during winter and early months. This is followed by dispersal of pregnant females spring to other estuaries during late spring for pupping. Study area populations increase as the pupping season progresses (early remain April through at high levels, with large herds forming July). Summer counts during the annual molt cycle at primary haulout sites. prey. Numbers decrease during the fall as seals disperse in search of The extent of movements in study area waters indicate that harbor seals should be considered as a regional population, with exchange possible between all coastal areas. 217 Harbor seal pup production for the study area shows to a healthy Pup population which is producing in excess of 1, 500 pups annually. continue. Breeding areas production is increasing at a significant rate (19. 1%) and growth of the overall population can be expected selected in all areas during the are concentrated in estuaries outside the Columbia River, with nursery areas pupping season. Grays Harbor is most important estuary relative for over 60% of the pups. to study area productivity, the accounting Marine Mammal- Fishery Interactions Nearly 3500 interviews were conducted with gillnet fishermen on the Columbia River, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay during maj or salmon seasons from 1980- 82. Harbor seal interactions caused fish damage to 5% of cohos, 4% of chinooks, and 2% of chum salmon landed. Most of the 13, 084 fish damaged in 1980 were unsalable, and losses totalled $136, 757 or 3% of the value of these fisheries. An additional $4, 880 loss resulted from 550 cases of marine mammal-caused gear damage. Damage rates for the 1980 Columbia and River were when 12% shown increase fishery was significantly between 1981, the impacted. Losses in 1981 for the Columbia were plus gear damage s costing $13, 000 caused $61, 500 in fish damage, California sea lions primarily. The Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay summer chinook fisheries had the highest percentage of damage to the catches, 34% and 12% respectively. The greatest number of salmon were lost in the Willapa Bay and Columbia River fall fisheries, 4053 in Willapa and 5110- 6127 in two Columbia River coho consecutive seasons. during 62% of fishing trips Pinnipeds were encountered throughout the study area, and evidence of fish damage, gear damage or take was documented for 36% of the incidental trips. Interactions most frequently occurred adj acen t harbor seal haulouts, channels. 218 the entrances estuaries, and in constricted river An estimated 335 harbor seals and 45 California sea lions were fishing. species. This take did not appear killed annually incidental to gillnet to reduce population levels of either Marine sport anglers (4040) were interviewed on 470 occasions. Pinnipeds interacted with 1. 1% of charterboat trips, and only 0. 4% of the salmon caught were damaged. other species or recreational fishery in this sample was impacted. limited survey predator-marked salmonids arriving hatcheries and dams was initiated. Characteristic tooth and claw marks on fish were reliably identified at four Columbia River tributaries. These marks were found on 21% of steelhead examined at all four locations between January and April 1982. Marine Mammal Feeding Habits Analyses of harbor seal feeding habits were based on 1088 scats collected June 1980 waters. to May 1982 in the Columbia River and adj acent Harbor seals ate a wide variety of prey species, including a minimum of 52 species of bony fish, 3 species of jawless fish, 3 species of decapod crustaceans, and species of cephalopods. These prey indigenous were mainly marine and anadromous species, most of which are to the Columbia River or Grays Harbor. The most frequent prey were from the following families of bony fish: Engraulidae, Osmeridae, Gadidae, Embiotocidae, Cottidae, and Pacific herring, northern anchovy, Pleuronectidae. Fishes such whitebait smelt, longfin smelt, Pacific tomcod, shiner perch, were particularly frequent year-round prey snake prickleback, Pacific staghorn sculpin, English sole, and starry flounder species. Northern anchovy was a leading prey item in summer for area harbor seals. Spawning runs of eulachon provided the most frequent prey of Columbia River seals January through April. Seasonal predation upon 219 this anadromous smelt was associated with an annual shift in harbor seal abundance into the Columbia River from adj acent estuaries. Both anchovy of which may and eulachon are moderately oily fishes, the consumption have helped seals build up fat reserves for gestation, lactation, and molting cycles. Although harbor seals of the Columbia River often bite or eat large individual salmon netted by fishermen, otoliths from salmon species did not appear often in the scats. Since adult salmon have very heads, it may be possible that harbor seals do not portion of the head containing the readily ingest that were no otoliths in otoliths. There our sample from salmonid smolts. However, otoliths of steelhead trout were found frequently in Willapa Bay scats on an annual basis and during certain months in other estuaries. Lampreys were another very frequent prey item in season. These caused oily fishes are widely viewed as formidable parasites or predators upon fish species important to local fishermen. Based upon problems by by lampreys in the Great Lakes, Columbia River harbor seals could be performing a valuable service to area fishermen check. keeping the population of these jawless fish in Commercial species of fish eaten most frequently by harbor seals on an annual basis in a Washington state estuary were: Pacific eulachon, Pacific hake, petrale sole, sand sole, and crab herring, English sole, rex sole, butter sole, Cancer Sport fish eaten frequently by area seals were steelhead trout, eulachon, Pacific hake, Pacific lingcod, sculpins, starry flounder, sand sole, and crab tomcod, Cancer sp. Other marine mammals found dead in the Columbia River or adjacent waters (n=96) showed some evidence of predation upon species fished by area fishermen as well as predation upon lampreys and hagfish. 220 RECOMMENDATIONS Marine Mammal Abundanc~ and Distribution: should continue to be censused for the Columbia River and adjacent estuaries to monitor long-term population trends and determine op t imum Populations of harbor seals and sea lions sustainable population (OSP) levels. Pinniped haulout sites should be taken into account as part of any land adj acent and water use planning in the lower Columbia and estuaries. Haulou t areas used only during the pupping season are particularly sensitive to disturbance and should be considered as critical habitat areas. be Annual harbor seal pup counts in the study area should variability in continued in order to develop an index of population growth for monitoring include studies OSP levels. Areas of investigation should the to annual birth cycle determine temporal and pup survival rates. The relationship of the northern Washington coast harbor seals coas tal estuaries needs examined determine exchange rates and movement patterns between these areas. Censusing of the pinniped species present in areas of Washington and Oregon needs to other coastal be initiated develop the necessary data base to determine OSP levels on a regional basis. Tagging studies using radiotelemetry would be useful in identifying regional exchange Interactions patterns between haulout areas for harbor seals. Marine Mammal- Fishery Gillnet fishermen experiencing severe likelihood interactions with pinnipeds (including could reduce 221 their maj or entanglements) by avoiding when possible those areas and adjacent minimized by haulouts. Their individual losses could or salmon runs fishing during maj in the company of other gillnet vessels. When consistent with protecting depleted runs salmon, fisheries management agencies should consider opening gillnet seasons when the run has been shown (by test fishing or other methods) to be locally abundant. This would avoid the periods and the most scratch fishing severe damage rates from pinnipeds. If the season s harvest allocation could be caught in fewer fishing days during peak run, the overall encounters. impact of marine mammal interactions might also be reduced due to limited opportunities for Research, developmen t and evaluation should et con t inue passive, nonlethal seal harassment devices such as those using high- frequency sounds (Mate al. 1983). To protect a 250fm gillnet, an effective range of 550m in one dimension would be required. would Use of such a device on commercial fishing boats allowable under the " Certificate of Inclusion provisions of the MMPA. More research should be conducted to determine which portion of the seal Future population is involved in fishery interactions. efforts toward reducing interactions effectively directed at this subgroup could (should one be found). The feasibility of driving seals and sea lions from a fishing area and/ or excluding them during a gillnet season should be evaluated experimentally. O~e approach would be to test the underwater acoustic harassment device referred to above as an active as well as a passive seal repellant. Also worthy of Oregon further evaluation is the seal control technique employed by Mr. William Puustinen for the Fish Commission between 1959- 1970. According to Mr. Puustinen and many other 222 gillnetters, harbor seals hunting seals with rifle and the Columbia Ri ver became conditioned to the sound of the vessel he routinely used when shotgun. Seals on a haulout would allegedly depart and flee downstream from the sound of his boat even before he was in sight. If such generalized conditioning could be replicated (perhaps using other aversive reinforcers), the systematic scaring of seals could prove to be more effective for reducing fishery interactions than the killing of them. the " taking " However, a waiver of the MMPA moratorium on of animals would have to be obtained before these techniques could be employed research) level. on a management (ra ther than To estimate the total impact of predation from gillnets, the number of salmon completely removed from nets by seals should be determined. Underwater video could be employed in clear water, or side scan sonar could be tried. An alternative experiment would be to " salt " a net with live salmon at marked locations and then drift it normally, comparing the with control drifts where no seals are results present. pinniped predation on free-swimming steelhead returning to hatcheries (or spawning grounds upstream from hatcheries) needs to be quantified. A tag-recapture study is The impact of recommended using surplus migrant fish collected at hatcheries and specific predator or predators should be identified comparing tooth skulls and pelts. trucked back to the estuary mouth for release. The by and claw marks on the fish with pinniped Marine Mammal Feeding Habits Reasonable estimates should made the number of body individual prey animals represented. Calculations size of prey animals should also be made based on remnants found in the scat sample. These 223 types of data, combined with the frequency of occurrence figures in this report, would show the relative importance of various prey species to area harbor seals. Reasonable estimates should be made of harbor seal consumption rates based necessary in previous and original research. This order to proj ect the total biomass (as well as the dollar value) of the various species consumed. Additional research should be done scat samples and on harbor seal feeding habits to determine why so few salmon otoliths were trout more found in whether harbor seal predation upon steelhead the problem than was indicated occurrence of otoliths. Feeding habits analyses should be expanded for sea lions in order to quantify the extent of their predation upon various fish species. The overall effect of lampreys upon valuable may area fishes area should be measured in order to better understand the effects ma rine mammal predation upon lampreys have fisheries. 224 LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1887. " Seal Astorian, March at the mouth of the river. In: The Weekly 26, 1887, p. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Willapa River and Harbor navigation proj ect - Washington EIS. ACOE, Seattle Dist. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Hoquiam River, Washington. Beach, R. Grays Harbor and Chehalis River and Interim Rept. ACOE, Seattle Dist. ; Treacy, S. waters, 1981. NWAFC Proc. Rept. 82- 04, Seattle, WA. 186pp. Fish. Res. Bigg, M. A. 1969. The harbour seal in British Columbia. Can., Bull. 172. 33pp. Bigg, M. mammal- fisheries interactions on the Columbia ; Geiger, A. C.; Jeffries, S. D. 1981. Marine River and adjacent Bd. Phoca vitulina. J. Repro. Fert., supple 19:131- harbour seal, A. 1973. Adaptations in the breeding of the 142. Bohn, B. 1983. The Columbia River gillnet 38 ( 11) : 8- 11 . Bowlby, C. fishery. Oregon Wildl. northern California. M. S. Thesis, Humbolt State Univ., Eureka, E. 1981. Feeding behavior of pinnipeds in the Klamath River, CA. F. 4pp. Brown, R. harbor seal, movements , and feeding habits of the Phoca vitulina , at Netarts Bay, Oregon. M. S. Thesis, Oregon St. Univ., Corvallis. 69pp. 1981. Abundance, Brown, R. F. and Mate, B. habits of harbor seals, Bays, Oregon. Fish. R. 1983. Abundance, movements, and feeding Tillamook Bull. 81: 291- 301. Phoca vitulina , at Netarts and Chaney, E. 1978. A question of balance: water/energy - salmon and steelhead production in the upper Columbia River Summary Rept. Eagle, Resource Information Ctr. Inc. basin. Northwest ID. 29pp. Chiabai, R. 1978. 1978 Cowlitz River smelt sport dipnet fishery total catch estimate. Unpubl. memo. Washington Dep. Fish. Vancouver, WA. 8pp. Chilcote, M. ; Leider, S. A. and Loch, J. salmonid studies, 1981 Progress Report. Fish. Res. Rep. J. 1981. Kalama River 82- 4., Washington Game Dept., Olympia. 93pp. Church, D. C . and Pond, W. 0 & B Books. 1974. Basic animal nutrition and feeding. Cleaver, F. L., Comm. Contrib. No. Ed. 1951. Fisheries statistics 16, Portland. 176pp. 225 of Oregon. Oregon Fish Fishes of the Pacific coast of Clemens, W. A. and Wilby, G. 2nd Ed. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., Bull. 63: 1- 443. Canada. G. V. 1961. Cochran, W. New York, NY. 428pp. 1977. Sampling Techniques. Nat. Tech. Info. 3rd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Contos, S. M. 1982. Workshop Springfield, VA. 48pp. Craig, J. A. S. Dep. Comm. on marine mammal- fisheries interactions. Serv., Publ. No. PB82- 189507, 1940. The history and development of the and Hacker, R. fisheries of the Columbia River. U. S. Dept. Tnt., Bureau of Fish., L. Bull. 49(32): 133- 216. CREDDP. 1981. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, 1981 Report. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA. CREST. 1977. Columbia River Estuary Inventory. Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force, Astoria, OR. 200pp. Culver, B. 1978. 1977 recreational fisheries at the Columbia River north jetty and Grays Prog. Rept. No. 6, Olympia. Harbor south 10pp. jetty. Washington Dep. Fish., Univ. Cutright, P. R. 1969. Illinois Press. Lewis and Clark: pioneering naturalists. Dailey, M. 1979. Parasites populations. Abstract as an aid to understanding marine mammal : J. R. Geraci and D. J. St. Aubin. Biology Mar. Mammal Comm., of marine mammals: insights through pp. 243- 244. Rept. No. MMC- Durkin, J. T. utilization. 77/13. 1980. Columbia strandings. River estuary finfish and shellfish Proceedings of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. pp. 334- 342. the 60th Annual Conference of Eberhardt, L. ; Chapman, D. G. and Gilbert, J. marine mammal census methods. Wildl. Monog. No. 63, Wildlife R. 1979. A review of Society, Washington, D. C. 46 pp. Everitt, R. ; Geiger, A. C.; Jeffries, S. J. and Treacy, interactions on the Columbia mammalNat. Mar. Mammal Lab. /Columbia River and adjacent waters, Washington River Estuary Data Development Program annual S. D. 1981. Marine ; Beach, R. fisheries 1980. report. Game Dep., Olympia, WA. 109 pp. 1980. Aerial survey of Pacific harbor Everitt, R. D. and Braham, H. seals in the southeastern Bering sea. N. W. Sci. 54(4):281- 288. Everitt, R. W. Sound marine EPA- 600/7- 80- Interagency Energy Northern Puget ; Fiscus, C. H. and DeLong, R. Agency, Comm. /Env. mammals. U. S. 139. Washington, /Env. Res. Development Program Rept. No. D. Dep. L. 1980. Protection C. 134pp. 226 Everitt, R. D. and Jeffries, S. Washington State. J. 1979. Abstract Marine mammal investiations in : Proceedings of the 3rd Conference WA. on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Seattle, Marine mammal-salmonid interactions: Fiscus, G. McNeil, W. J., and H. M. Himsworth (Eds. ), Salmonid Ecosystems of R. 1980. a review. In: North Pacific. Oregon State 121- 132. Univ. Press, Corvallis, OR. the Fish Commission of Oregon. 1972. Columbia River seal control program. Management and Research Div., FCO. Unpub. Rept., March 9, 1982. Clackamas, OR. 7pp. Fish Commission of Oregon/Washington Department of Columbia River fish runs and commercial fisheries, 1928- Fisheries. 1971. Rept. 1 ( 1) : 1- 87 . 70. Status Fisher, R. Columbia, D. 1952. The status of the harbour seal in British Bd. Can., reference to the Skeena River. Fish. Res. with special Bull. 92. 58pp. and Dryness, C. Franklin, J. F. and Washington. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon 417pp. USDA Rept. No. PNW8. Washington, D. T. C. Galbreath, J. L. 1966. Timing through the lower of tributary races of chinook salmon Columbia River recoveries. Fish. Comm. Oregon Res. Briefs 12(1):1- 23. based on analysis tag Geiger, A. C. 1981. Aesthetic values of marine mammals: a research proposal. Unpub. MS., Wash. Dept. Game, Astoria, OR. 24pp. Geraci, J. R. and Smith, T. G. 1975. Functional hematology of ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ) in the Canadian Arctic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32 (12) : 2559- 2569 . Gibson, G. ; Machimoto, R.; Young, R. and Junge, problems of 1973- 1978. Oregon Dep. Fish and Wildl., Portland. 43pp. adult Columbia River chinook salmon and steelhead, C. 1979. Passage D. 1972. Ecology and management of coastal cutthroat trout in Oregon. Oregon Game Comm. Fishery Res. Rept. No. 6. Corvallis, OR. 61pp. Haley, D. D. 1978. Marine mammals of eastern north Pacific and Arctic Giger, R. waters. Pac. Search Press, Seattle, WA. 256pp. Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., Bull. 180. Ottawa. 740pp. 1951. Food of the chinook and silver salmon Reg, R. and Van Hyning, taken off 3: 32- 38. the Oregon J. coast. Fish. Comm. Oregon, Res. Briefs. 227 Herder, M. J . 1982. Pinniped- fishery interactions in the Klamath River Res. Branch, Eureka, CA. Draft MS. 83pp. system, July 1979 to October 1980. Cal. Dep. Fish & Game, Mar. Hirose, P. Hoines, L. 64- 65. 1977 . Incidence of seal-damaged salmonids sampled lower Columbia catch report, report 77- River 4. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Portland. 6pp. gillnet fishery, 1972- 1976. Information from the ; Ward, W. D. and Nye, G. 1980. Washington State sport 10, Washington Dep. Fish., Olympia. D. 1980. Imler, R. H. and Sarber, H. Alaska. U. S. Fish Wildl. Servo Sci. Rept. No. lions R. 1947. Harbor seals and sea 23pp. in 28. Population evaluation of the Johnson, M. L. and Jeffries, S. harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ) in the waters of the State of Washington. U. S. Dept. Comm., Natl. Tech. Info. Servo Publ. No. J. 1977. PB27- 376. Springfield, VA. 27pp. Johnson, M. L. and Jeffries, S. Population biology of the harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ) in the waters of the State of Washington, 1976- 1977. U. s. Dep. Comm., Natl. Tech. Info. Servo Publ. No. PB83- 159715. Springfield, Va. J. 1983. Kellert, S. R. 1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and the U. S. Fish natural habitat issues. Grant #14- 16- 0009- 77138pp. and Wildlife Service. Yale Univ., New Haven, CT. Kenyon, K. W. 1973. Human disturbance of birds and marine mammals in wilderness areas of Baj a California, Mexico, February 10- 17, 1973. Unpubl. rept., March 5, 1973. Marine Mammal Substation, BSFW, Div. 056 for of Wildlife Research. 16pp. Clackamas, OR. 7pp. King, S. D. 1979. The fisheries: Bonneville Corvallis. 45pp. 1978 lower Columbia River recreational to Astoria. Oregon Dep. Fish Wildl. , Kreag, R. A. 1979. Natural resources of Netarts Estuary. Estuary Res. Rept. 2 (1) . Oregon Dep. Fish Wildl., Res. and Devel. Section, Lavinge, D. M.; Barchard, W. ; Innes, S. and Oritsland, N. Pinniped bioenergetics. Food Agr. Org. U. S. Advisory Comm. Mar. D. A. 1977. Resources Res. ACMRR/MM/SC/ll. 74pp. Laws, R. Nichols (Ed. publishers, New York, NY. M. 1979. Monitoring whale and seal populations. In: ) , Moni toring the marine environme nt. pp. 115- 140. Praeger Leatherwood, S.; Evans, W. E. and Rice, D. dolphins, and porpoises of the eastern North Pacific, a guide to Naval Undersea Res. Devel. identification in San Diego, CA. 17 5pp. Ctr., NUC TP W. 1972. The whales, their 282. the water. 228 Maser, C. ; Mate, B. ; Franklin, J. F. and Dyrness, C. history of Oregon Tech. Rep. PNWMate, B. and 133. Portland, OR. pp. coast mammals. U. T. 1981. Natural Eumetopias jubatus S. Dep. Agr., 372- 457. For. Serv. Gen. R. 1975. Annual migrations of the sea lions Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 169:455- 461. Zalophus californianus along the Oregon coast. . Rapp. P. -v. Mate, B. R. 1977 breeding effort, and Comm., Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. Publ. for assessment . Aerial censusing of pinnipeds in the eastern Pacific of rookery stability, population numbers, migratory No. PB265859. Springfield, recruitment. U. distributions, S. Dept. VA. 67pp. Mate, B. R. 1980. Workshop on marine mammal- fisheries interactions in the northeastern Pacific. U. S. Dep. Comm., Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. Publ. No. PB80- 175144. Springfield, VA. 48pp. ; Brown, R. F. and Greenlaw, Abstract Mate, B. frequency underwater sound as a : fishery interactions. C. 1983. Testing of high deterrent to seals in salmon 5th Biennial Conf. on the Biol. of Marine Mammals, Nov. 27-Dec. 1 Mate, B. R. and Gentry, R. Mammals in the seas, Vol. 1983, Boston, MA. p. 63. L. 1979. Northern (Steller) sea lion. In: in on sirenians. Food Agr. Org. United Nations. Rome. pp. Matkin, C. O. 2. Pinniped species summaries and report on the Copper Springfield, VA. 71pp. Meyer, P . Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1978. River and s. Dep. Comm., Natl. Tech. Info. Servo Publ. No. PB80- 159536. and Fay, F. R. 1980. Marine mammal- fisheries interactions A. 1978. Updated estimates for recreation and preservation values associated with the salmon and steelhead of the Fraser River. Information report, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, Vancouver, B. C. 36pp. Meyer, P . 1980. Recreational fishing values at risk: recent developments in compensatory methodology in the United States and Canada. Unpub. MS., Calif. Water Policy Ctr., USFWS, Sacramento, CA. 28pp. A. Miller, D. J . ; Herder, M. J. and Scholl, mammal- fishery interactions study, 1979- 1981. J. P. 1982. California marine Draft MS. Sacramento. 311pp. of 25 1982. Calif. Dept. Jan. Fish and Game, ; Sloan, P. Miller, R. marine Rept. No. Jolla, Ca. 1978. Operations LJ- ; Henderson, J. manual mammal biology and 78. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., S. W. Service. 1981. Columbia 229 technology program. Administrative Fish. Ctr., life history and systematics task, non-salmonid fish. Nat. River estuary data ; Evans, C. J. and Perrin, W. National Marine Fisheries development program report ~ salmonid and Mar. Fish. Serv., N. W. and Alaska Fish. Ctr. Seattle, WA. National Marine Fisheries Estuarine Studies Biological Field Station. permission G. McCabe. Service. Unpub. data. Hammond, OR. (used by Coastal Zone and National Oceanographic Data Center. 1978. Taxonomic code. Oceanic Data Nat. Oceanic Atmos. Adm. Nat. Ctr. 2nd ed. Netboy, A. 1980a. The Netboy, A. 1980b. fight for survival. Univ. Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout: their Wash. Press, Seattle, WA. 180pp. Those salmon keep butting those dams. Nat. Hist. 89(7) :52- 61. Newby, T. 1942- 1972. C. 1973. Changes in Washington State harbor seal population, Murrelet 54: 5- 6 . General biology. Nishiwaki, M. 1972. of the sea. Charles C. Oliver, W. : S. H. Ridgway (Ed. Thomas, Springfield, IL. pp. 3- 204. Mammals A short form for wildlife in Washington State. Wash. bioeconomic evaluations of No. Dept. of Game, Env. Mgmt. Div., Applied Research ; Young, C. and Eldred, D. 1975. 7. Sec., Bull. 20pp. Comprehensive Plan for Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. s anadramous salmon and trout. Production and Management of Oregon Part II. Coho Salmon Plan. ODFW Fish Div., Anad. Fish Sec., Portland, OR. 1982. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Washington Department of Fisheries. 1979. Columbia 1957- 1978. 2(4): 1- 68. River fish runs and fisheries, 1980. Columbia s gateway: a history of the Oregon Historical PNRBC, Vancouver, WA. 63pp. Columbia River estuary to 1920. Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1982a. Perspective on management of ocean chinook and coho salmon fisheries within the fishery conservation zone off California, Oregon, and Washington. Portland, OR. 29pp. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1982b. Proposed plan for managing the 1982 salmon fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. (Draft. ) Portland, OR. Growth of a fur seal population. Payne, M. Soc. Brit. 279:67- 79. Society. R. 1977. Phil. Trans. Royal Pearson, J. P. Percy, K. Abundance and distribution of and Verts, B. J . harbor seals and northern sea lions in Oregon. Murrelet 51 (1) : 1- 1970. 1974. ; Sutterlin, C. ; Bella, D. A. and Klingeman, P. Sea Grant Prog., Oregon State Univ., Oregon Corvallis" OR. s Estuaries. C. 230 Peters, C. F. et al. 1977. Colonial nesting sea and wading bird use of estuarine islands in the Pacific northwest. John Graham and Co., Seattle, WA. 183pp. A. Peterson, R. S. and Bartholomew, behavior of the California sea No. 1. 79pp. lion. Amer.. Soc. Mammal. 1967. The natural history and Spec. Pub. Petry, G. Vol. 2: K. 1980. Pacific northwest salmon and steelhead fishery report. northwest. of ; Blakeslee, L. ; Butcher, W. R.; Fuller, R. J. and Staitieh, The economic and employment impacts of commercial and sport College fishing for salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Business and Economics, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA. 94pp. dolphins of northeast C. 1956. Guide to whales, porpoises andAlaska. Fish. Res. Bd. Arctic waters of Canada and Pacific and Can., Circ. 32. 14pp. and MacAskie, I. B. 1969. Marine mammals of British G. C. Pike, Pike, Columbia. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., Bull. 171. 54pp. Pitcher, K. 1977 . Population productivity and food habits of harbor seals in Prince William Sound - Copper River delta. area, Alaska. Report No. MMC- 75/03. U. S. Mar. Mammal Comm. Washington, D. W. Pitcher, K. seal, W. 1980. Stomach contents and feces as indicators of harbor Fish. Bull. Phoca vitulina , foods in the Gulf of Alaska. 78(3) :797- 798. Pitcher, K. W. and McAllister, D. behavior of radio-tagged harbor seals, C. 1981. Movements and haulout Phoca vitulina Can. Field Natur. 95 (3) : 292- 297 . Proctor, D. M.; Massa, A. Puustinen, W. 1980. An ecological characterization of the Pacific northwest coastal region. 4: 1- 200. M. Smith, J . ; Galvin, D. V. ; Lewis, G. ; Laehn, L. D. and Columbia River Gillnetter 6, : 7Rae, B. W. 1975. Seals and sea lions cause loss to Astoria, OR. 8. fishery. Seals and Scottish fisheries. 1960(2), pp. 39. B. 1960. Mar. Res. Scot., Rice, D. Oceanic Atmos. Adm. Tech. Rept. NMFS, SSRF- 711. W. 1977. (Ed. A list of the marine mammals of the world. Nat. U. S. Dep. Comm. Thomas, Seattle, WA. 15pp. Ridgway, S. R. 1972. Mammals of the sea. Charles C. Ridgefield, IL. 812pp. ; Bond, D. E.; Brooker, F. R.; Lachner, E. Robins, C. R.; Bailey, R. 1980. A list of common and R. N. and Scott, W. names of fishes from the United States and Canada, 4th ed. Amer. Soc. Publ. No. 12. Be. thesda, MD. 174pp. Lea, B. scientific Fish. 231 Roffe, T. Population, food habits, and behavior of pinnipeds Unpub. in the Rogue River and their relationship to salmonid 155pp. PhD. Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., J. 1981. Corvallis. runs. Roper, D. the families ; Young, R. D. and Voss, L. 1969. An illustrated key to of the order Contrib. to Zoology. No. C. 32pp. 13. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington, fishery. Teuthoidea (Cephalopoda). Smithsonian Scammon, C . North America, described and illustrated: M. 1874. The of the American whale 319pp . marine mammals of the northwestern coast of together with an account Francisco, CA. Reprint 1968, Dover Publ. Inc. Scheffer, T. H. John H. Carman San New York, NY. Co., 1928a. Dealing with seals and sea lions of the northwest. Murrelet 9: 57 - 58. Scheffer, T. H. 1928b. Precarious status of the seal and sea lion the northwest coast. J. Mamm. 9(1): 10- 16. Scheffer, T. H. and Sperry, C. seals, Phoca richardi,i. J. Mamm. Scheffer, V. on C. 1931. Food habits of Pacific harbor 12 (3) : 214- 226. Quart. (Oct. ): 370- 388. Scheffer, V. B. 1940. The sea otter on the Washington coast. Pac. NW of Animal Problems 1: 19- 32. Scheffer, V. B. and Macy, B. 1980. Benign uses of wildlife. P. P. 1944. Airplane 1944. Int. J. for the Study reconnaissance of sea lions in Washington. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 8: 340- 341. Scheffer, V. B. and J. W. Slipp. State. Am. The harbor seal in Washington Midl. Natur., 32:373- 416. Scheffer, V. B. and Slipp, J. W. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington state with a key to the cetaceans of the west coast North America. Am. Midl. Natur. 39(2) :257- 337. Salmon fishers of the Columbia. 117pp. Press, Corvallis, of Smith, C. L. 1979. OR. Oregon State Univ. Smith, H. inquiry respecting food fishes and the of the Commissioner, Part XXVII. U. S. 549pp. Comm. of Fish and Fisheries. Govt. Print. Off., Wash. D. M. 1904. Report on the fishing grounds. In: Report C. Smith, J. ; fishes in Grays Bengston, D. and Brown, Harbor. environment of Grays Harbor, Washington. U. GI- 12. A. J. 1976. Maintenance dredging and the Impact of dredging on the S. Army Corps of and Engineers, Seattle, WA. Smith, T. C.; Beck, B. and Sleno, branding ringed seals. 1973. Capture, handling, J. Wildl. Manag. 37: 579- 583. 232 Spalding, D. G. 1964. Comparative feeding habits of the fur 146. ocean. Mar. Fish. Hall, A. S. 1967. Chemical composition of A technique for handling live lion, and harbour seal on the British Columbia 52pp. Bd. Can., Bull. coast. Fish. seal, sea Res. Stansby, M. northeast Pacific Stansby, M. E. and of fish caught E. 1976. Chemical characteristics38(9):1-11. in the R. commercially important fish of the United Res. 3(4):29- 46. Stirling, I. 1966. States. Fish Industrial seals. J. Mamm. 47 (3) : 543- 544. Stockley, C. 1980. The 1979 Columbia River spring chinook test fishing program. Washington Dept. Fisheries Prog. Rept. No. 06. Olympia, WA. 17pp. Stroud, R. K. and Roffe, T. stranded along the Oregon J. 1979. J. coast. Causes of death in marine mammals Wildl. Dis. 15:91- 97. Swan, J . 1857. The northwest coast or, three years residence in Washington territory. 1977 ed. Univ. of Washington Press. Seattle, passage in Ingestion of salmonids and gastrointestinal Mar. Mammal Comm. contract no. MM2079357- G. WA. 435pp. Treacy, S. D. In prep. captive harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina Treacy, S. D. and Crawford, T. W. 1981. Retrieval of otoliths and statoliths from gastrointestinal contents and scats of marine mammals. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 45 (4) : 990- 993. Treacy, S. D. 1983. A seasonal migration of harbor and Jeffries, S. Abstract In: seals in response to spawning runs of eulachon J. Proc. of 5th England Aquarium, Boston, MA. u. S. Department of the Biennial Conf. on the Biol. of Marine Mammals. New smelt. 103. Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. U. S. Fish and Wildlife hunting, . fishing and Interior. 1977 . 1975 national survey of U. S. Fish and wildlife-associated recreation. 91pp. and Wildlife relationship ecological and biological aspects of Willapa Bay Washington. USFWS, Portland, OR. 33pp. to the Service. 1970. Fish estuary, Wahl, T. Westport, Washington. Murrlet 58 (1) : 21- 23. R. 1977 . Sight records of some marine mammals off shore from D. 1980. 1979- 80 fisheries Fish., Olympia, Ward, W. D., Hoines, L. J. and Nye, G. 34- 35, statistical report. Washington Dep. 42, 51. 27- 28, Washington Department of Fisheries. 1971. Grays Harbor cooperative 1966. Tech. 233 Rept. 7. p. 12. water quality study 1964- The coho salmon fishery of Youngs Bay, Oregon. Weiss, E. Oregon Fish Comm., Res. Briefs 12(1):1Zirges, M. look, W. J . F. 1966. 1983. Those unique salmon. Oregon Wildl. 38 (8) : 3- gill net management. 60pp. Fisheries, Prog. Rept. No. 76- 1976. Coastal 06. Washington Dep. 234 APPENDICES 235 r-) 236 -...J 'f'", , I .' "r-~',)f'\!""') "'..)J, Appendix Al MARINE MAMMAL INTERVIEW DATA: U ;", : .:.;i.:.;:,., J~ FISHERY INTERACTION Interview location Time (2400) Commercial- Season Daily# Initials Date Field Survey Dockside Angler Charter Boat Name (optional) Fisherman Name (optional) MARINE MAMMALS OBSERVED: 0 None Seen Mammal Species location Type of Interaction (Describe) FISH CATCH AND DAMAGE: Fish Species Total # 0 No Fis~ Caught = Undamaged + Salable Damag. + Unsalable Damage Form Used yes 0 no yes 0 no yes 0 no EFFORT DATA: Fishing Location Time: Gear Tide(s) Fished: Gear Out Total # Hours High Slack 0 Low # Net Sets # Anglers Day 0 Ebb 0 Flood 0 Slack Night GILLNET DATA: Net Depth 0 Cotton Length Mesh Size Diver 0 Polyfilament Other: Floater 0 Monofilament 0 Hemp GEAR DAMAGE: 0 None Amount Cost to Repair Cause of Damage % Caused by Marine Mammals INCIDENTAL TAKE: 0 No Marine Mammals Captured , Harassed, or Killed Mammal Species # Found #Released Dead in Net live from Net # Killed By Method # Repelled By Method CONTINUE EXPLANATION OF FISHERY INTERACTION AND COMMENTS ON REVERSE: 237 PRINTING. "5TORIA.OREGON CO/IISOLIDATEO Appendix Al (cent. MARINE MAMMAL fish species FISHERY INTERACTION sex len (em) FISH DAMAGE REPORT description of damage wt (Ibs) % damaged severity frame bought $ 238 Appendix A2 Page SUPPLEMENTAL FISHING DRI FT FORM Date of Dri ft Ma ri Initials I ntervi ew Form # ne Mamma ls Dev; ce T es ted P=Phoca v. Za 1 op Arrow to Upri ver (beginning of drift) E=Eumeto hus E.. i as M=machl ne bomb" (seal) C=crac~er she 11 --.J Top 1/3 Time Mi d 1/3. Boat 1/3 2/3 3/3 (2400) Bot 1/3 Oescrl pti on: flSh species, fish damage (upri ver- downri ver ), mesh gnment, loss, changes ; n boat-net a i ; sea 1 behavi or 239 Appendix A3 ANGLER INTERVIEW SUMMARYNO MARINE MAMMALS OBSERVED / NO FISHERY INTERACTION Interview location Sheet Time (2400) Date Fishing Location(s) Initials Tide Fished # Fish by Species Anglers for # Hours This Catch Fished Expansion ;if b OJ0: ~ o ,;;: ,, i:f .:r c.; Total # of Fish Page Totals Fishery Interaction Interviews Attached: yes 0 no PRINTING. ASTQRIA.Of'1EGON CONSOUOAT'EO 240 Appendix A4 EX PLANATiON OF F 'SH CAT EGOR' ES t. DAMAGE SEAL SC RATC H E s. -- 2-3 or more parallel, straight or curved scratches, on one or both sides of the flanks of the fish. LA 'W RAKE stock. GOLDE N ARCH ES'1 Encircl, SEAL B\TE MARKS. Ragged wounds, often on caudal 3. NET MAR K 5 the fish, often on anterior or midsection SEAL B\TE NET MARK Shark bites are smooth and clean, as compared to or semi - 4. OTHER MA R K S . -- Puncture wounds, abrasions, or any wound not apcircular. Lamprey scars are circular. plicable to the above categories seal bites, . and are often circular Propellor wounds break the skin without leaving .ragged, torn edges like a seal Hook and snag marks, plus anything unidentifiable, come under this category. does. U1PORTANT -- If active seal - fisherman interactions become a problem in your area, call collect: (503) 325-8241. For more forms or further information: 97103. MARINE M~~AL PROJECT, 53 portway Street, Astoria, Oregon 241 Appendix M FiSH Dates sampled DAMAG TALLY Winchester Dam EET OR River or Location sampled: Willamette Falls stream: Observer Were seals present? yes FISH SPECIES ~Ri I A, sc ~a tc h..s -- OT"~R. hoG~T~FhE. q~ ~~~~:n ~ i 16J" Old ! arches " 1.. bit mar k s . n ~~ k ~ ,_-0 ----- C\:\', NPoK - Total number of fish observed = . - h_- - - -Tota~- t-or- marks I 11 =1 -. 1.. co H-O otaJ.--p_umg~ of fish ts~r ed =1= -Totalof-mar ks n_- ------ - i - 1- ------ l -1 u In +-1 ST€ELH. TQ t a.l - npmbe fish observed = i------ p- 1-- --o UH ! - T - T(Ytal- ." r- ma (1(5 --1--i- --1- - --1---' 242 1__ J---1-- COMM~NTS MAt BE AD ~ED ON *EVERSE t--J- Appendix A6 1982 FI Agency Con tac t E S per son ~TE1ELHEAD R M River or area OTHER FISH SPECIES C~UNOOK U1 . :i*: ua'#a 0 (/1 #: =8;" COo. :a. CI1- =o, c~~ tI)~- III I!) tveek Da te s ,., 0 I~ ::r a.. Ii Ill' rt ::r (1) III tr rt (1) III ('D III Ii rt '"C ::1' (!) to-' (!) :J" 8 g. Ii en III (D rt QJ tr rt a a :lJ I.Q en ::1' ri g. ('D g, CD \lI '"C rt '"C ::1' rtJ (1) ::1' :3 g, rt en Ii tr rt f-I rt ~ ft Ii en III (1) III ::1' OJ (1) III a 0 OJ rt en Ii ~ d (!) ::T! Ii rt Ii :r 10. 3/28-6 11. 3/7-13 12. 3/14-20 13. 3/21-27 14. 3/28-3 15. 4/4-10 16. 4/11-17 17. 4/18-24 18. 4/25-1 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 5/2-8 5/9-15 5/16-22 5/23-29 5/30-5 6/6-12 6/13-19 6/206/27-3 7/4/10 7/11-17 7/18-24 7/25-31 8/1-7 8/8-14 8/15-21 8/22-28 ~1ARINE MAHHAL PROJECT, 53 Partway Street, RETUR..~ COHPLETED FOR.\1S BY SEPTEMBER. 1 TO: Astor ia, Oregon 97103. For more forms or further information: (503) 325-8241. T~ANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN GATHERING AND TABULATING THIS INFORMATION. 243 Appendix A7 FISH DAMAGE DETAIL FORM. SOURCE: Commerc ial SpOt t Anesthetized Sacr ificed Free-Swimming Cowli tz LOCATION: Columbia Zone Ka lama Lew i s Umpqua OBSERVER: r-f Willam~t t.e Clackamas STATION: DATE: . r-f (lJ r-f ::r: ::r: E-t (lJ U1 r-f Q) r-f r-f.c ..::e r-f .c 0" U1 (lJ c:: 4-1 c:: ..::e ::r: ri:I t'J' tJ::I ::E: co U1 (lJ ::J t-:) rx.. P-I (/) co rl .~ r-f c:: co U) (/) tJ:.i Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ch Co St Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at S5 Bt Ab Nm Un Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ot Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Nm Un Ss Bt Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un at Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ot Nm Un Ss Bt Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI SC Sf Fr HI SC Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps 1\r P s Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Ar Ps Ar Ps Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps .M Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ch Co st Ct Ch Co st Ct Ar . Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar P5' Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ot Nm Un Ss Bt Nm Un Ss Bt Nm Un Ss Bt S5 Bt Ab Nm Un Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Ar Ps Ch Co St Ct Ch Co St Ct Ar Ps Ar Ps Ar Ps Nm Ss Bt Nm Ss Bt Nm Ss Bt Nm Ss Bt Ss Bt Ab Nm Nm Ss Bt Un Sf. Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Un Un at Un HI Sc Sf Fr HI SC Un ot Sf Fr HI Sc Un Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Sf Fr HI Sc Ch Co st Ct Ch Co St Ct Ar Ps Ar Ps Ss Bt Ab Nm Un Ot Nm Un Ss Bt Ss Bt Nm Un Ch Co St Ct 244 Appendix A8 MARINE MA/1aM'AL S1GHTING FORM OFFICE USE ONLY (DO NOT FlU OUT) 1. NAME VESSel 2. DATE (Yr./Mo. Doy) RECORD ID ITrDIJ ITrDIJ 10 11 12 TIME OF SIGHTING 3. lOCATION (D1stance & Direction from landmark) ITIIIJ (ill 21 22 18 19 20 ITIJJ 13 14 15 4, LATITUDE (degrees/minutes/~Oths) LONGITUDE (degrees/minutes/1Oths) 5. SPECIES ITrDIJ ~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 CD TENTATIVE 33 C. I. Common nome Scientific nome 34 36 ITIIJ 37 38 39 45 46 6. NUMBER SIGHTED 7. WEATHER SEA SURFACE TEMP (O G CD 53 54 55 8. How did you identify animal(s)? RETURN COMPLETED FORMS TO: ganisms; behavior (include closest approach); comments (continue on bock). Sketch and describe animal; associated orTIME ZONE :t LiIilim 56 57 58 G CD 60 61 62 Morine Mammal Project , Washington Dept. of Game, 53 Portwoy St. , Astoria , Oregon 97103 PAINnNG . OSTOR""""EGON CONSOLlClATEO 245 ADpendix A9 MAR INE MA'1MAL FEED I~ HABITS SERIES (ALIMENTM Y CANAL) Predator 1. Qd;J spec ies spec imen number #C-4 #C-s Stomach/Intestine Condition Preservation Method (1. Fresh 2. Frozen 2. Good 3. Buff. Form. 4. 10% Form. 4. Rotten) Preservation State (1. Excell. Stomach Contents Sorted 3. Bloated/Discolored (1. All 2. Sub- sample 2. Nema todes 3. Food Leakage 4. Empty Stomach) Parasites Looked For (1. None 3. Nema + Cestodes 4. All) Lesions Looked For (1. None 2. Some 3. All) O=Otol i ths B=Bony F ish Par ts N=Nema todes Intestine Length (cm) N=Non-Bony Fish Octopus C=Crustacea S=Squ id + M=M C=Cestodes T=Trematodes A=Acantho. iscellaneous Al imentary Canal Prey Item Jars Weight (gm) Parasite Vials Vol. (ml) C M ~outh + Esoph. Cont. Total Starn. Content Forestom. Cont. Gastr ic Cont. Pylar ic Cont. Total Intest. (full) Prox. 1/3 ~ id.. 1/3 D i s.t:.. 1/3 Intesf. Wall (snpty) Prox. 1/3 Mid. 1/3 Dist. 1/3 Total Intest. Prox. 1/3 Con ten C:;4 c:;c:; 1:\6 1:\7 ;'.1 Mid. 1/3 Dist. 1/3 Total .r!'J.:..' 5 66 67 68 69 Da te Examiner (s) Examined 246 Appendix AI0 ~I(ish;ngton Game nepartment, r1ar;ne '1clpuni11 Project 51 Port way St., Astoria, OR 97103 r1/l,RINE MN1r.1AL Co 11 ee t rU.1P (503) 325- 8~41 rOLL.~CTION FORr~ ; 0 n Da ta -.--.--- Species Oate Time - r:ounty ----...-- 0 'rJ.A fJ OR General Location Position Sex: DMa1e How Co 11 ected: DFema1 e Weight( Oeste Stranded(dead) Dlncidenta1 Co 11 ec t ed O\'Jei ghed ) Ta ke other Frames Reporti ng Source Photos: Roll (xterna1 Exam 'lOW long Frames Roll # dead (est. extreme Gen. Decay: 0 .'\ttached to net DYes DNa Omoderate Dslight Ofresh Description !sears, parasites, pelage, baleen color/count #throat grooves) _,_.n -. Mea slJrements (* i nd i ea tes parallel to body axis) PINNIPEfI. Snout- Tail Ta i 1 Length Tip(*) Hi Flip ~Jidth Fo Flip Len(ant) Yi Flip Len(ant) CET.'\CEAN Fo Flip tIidth Snout- F1 uke Noteh( I-Iei ght norsa 1 Fi Span of Fl ukes Fl ip Width Fl u ke Depth Flip length(ant) Snout- Eye( *) Snout- Ear(*) Snout- Jaw Angl e( *) C r;l Longest 8a1 een II Throa t Groov e( *) PI NNI PED OR CETACEAN Snout- Anus(*) Snout- Mid Genital (*) S no u t - 11m b Axillary Girth r~ax imum Gi rth Ster Rlub Thiek i1ieus(*) Perineal Length(*) 247 Appendix AID (cont. ~roductive ~ondit;on LaGtat;on: OCholostrum Gonad t4ei ght: L ~1il k Fetus/Embryo: DYes Gonad Length: L -"'1m R r~o rm~, g R Fetus Sex: O~1al e 0 Femal e. Fetus Length em. Fetus Ueight DTeeth(only) OWhole Pluck Wor Specimens roll ected 0 Stomach 0 Intestine Tes tes: 0 L Ot'lhole ~arcass DSkull(only) P Fetus/Embryo OUterus T1 ssues/Or gans Whol e OR Ovari es: External Parasites(fridge) OL OR (10~~ Formalin) Organ 2" cu "-011 ec ted ( freeze) be Hi stopa th Hei ght Comments (10% For) BaGul urn (worms, etc) ~ung L;v Heart 3111 bber nu s c 1 e ( oa c k) Pa ncreas Spleen Kid n ey Adrena Fin a 1 0 i s po sit ion Probable rause of Death Carcass Disposal: 0 Buried 0 Hater OOther: ClAba ndoned (not i fi ed Comments (notes. drawings. interhal lesions, etc): 2L~8 Appendix Bl. Aerial survey counts of marine mammals in the Columbia River and adjacent waters. (NS = area not surveyed. Pup counts are in parentheses and included in total count. W.:\~!1i:1gtO!1 OreGon (Cape Loor.out to Dat~ 1980 Apr SneCieg Col~~bia River) Columbia ~ i VIC'f illapa Bay Grays H.:1rbor Coast to Tat~os:' Is. C1!.-,'2 Off Duration i. ow ~itle Surve CO~jitlO~5 ( 240(1) (hr' !-'.t. (ft' Tine (2400) +0. 1330 Tide 971 806 1045 r:j Apr 18 804 1035 (1) 1015 -0. 1007 Apr 25 1182 586 1528 1. 5 +1. 0 1635 May 22 372 (3) 1434 1.1 +1. 0 1458 May 27 1006 1.4 +0. 0707 May 28 214 (2) 714 (73) 0838 0749 May 30 299 (7) 0822 1. 5 0906 Jun 186(5) 1757(193) 15 (1) 1107 . 3. -0. 1237 Jun 191(4) 1194 (229) 1613 (443) 1203 +0. 1332 Jun 751(152) 261 103 (1) i307 +0. 1429 Jun 19 168 914 (155) 1986(388) 1230 +0. 1320 Jul 17 726 (7) :8 514 (5) 1036 +0. 1155 Jul 18 Nt; 420(1) 1469(35) 1437 (43) 1133 +0. 1232 Aug 13 195 (1) 1638 1921 0920 1012 Aug , 14 582 405 104 0900 1043 249 Appendix Date Sep 12 Sep 13 Dce les- (cont. Oregon (Cape Lookout to Columbia River) Columbia R i .,er Willapa 491 Washington. Grays Harbor 520 Coas t to Take Of Duration he) Sur vey Conn i t ions Low Tice. Lo"'" Tatoosh Is.. Tide 2400) 0835 Ht. +0. f+: Time (2400) 437 1008 1037 460 110 444 0819 +1.0 Oct 24 P', 1731 -1. 6 2107 Oct 25 301 280 460 0853 +1.0 0909 Dee 16 521 349 1315 1. 9 +1. 5 1502 1981 Jan 13 566 1324 1. 7 +1. 6 1328 Jan 14 739 1418 1.2 +1.1 1439 Mar 11 P'l 898 190 1130 1. 7 o. a 1139 Apr 100 0855 1. 3 -1.0 0933 Apr 24 569(1) 639 (1) 1533(6) 0926 +0. 1055 Apr 29 399(3) 100 897 1510 +0. 1637 May 12 544 (12) 1392(68) 1545 +0. 1555 May 13 4 7 a (33 ) 568 (3) 1540 +1. 0 1647 229 4 (2) Ma y :: 2 t"l 893 (176) 405 (9) 565 (5) 1030 1248 1-0. 1049 1357 May 26 258 4 (2) May 27 436 (3) 1199 (193) 2944 (688) 1330 3. 5 +0. 1452 250 Appendix (cont. Oregon (Cape Lookout to Washington Columbia Wi11apa Date May 28 ec1es Colurnbia River River 464 (2) Grays Harbor Coast to TakeOff Tatoosh Is. 2400 1688 (104) 179 2 (1) Dur a tion Survey Conditions Low Tide (hr) Ht. (ft 'Low Tide Time (2400) 1356 +1.0 1552 Jun Jun 10 842 (137) 273 (7) 1321 +0. +1. 14l5 1507 1200 208 228(4) 277 494 1744 (328) 2871 (759) 1353 Jul Jul 22 Jul 23 1150 1538 -0. +0. +0. +1. 1993 (1) 1130 1203 720 525 378 1145 1568 687 2357 1245 1203 1121 Aug 1042 1035 Sep 300 1083 Sep 499 149 15 (1) 596 1055 +1. 1157 Sep 17 0958 +0. 1027 Oct 15 202 557 0840 +0. 0919 295 Oct 22 462 327 1520 i.9 +2. 1643 1982 Jan 832 1525 1. 0 +0. 1601 1703 Jan 1422 1455 -0. May 29 858 (173) 97(6) 1044 (129) 3101(638) 1225 1356 256 May 30 May 31 Jun 12 6 (1) 1994 (211) 3546 (749) 1310 1418 +0. +0. +0. 1454 1551 1222 164(4) 3601 (814) 986 (225) 759(138) 258 7 (2) 1049 251 Appendix Bl (cont. Oregon (Cape Washington Columbia Date Jun 13 Jun 14 Specles- Lookout to Columbia River) Willapa 2003(368) 2142 (393) River 15(2) 150 (4) Grays Harbor 3369 (716) 3727 (902) Coas t to Tatoosh Is. Take Off (2400) 1114 Duration Low (hr) urve'l CoIltii..t.ion~ Tide Low Tide 1306 1354 Ht. (ft) Time (2400) +0. +0. 1150 1/ Pv = Phoca vitu1ina: Ej = Eumetopias jubatus: Zc = ZaloPQus californianus: E1 = Enhydra 1utris: Er = Eschr ichtius robustus: 00 = Orcinus orca: Dd = Dephinus delphis: Pp = Phocoena phocoena. * At Astoria (Tongue Point). 252 Appendix B2. Locations of hauling areas used by pinnipeds in the study area, Cape Lookout, OR to Grays Harbor, WA. (Numbers in parentheses refer to the total number of sites used in a specific or general area. Location Area (Lat., Lon Substrate 0' W Species Cape Lookout (2) Three Arch Rocks (1) Netarts Bay(5) 450 20. 1 ' N, 1240 45O 27. N, 123O 59. W 450 26. 2' N, 1230 57. 4' 45O 25. 45O 25. 45O 24. N, 123O 56. N, 123O 56. N, 123O 56. 123O 56. 123O 56. 123O 55. 1230 55 . 0 ' 123O 56. 123O 55. Tillamook Bay (8) 45O 32. 45O 32. 45O 32. 45O 32. 45O 32. 45O 31. Nehalem Bay (1) 45O 41. 45O 46. 45O 46. 45O 55. N, 123O 55. N, 123O 59. N, 123O 58. N, 123O 58. Cape Falcon (2) Ecola (1) Pv, Zc Tillamook Head (2) Columbia River (13) S. Jetty Baker Bay Desdemona Sands (2) Taylor Sands (2) 45O 56. N, 123O 59. 46O 14. 1240 03. 2 ' Grays Bay (3) NW of Green Island S of Miller Sands NE of Welch Island Wallace Island 124O 57. 123O 53. 46O 12. 123O 47. 46O 13. 46O 16. 123O 44. 123O 41. 46O 12. 123O 39. 460 14. 1 ' 123O 26. 46O 14. 460 08. 7' N, 123O 16. 460 16. 0' N, Pv, Zc, Willapa Bay (20) Shoalwater Bay Shoal water Bay 2 SW of Long Island NE of Long Island NE of Long Island NE of Long Island(2) NW of Riddle Spit SSE of Grassy Island Ellen Sands 46O 24. 1240 00. 0' 460 24. 4 ' N , 123O 59. 46O 25. 46O 29. 46O 29. 46O 30. 46O 34. 46O 36. 46O 39. W 123O 58. 123O 57. 123O 57. 123O 56. 123O 59. 1240 01. 4 ' 123O 59. 253 Appendix B2. (cont. Location Area (Lat., Lon Substrate 1230 58. 0 ' 123O 54. 123O 02. 124O 03. ecies Pine Is land Channel ( 2) E of Toke Pt. Leadbetter Channel Leadbetter Channel (2) Leadbetter Channel(3) 460 41. 2 ' 46O 42. 460 41. 3' N, 46O 41. 460 40. 6 ' N, 1240 04. 0 ' 46O 52. Grays Harbor (32) South Bay Whitcomb Flats E of Whitcomb Flats Mid- harbor Flats (2) Mid- harbor Flats (2) 460 55. 1' 1240 03. 7 ' 1240 04. 3 ' 124O 02. 123O 56. 123O 58. Mid- harbor Flats Sand Sand Sand Sand Island Island Island Island Shoals Shoals Shoals Shoals Sand Is land Shoals Sand Island Shoals SE Side of Sand 46O 54. 46O 56. 46O 56. 46O 56. 460 57 . 0' N, 46O 56. 46O 56. 460 57 . 0' N, 46O 56. 46O 57. 1230 59. 5 ' 1240 00. 5 ' 124O 01. 1240 02. 2 ' 1240 02. 5 ' 124O 03. 124O 02. 1240 03. 2 ' 460 57. 7 ' N side of Sand Island 460 57. 8' N, 1240 03. 7 ' 1240 04. 4 ' 46O 57. NW of Sand Island 1240 03. 8 ' SE end of Goose Island 46O 58. 1240 04. 3 ' NW end of Goose Island 46O 58. Chenoise Creek Channel 46O 59. Humptulips River, east 124O 03. 124O 03. Island (2) channel Humptulips channel River, east 46O 59. 460 00. 5' N, 47 0 00 1240 03. 5 ' 1240 03. 0 ' 1240 05. 0 ' Humptulips River, east channel 3 Shoals NW of Goose . 3 ' N, Island (2) 46O 59. Shoals E of Ocean Shores (2) N of Campbell Slough North Bay slough North Bay slough 2 North Bay slough 3 1240 07. 3 ' 46O 58. 1240 06. 5 ' 47 0 00 . 4 ' 1240 05. 7 ' 47O 01. 470 00 . 9 ' N, 124O 06. 124O 08. 47O 01. *PV = Phoca vitulina, Ej = Eumetopias jubatus, Zc = Zalophus californianus 254 Appendix B3. Resights of radio tagged harbor seals. Northern Oregon Coast Tillamook Bay 0 Columbia River I Grays Harbor I Coos Bay Willapa Bay 1981 FEMALES ADULT H-fJ-I-I--itH-1 ll-fHl lID ffi mill----& u-HHE c:( 15 L&J &--1---1 I -ft--I- IffiB__-. ffi fHH B-H fill- 0 il H- ITillt-illIDIIIHIIHllIB---B April May June July Aug Sept 255 Appendix B3. (cont. ) 1982 FEMALES SUBADULT ...J 73 c::c ADULT ...J ::i 85 (I) Apri 1 May June July Aug Sept 256 Appendix B3. (cont. 1982 MALES SUBADUL T -Hr!~~ ...J c:( II-I-I-III-e ADUL T Apri 1 May June July Aug Sept 257 Appendix B3. (cont. ) 1981 MALES SUBADUL T HiH 8---tHJ ADULT ffi1 HID -ffiHll-- -B ffiHl---H CI 18 -I 24 ct: I.J.J V) 28 April May June July Aug Sept 258 Appendix Cl. Sampling rates for salmonid catches and landings (by species zone , fishing weeks and source of survey). GRAYS HARBOR Zone 28 - Dock Sam 1980 Zone 28 Field Sam Jul Aug Sep (.1 .'1 Oct (. 1 Total WILLAPA BAY , ZONE 2G , 1980 Zone 2G - Dock Sampl CHINOOK COHO CHUM Zone 2G - Fi eld Sampl e ALL SALMON CHINOOK" COHO CHUM ALL SALMON :r: :W:: I.&J I.&J ~"O ~ U 0 C ~r- ~ U or- ~"O ~ U 0 c ~r- ~ U .r- ~"O ~ U 0 c .r- ~r- ~ U ~"O ~ U 0 c ~r- ~ U or- ~"O ~ U 0 c ~r- ~ U .r- .J: ~"O It-u 0 c or- It-"O It- U 0 c or- .J: .r- ~ -0 0 c ~ U ~r- ~ U ~r- ~ U ~,.... ~ u Jul Aug Sep (. 1 ~ 1 Oct Nov 45- 1980 Tota 1 (; 1 but at insufficient 1 evel s *Asteri sk denotes weeks when sampl ing occurred. for analysis landings). Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred lines. (-( 30 nterv i ews and (. 5% of 259 Appendix Cl (Continued). WILLAPA BAY Zone 2J CHINOOK COHO ZONES 2J , 2K , and 2H , 1980 Zone 2K - Dock S amp 1 e ALL SALMON CHINOOK COHO CHUM - Dock Sample CHUM ALL SALMON :s: :W:: LaJ LaJ If-"O 0 C If- U or:. rei 0 +J If-"O rei 0 C If- U 0 +J or:. rei If-"O 0 C If- U or:. If-"O ~ u rei ~ u rei 0 c If- U 0 +J or:. rei If-"O ~ U , rei rei 0 C If- U 0 +J or:. rei If-"O 'It\!,.... orrei ~ u rei 0 C If- U 'It\! U or:. ~ U 0'" rei If- U 0 c 0 +J rei rei 'It\!.- ~ U If-"O or:. If- U 0 C 0 +J rei rei 'It\!.- ~ u If-"O or:. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 46- 49 1980 Tota 1 Zone 2H - Dock Sample CHINOOK 0'1 LaJ LaJ ::E: COHO CHUM ALL SALMON If-"O 0 C If- U 0 +J or:. rc:I If-"O rei 0 C If- U 0 +J or:. rei If-"O 0 C If- U or:. rei 0 +J ~ u rei 'It\! U rei ~ U If- U 0 C 0 +J rei rei 'It\!.- 'It\! U If-"O or:. Sep Oct Nov 451980 T ota 1 * Asterisk denotes weeks when sampling occurred, but at insufficient levels for analysis landings). Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred lines. (-( 30 interviews and (5% of 260 Appendix Cl (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER TERMINAL FISHERIES , 1980 Younqs Bay - Dock SamDl CHINOOK 1/1 YounQs Bav - Field Sample COHO 1/1 r::: .s:::; CHUM 1/1 r::: ALL SALMON r::: CHINOOK COHO CHUM ALL SALMON r::: :x: u.J u.J :::e: r::: r::: r::: r::: '+- -0 r::: '+- U '+- -0 I+- U .s:::; '+- -0 r::: r::: '+- U .s:::; '+- -0 r::: '+- U '+- -0 r::: '+- u .c '+- -0 r::: '+- U '+- -0 r::: '+- U .c '+- -0 ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ 1 ~ U ~ U ~r- r::: '+- U 0~ ~ U Aug Sep Oct 1980 Tota 1 (' 1 ~ 1 .( 1 -( 1 Grays Bay - Dock Sampl e Aug Grays Bay - Fi el d Sampl e Sep 1980 Tota 1 .( 1 -(' 1 S kama kowa a k om in - Dock SamDl CHUM 1/1 r::: .s:::; Sk~mnknwa/Flnknm;n CHINOOK 1/1 F;pld 1/1 PI ' r::: c;o:Impl CHINOOK 1/1 COHO 1/1 r::: .s:::; ALL SALMON I:n COHO 1/1 r::: CHUM ALL SALMON 1/1 r::: .s:::; :x: u.J :::e: r::: r::: '+- -0 r::: I+- U I+- -0 0 c '+- U I+- -c r::: I+- u .s:::; '+- -c ~ u ~ u ~ U ~r- 0 c I+- u .s:::; I+- -c r::: I+- u .s:::; I+- -c r::: I+- ~ .s:::; I+- -c r::: '+- U I+- -0 r::: '+- U .s:::; ~ U ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ u Aug 35 Sep 36 -( 1 -( 1 1980 Tota 1 -( 1 -c( 1 Cowl i tz River - Fie1 d Sam le Cama s Slough - Dock Sampl e Aug 35 Sep 36 ~ 1 ('1 ~ 1 .( 1 980 Tota 1 -( 1 '1 .( 1 *Aster1sk denotes weeks when sampHng occurred, but at insufficient levels for analysis Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred lines. landings). ((, 30 i ntervi ews and (5% of 261 Appendix Cl (Continued). Zone 1 Dock Sample CHUM COLUMBIA RIVER , 1980 Zone 1 ALL SALMON lit Fiel d Samp 1 e CHUM CHINOOK COHO CHI NOOK COHO ALL SALMON :z: 't-"'C ::E: n:J 't- U 't-"'C n:J 't- U or- 't-"'C n:J 't- U n:J 't- "'C o,... n:J .. 't- U n:J 't-"'C 't- U n:J n:J ~,.... ~ u or- or- 't-"'C n:J 't- U 't-"'C 't- U n:J n:J ~,.... ~U o,... 't-"'C 't- U 0 +J n:J 0 +J n:J n:J ~,.... ~ u ~ u n:J ~ u n:J ~,.... ~U ~,.... ~ u ~ u Feb Sep (. 1 (. 1 Oct ~ 1 ~ 1 1980 (. 1 (. 1 Total one 2 - Dock Sam Zone 2 - Field Saro Feb Oct 1900 Total Zone, 3 - Dock Sampl e Zone. 3 " field Sampl e Oct 40 ( 1 "- 1 .( 1 1980 Tota 1 (. 1 GRAYS HARBOR , 1981 Zone 28 - Dock Sampl e CHINOOK COHO CHUM Zone 28 Field Sampl CHUM ALL SALMON lit CHINOOK lit COHO. ALL SALMON :z: :E: :;J: 't-"'C 'rn:J 't- U 't-"'C n:J 't- U 0 +J 't-"'C n:J 't- U ~"'C n:J 't- U 't- "0 0 +J n:J 1r"-,.... ~ u ~ u n:J ~ u n:J ~ u n:J c:: n:J ~ U ~ u n:J ~"'C o,... n:J I+- U 0 +J I+-"'C c:: n:J 't- U I+-"'C 'r- ~ u n:J ~ u n:J c:: n:J I+- u 0 +J n:J ~ u Ju 1 28 Nov 441981 Tota 1 .c 1 ~ 1 .c. 1 *Asterisk denotes weeks when sampling occurred, but at insufficient levels for analysis (~30 interviews lines. and.(5% of landings). Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred 262 Appendix Cl (Continued). Zone 2 G - Dock WILLAPA BAY Sampl e CHUM 1981 Zone 2G - Fi el d Sam l e CHINOOK COHO ALL SALMON 0'1 CH I NOOK 0'1 COHO 0'1 CHUM ALL SALMON 0'1 :x: LLJ LLJ ::E: 4- "t:I Ii: 0 C 4- U .c '+- "'0 Ii: '+- U .c '+- -0 0 c 4- U .c '+- -0 0 C '+- U 4- -0 '+- U .c '+- -0 4- u ~ u .c I+- -0 4- U .c I+- -0 Ii: '+- U :3: ~ u ~ u ~ u "It~.- ~ u 0'" Jul 28 Aug 32 Sep 36 Oct 40 Nov 451981 Tota 1 t:. .::.1 L 1 L 1 Zone 2J - Dock Sampl e Zone 2J - Field Sample 27Aug Sep c:. 1 OctNov 40~ 1 198 Tota 1 .cl Zone 2K - Dock Sampl ~ 1 Jul- 28Aug Zone 2K - Field Sam l e Sep OctNov 40~ 1 981 Tota 1 Zone 2H - Dock Sam l e Sep Zone 2H - Fi el d Sam l e Oct Nov 451981 Tota 1 L. ,1 '::: 1 *Asterisk denotes weeks when sampling occurred. but at insufficient levels for analysis landings). Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred lines. (~30 i ntervi ews and ~ 5% of 263 Appendix Cl (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER , 1981 7nnp CHINOOK 0'1 Dad C\.:Imp1 Po CHUM 0'1 .s:::. ItS Zone 1 - Field Sample COHO 0'1 ALL SALMON 0'1 CH I NOOK 0'1 COHO 0'1 CHUM 0'1 .s:::. ALL SALMON 0'1 .s:::. J-I.LJ ~"I:I ~ U o,.. .s:: ~"I:I ~ U o,.. :J: ~r- ItS ~ U 0 +.I ItS ~r- 0 +J ~"I:I ~ U o,.. .s:: +.I ItS ~"I:I ~ 0 .s:: '"0 ItS ~ U ~r- ItS ~ 0 ~r- ItS ~ U 0 +.I ItS ~r- 0 +' ItS ~ U .... U .s:::. ~"I:I ~ U o,.. ~r- ItS ~ U 0 +.I ItS ~"I:I ~ U o,.. ~r- ItS ~ U +.I ItS ~r- U ~"I:I ~ +-J ItS o,.. .s:: ~ u ItS Feb Mar Oct . 8 ~ 1 '" 1 (,1 Nov 1981 Tota 1 Zone 2 - Dock Sampl Zo ne 2 - Fi e 1 d Sampl e Feb Mar Oct L. 1 o! 1 L: 1 ' 1 L. 1 Nov 198 Tota 1 4':: 1 L 1 ~ 1 Zone 3 - Doc Sampl e Zone 3 - Fi e 1 d Sample Feb Mar Wi nter Tota 1 * Asterisk denotes weeks when sampling occurred levels for analysis Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred lines. landings). , but at insufficient (L30 interviews and (.5% of 264 Appendix C1 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER TERHINAL FISHERIES Youngs Bay - Dock Sampl CHINOOK COHO CHUM 1981 ALL SALMON CHINOOK COHO CHUM ALL SALMON :z:: :z: lJ.J lJ.J :i: ~-O ~ U 0 ~ o-+-' ltI'-,.... 'r- ..c 'r- ~ -0 0 ~ I+- U 0 +oJ U ~-O ~ +oJ 0 0 ~ 'r- ~ -0 0 ~ ~ U 0 +oJ ~-o ~ u 0 ~ 0'" ~ u 'r- ~ -0 0 ~ ~ U 0'" ~ -0 0 ~ 4- U 0'" I+- -0 'r- t:: ~ U 0'" ~ U ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ u 1!-!! U 1!--!! U Aug Sep Oct 421981 Tota 1 Gra Aug - Field Sam Skamokowa/Elo komi n - Fi e 1 d Sample Sep 1981 Tota 1 "'- 1 -(.1 COL~1BIA RIVER WINTER CHINOOK SEASON , 1982 Zone 1 - Dock Sampl e CHINOOK COHO Zone 1 - Fi el d Sampl e CHur~ ALL SALMON CHINOOK COHO ~-o 0'" CHUM tin ALL SALMON tin :z:: lJ.J lJ.J :E: :i: 'r~-o 0'" ~,.... ~ u o~ ~-o 4-u 0 ~ O-+-' ~,.... ~ u ,... .c ta ~-o ~ u 0 ~ o-+-' 'r- 'r~-O ~ U o~ 0'" ta 'It-!!- ~ tin ..c ~-o 0'" o~ ~,.... 'It-!! 'r- o~ 'r- ~-o 0'" o~ 'bQ..- 05'1. 'r- 'b~..- 'bl! U 4--0 ~u 0 ~ 0~ ~I!.- ~'! U Feb Ma r TOT AL 1a Zone 2 - Dock Sampl CHINOOK COHO CHUM Zone 2 - Field Sam ALL SALMON CHINOOK COHO CHUM ALL SALMON Feb Mar TOTAL *Asterisk denotes weeks when sampling occurred, but at insufficient levels for analysis landings). Such samples were pooled to arrive at totals shown between barred (L30 lines. interviews and .(.5% of 265 .,... ..... ....... Appendix C2. STUDY AREA , 1980 PROJECTED HOURS/LANDING Hours of fishing effort per landing (interviews when salmon were sold) and total effort , by zone and weeks. projected SAMPL ED HOURS / INTERVI EW (II Gr ay . V) Willa.2a Columbia Week +-I c:: Terminal Gray Columbia Wi1lapa Terminal Week of.) c:: :::J :::J - ----.-- --- .- ---, -.- ' .. -- -.--'-..----. -- --. Appendix C2 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER , 1981- SAMPLED HOURS/INTERVIEW 1981 Termi na Co PROJECTED HOURS/LANDING 1982 umbi a Co 1 umb1 a 1981 1982 Co 1 umbi Co 1 umbi a week week '-J 0'\ 8'f7 n. - n__- -- - - - - - - --., - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - --- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---- - -- - -- - ------ ---- - - --- - - - - -- - ---- -- -- --- - - ---- --- - - --- -- - -- - - -- -- -- - --- -- ----- - ------ -- - ------- -- - ----- -- - -,-,-- ---- -- ---------------- -- - - -- -- --- ------------- ------------ -- ---'--- Appendix C3. Annual summaries of pinniped damage losses to salmonids (percentage of fishery and totals , with associated 95% confidence intervals). GRAYS HARBOR PERCENTAGE OF FISHERY ZONE 2B ,. 1980 FISH POUNDS VALUE min max est min max 11 . 04 est 14. 15 . mln est max Unsalable chinook 7 . 54 11. 17 . 14. 23. 11 . 98 10. 11. 14. 15. Salable chinook 10 . 94 Subtota chi nook 0"\ Unsalable coho abl e coho Total All Sa 1 55 12. PROJECTED NUMBERS ecies 98; 10 . 63 Unsalable chinook 215 171 319 246 669 423 4047 287 6006 508 7965 728 5899 414 8755 731 11611 Sa 1 ab 1 e chi nook 312 1048 Su btota chi noo k 490 4334 6514 8693 6313 9486 12659 Unsalable coho Sa 1 ~ec i abl e coho Total All 314 556 139 808 4337 189 105 219 6604 8882 6316 9591 12878 ...- - --- - --- --- - --- ------------ - - - -- --- --- - - --- ---- - - --- ------- --- - - - ----- --- - - --- - - ------- --- - - --- --- --- - ------- ----- - - - - - -- - --- ---- - ----- -- -- - -- - - - - --- --- - ---- ---- ----- - - --- - --- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - --- ------- -- - - -- --- ---- --- - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - -- ----- - - - - - - - -- --- - ----- - - -- - - -- --- --- - - -- - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- --- - ---- - - --- ------ - ------ -- --- Appendix C3 (Continued). WILLAP A BAY ALL ZONES 1980 PERCENTAGE OF FI SHERY FISH POUNDS VALUE mi n est max mi n est max mi n est max Unsalable chinook 0 ~59 11 . 7. Sa 1 abl e chi nook Su btota 1 chinook 6,, Unsalable coho Salable coho 7. Su btota coho 7. 11. 7. Unsalable chum 1. 1. Sa 1 a b 1 e chum Su btota 1 chum 5,, 6.. 82 4 . 0.7 1. 0'\ TOTAL ALL SPECI ES PROJECTED NUMB ERS Unsalable chinook 1201 1601 1401 928 22065 2300 24365 25739 2702 28441 29413 3104 36182 3839 32517 40021 42207 48232 Salable chinook 790 1066 2667 1991 4510 46717 5181 Su btota chi nook 2329 1541 53413 Un sa 1 abl e coho 1199 1883 807 483 645 10509 643 13507 846 16505 1058 11 948 15356 714 954 18764 1194 Sa 1 a b 1 e co ho Su btota coho 1682 2186 501 2690 661 11143 14353 17563 12662 16310 19958 Unsalable chum 341 3825 399 5619 357 7413 647 2669 3921 5173 Sa 1 a b 1 e chum 220 246 721 446 Su btota chum 382 1060 5236 6417 3892 5976 8060 2745 4167 5619 TOTAL ALL SPECIES 4055 39400 48/ /0 ~814U 55428 67194 78990 - - - - - --- -- - - --- -- - - ---- - - - - - ----- - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - -- - -- --- - - --- ------ -- -- - - --- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - ------ ---- -- - - - -- -- ------- - - - - - -- - - -- - - --- - -- -- -- --- -- - - ---- -- - ---- -------- -- ---- Appendix C3 , AND YOUNGS BAY (Continued). GRAYS BAY , AND SKAHOKOWA!ELOKOMIN TERMINAL FISHERIES COLUMBIA RIVER , ZONES 1 1980 PERCENTAGE OF Fr SH~RY FrSH POUNDS VALUE min max mi n est max est min est max 1. Unsalable chinook Salable chinook 1. Subtotal chinook 3 . 5'4 Unsalable coho Sa 1 abl e coho Su btota coho ......a TOTAL ALL SPECr ES PROJECTED NUMBERS Unsalable chinook 510 794 1078 9791 15244 2468 20697 3213 10842 1991 16880 2853 22918 Sa 1 abl e chi nook 560 802 1044 2122 5952 1723 3715 Subtota 1070 1596 4695 1001 chi nook 3438 693 11514 17712 23910 25226 769 12833 19733 26633 Unsalable coho 34446 1111 43666 1453 28533 38961 49389 885 1278 1671 Salable coho 1309 7261 Subtota 4131 5201 coho 7292 5696 25995 9383 35557 45119 37509 53269 69029 29388 42221 40239 59972 51060 77693 TOTAL ALL SPEcr ES ---- -- -- --- ---- --- --- ----- - -- - - -- -- -- --- ----------- - -------- -- --- - -- ----- --- --- -- -- -- ----------- -------- ---- - ------------ - ------ ----- ---- ---- -- - - ------ ------- -- -- --------- -- -- ----- ----- --- -- -- -- - --- -- - - --- --- - - ------ - - - ---- ------ -- - ---- - - - - - --- - - ------ - -- - - -- - - - -- -- --------- --------- --- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Append ix C3 (Continued). TOTAL STUDY AREA 1980 POUNDS VALUE PERCENTAGE OF FI SHERY FISH max mi n mi n mi n est est max max est Unsalable chinook Salable chinook Su btota chi nook Un sa 1 a bl e coho 1 . 07 e coho coho Su btota 1. 1. 1. 1. Sa 1 abl Unsalable chur J.I 1. Salable chu Subtota 3.. chu Gra nd Tota 1 -...J All Species I-' PRO~OSSES 2151 Unsalable chinook 2514 2877 40204 4.8.l 5 46989 52667 53774 58046 67842 77638 60315 Salable chinook 2l9J) 3763 Subtota 4415 5067 chi nook 4934 6236 1712 2067 45019 37941 1623 64910 47953 2047 75936 57965 2471 86962 Unsalable coho 7538 9605 661 42976 1852 54317 2337 65658 2822 Salable coho 1357 6291 341 501 Su btota coho 7948 39564 3825 3892 50000 5619 357 60436 7413 647 44828 2669 5976 56654 3921 68480 5173 Unsalable chum Salable chum 220 382 721 399 1060 246 446 Subtotal 10436 13084 chum 2715 4167 5619 Gra nd Tota A 11 Species Willapa 15732 88475 108643 128811 112453 136757 161061 Co 1 umbi a River and Bay only. Hi 11 a pa Bay only. - --- - - - - --- - - - ----- - - ------ ----- - - - ------- -------- -- --- - - - - - ------ ------- ---- - ------ - - - ---- ----- - - - ---- - -- - -- - - - - - - - ----- ------ -- ------- - - - - ----- - -- - - --- - - - - - - - ---- - -- - --- ----- -- ------ - --- -- -- - -- -- - ------ - - --- --- - - --- ---- ---- - - - - -- - ---- - - - - - -- - --- - -- -- - --- -- - - -- - - --- - - - ----- - -- ------- -------------------- - -, YOUNGS BAY AND GRAYS BAY TERMINAL FISHERIES --------- Appendix C3 (Continued). COLUMB IA RIVER ZONES 1 PERCENTAGE OF FISHERY 1981 FISH POUNDS VALUE min. max. mi n. est. max. rni n. est. rnax. est. Unsalable chinook* 1 ~ 94 Salable chinook* 7. Subtota 11. 7. fo r chi nook* Unsalable coho 11. 10. 27 . 12 . Salable coho Su btota for coho 10. 79. 27 . 14. 18. 12. 10. 13. 27 . Unsal abl e churn Gra nd Total 12. 16 . 03 1 0 ~46 6~50 8:58 '-J All Species 605 275 Unsalable chinook 344 866 480 211 7624 13810 829 19768 1447 11302 424 19877 1664 28452 Salable chinook 2904 21215 Subtotal 414 for chinook 880 4164 5089 2745. 1346 7835 14639 32485 2410 11726 39701 21541 31356 Unsalable coho 3239 1313 25269 1560 28800 3260 1786 37025 2760 45250 3734 Salable coho 2029 6193 Subtotal 4552 7834 for coho 26829 34895 201 42961 30586 39785 48984 1150 135 U n s a 1 a b 1 e churn 769 Gra nd Tota 1 All Spec i es 4968 7088 9267 34690 49735 65326 42330 61461 81109 *Winter season and terminal fisheries only. ** Zo n e I on 1 y . Appendix c4. Percentage and projected numbers of salmonids damaged by pinnipeds (by species , zone , source of survey, and severity of damage). GRAYS HARBOR , SUMMER SEASON , 1980 Species/ Zone Chinook 28 unsalable damag~ salable damag~ unsalable damag~ salable damag~ ! 4. ! 10. 85 23. 83 ! 6. 59 18. 22. 63 ~ 4. 83 11. -n Do c k Sa m Dock Sample PERCENTAGE OF ~RY Field Sample pre- unsalable damag Chinook 28 267 ! salable dama~ unsalable damag~ salable damag~ 205 ! 264 132 :!: 128 PROJECTED NUMBER OF FISH Fi e 1 d Sam p 1 e GRAYS HARBOR , FALL SEASON , 1980 Speci est Zone unsalable damag~ salable damag~ unsalable damage salable damag~ Dock Sam pl e 33 - 4. 1. PERCENTAGE OF FISHERY Ffel d Samp l e Chi nook 10 :!, 5. 10 - 5. Coho TOTAL ALL SPECI ES 74 - 1. 45 - 1. 45 - 1. FI S :: 2. Chi nook . 52 -: 87 39 105 Co ho TOTAL ALL SPECr ES 66 ! ::73 67 140 PROJECTED NUMBER OF 131 131 :: 66 52 :: 87 273 Appendix C4 (continued). WILLAPA BAY . SUMMER SEASON , 1980 Spec; est Zone unsalable damag~ salable damag~ 25. Dock Samp PERCENTAGE OF - FI SHERY Field Samp unsa 1 a b 1 e Chi nook 53 5. 11 ~ 1. 25 6. ~ 20. 58 ! 1. damag~ sa 1 a b 1 e damag~ 1. 18 48 ! 0. ! 4. 44 ! 88 3. 90 ! 1. TOTAL ALL ZONES 12 ~ 1. Dock Samp l e 12 :t 0. , 5. 44 ! 1. 90 :t 1. Fi el d Samp l e PROJECTED NUMBER OF FISH unsalable dama~ salable dama~ unsalable damag~ salable damag~ Chi nook 665 ! 135 16 ! 11 :t ' 443 48 ! 491_ 478 :t 165 342 ! 138 TOTAL ALL ZONES 692 ! 136 478 165 342 ! 138 WILLAPA BAY , FALL SEASON , 1980 Spec i est Zone PERCENTAGE OF FI SHERY Dock Samp unsa 1 a b 1 e BER OF FI Bock, Samp Chi nook 10 3. ! 0. 83 :t 2. 82 0. ! 4. 13. 22 ! 3. 30 7. 54 t 80 + 6. 19 1. ! 2. 68 ! 1. , 1. 02 09 damag~ sal a b 1 e damag~ unsalable damag~ salable damag~ 449 ! 232 ! 135 22 :t 10 58 300 104 132 f Subtota for Chinook 709 148 437 604 35 110 161 Coho 34 1319 189 1541 329 16. Su btota for Coho Chum 96 342 147 645 162 122 122 439 166 :t 13. 510 160 650 Subtota for Chum 220 179 451 TOTAL ALL SPECr ES 4. 10 :t 0 . 97 94 :t 0. 274 2751 :t 1320 :t Appendix C4 (Continued). YOUNGS BAY TERMINAL FISHERY , 1980- Spec i es/ Zone unsalable damage salable damage unsalable dama~ 3 . 94 :t 1. 36 1980 Doc k Samp ie. 03 60 78 55 45 :t 0. :t 0. PERCENTAGE OF FI SHE 1"981 Doc k Samp salable damage Chi nook Coho TOTAL ALL SPECI ES 8. 63 :t 0. :t 0. 16 :t 4. 85 57 :t 0. :t 2. 78 1 . 01 89 :t 1. :t 1 . :t 1. PROJECTED NUMBER OF FISH Chinook Coho TOTAL ALL SPECI ES 209 :t 209 :t 72 :t 42 :t 37 304 79 :t :t 182 212 72 100 :t 334 :t 29 :t 45 36 :t 41 65 :t 86 GRAYS BAY (ZONE lK) AND S~10KOWA/ELOKQMIN (ZONE lI/W) TERf1INAL FISHERIES , 1980 Spec i es/ Zone PERCENTAGE OF FI SHERY. Dock $amp 1 unsa 1 a bl e dama ge salabl e damag~ unsalable Field dama Sam sa 1 ab 1 e dama~ Chi nook 1 K 1 I/W Subtotal for Chinook Coho 1I/W TOTAL ALL 0. 47 :t SPECIES Chi nook 1 K 1 I/W Subtota 1 for Chi nook 22 0 0. 26. 0 1. 147 29 :t 29 18 :t 0. 0. 91 0. 22 :t 0. 84 :t 0. PROJECTED NUMBER OF FISH :t 248 50 :t :t 112 104 :t 147 27 298 :t 152 Coho 1 I/W TOTAL ALL SPECI ES :t 13 :t 147 :t 298 :t 152 GRAYS BAY TERMINAL FISHERY , 1981 pec Zone Chinook 1K PERCENTA GE OF FI SHERY Field Sampl PROJECTED NUMBER OF FI SH 00 :t 4. 66 4. Fi el d Sampl e :t 4. 275 100 :t 180 146 :t 181 Appendix C4 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER , EARLY FALL SEASON , 1980 Species! Zone unsalable damag~ , Dock Sample salable damag~ 54 :t 0. 1). 07 :t 0. PERCENTAGE OF FTSHERY Field Samp unsalable damag~ salable dama~ Chinook Coho TOTAL AL SPECI ES 46 :t 0. 0~35 :t 0. 25 :t 0. 23 :t 0. 13 :t 1. 01 :t 1. 49 :t 0. Chinook Co ho TOTAL ALL SPECI ES 266 :t 266 :t 156 314 :t :t199 PROJECTED NUMBER OF FI SH 147 :t 297 147 :t 297 659 :t 820 659 :t 820 156 319 :t 208 Species! 1980Dock Sample COLL~BIA RIVER , LATE FALL SEASON , 1980 PERCENTAGE OF ~RY Field Samp :t 0. Zone unsalable damag~ salable damag~ unsalable damage salable damag~ :t 1. Chinook Subtota Coho 1 2. 2 0. :t 2. :t 1. for Chinook 1. 38 1. 99 91 0. 52 33 0. 32 1. 19 ~ 0. 98 00 25 :t 0. :t 1. 74 :t 0. 79 38 Subtota for Coho 38 :t 1. 11 :t 1. 36 :t 0. 19 :t 0. 1. 0. 14 :t 00 83 :t 0 . 57 05 :t 0. 06 :t 0. 87 :t 4. 38 :t 2. 40 :t 3. 84 :t 2. 1 . 04 :t 30 :t 0. 81 :t 00 72 :t 0. 1 . TOTAL AL SPECIES PROJECTED NUMBER OF FI SH Chinook 195 41 94 143 118 155 128 275 190 32 Subtota for Chi nook 236 3226 372 172 32 Coho :t. 377 863 776 842 279 1121 4319 :t 3314 1469 989 Subtota for Co 766 100 815 134 827 827 3598 334 5788 :t 3458 5820 :t 3507 866 TOTAL ALL SPECIES 3834 :t 1035 1276 :t 462 276 866 :t Appendix C4 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER , LATE FALL SEASON , 1981 PERCENTAGE OF Fr SHERY Spec; es/ Zone nsalable damage salable Dock Samp l e damage unsalabl~ _ ~amage salable Fi e 1 d Samp damage I 3. 2 3. 5. Subtotal 5. 13 I 4. 09 I for Coho Coho 1 12. 74 95 I 1. 0I 40. 97 I 16. 1 . 33 I 1. 79 I 2. 03 :t 2. 27 I 1. Chum 1 4. 88 122. Su btota for Chum 46 I 7. 96 02 01 :t 0. 16. 17 I 4. TOTAL ALL SPECr ES 58 I 4. 90 :t 0. 14. 45 I 3. 82 I 1. 2 -1037 I 266 402 I 158 Subtotal 988 I 1790 Coho for Co PROJECTED NUMBER OF FI SH 3333 I 1371 2025 I 1810 402 15 I Chum Su btota 1 for Chum 72 :t 72 I 158 3097 I 885 6430 I 1631 1591 :t 697 1699 :t 703 108 TOTAL ALL SPECI ES 2040 I 1882 402 I 158 6430 I 1631 1699 I 703 277 Appendix C4 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER , WINTER CHINOOK SEASONS , 1980- PERCENTAGE OF FI SHERY Dock. Sampl e Fi el d Sampl e Year/Zone 1980 unsa 1 a b 1 e damag~ salable dama~ unsalable dama~ 12..50 sa 1 ab 1 e dama~ Tota 1981 04 23. 11. 54 73 42. 58 Total 1982 70 57 Tota 86 PROJECTED NUMBER OF FI SH 1980 Tota 1981 Tota 1 170 62 280 301 :t 146 :t 150 :t 106 127 170 62 165 1: 121 1982 . Total 71 :t 106 278 ,, Appendix C5. Gillnet gear damage rates and proj ected total incidence (by fishery, season and zone) for marine mammal and other causes. STUDY AREA , 1980 MARINE MAMMAL CAUSE Sampl ed Rate Per OTHER CAUSE Samp Ra te Fi shery/Sea son/Zone Inc dence Hours 25. 1594. 962. Projected 1000 hrs. Hours Inci ence Incidence 1000 Per Proj ecte hrs. Incidence Grays Harbor summer - 2B Subtota 25. 11017. 558 . 5 fa 11 2"8 427. 52. Grays Harbor (damage zones only) Wl11apa Bay sulM\er - 2G ,0 30181. 6 83. 168 76. 248 fall 16. 282 ""-J - 2J 2K 2G 2H 2J 2K 4210. 99. 52. 3404. 120. 623. 105. 859. 2225. 672. 33. 11.2 31.7 412 tota apa Bay (damage zones only) 311.6 11.1 555. 23749. 15902. 13741.4 177 227 8972 . Columbia River 155. 150. 3182. 1 7 98 . wi nter - 1 44. 351 ..; 2* early fall - 1 late fall - 1247. 1.6 309 198 107 - 2* Subtota umbia R (damage zones only) ver 14. 19. 14. 16. 872 127 Termi na 1 Fi sheri Youngs Bay - 1 Grays Bay Skamokowa/El okomi n - lI/W 0 - K* 7 566. 65. 513. 1156. 3200. 14. 61.5 40. 131 Subtota - Termi na dama ge Fisheries zones only) 980 TOTAL - STUDY AREA 33 24. 329 (damage zones onl y) 94 5. 550 212 14. 1617 *Projections made from dock sample data except for Columbia River Zone 2 and Grays Bay, where dock and field samples were combined to increase representation of damage types. Appendix C5 (Continued). COLUMBIA RIVER MARl NE MAMMAL CAUSE Rate Per 1981OTHER CAUSE Rate Per Sampl ed Projecte I nc i dence Fi s her /Sea son/Zone Incidence Hours 1000 hrs. Proj ected Inci ence Hours Samp I nc i dence 1000 hrs. 16~0 Columbia River 1981 wi nter - 1 13. 11996. 5234. 157 626J . 192 1a te fa 19680. 133 188 528 21.4 12. 12. 28. 7 - - 2* 11 - 1 - 2* 1683. 727. 420. 421. 178 Subtotal- Columbia River 12. 529 1981 Termi na 1 Fi sheri es 1981 - 7 Youngs Bay Grays Bay - 1K Skamokowa Elokomin - 1I/W 295. 58. 73. 7125. 1535. 3051. 20. 34. 13. 20. 15. 576 145 Subtota 1- Termi na Fi sheri es 1981 240 (damage zones only) 1981 TOTAL (damage zones only) 11.5 769 Columbia River 1982 wi nter - 1 31.2 15. - 2* 801. 122. 2241. 5224. 113 104 214 1982 TOTAL 46. 40. 42. where dock and fi el samples were combined to 318 * Projections made from dock sample data except for Zone 2. representat ion of damage types. increase ..... ;;' -........, - ~ ~ -- ~ % of Damage Sampl Projected Incidence Sampl ed Average Amt Projected Dollar Lossesl/ Projected with TOT AL sma 11 with medium large sma 11 sma 11 with med i urn 1 arge medium large sma 11 for medium large DOLLAR ho 1 es for ho 1 es for ho 1 e s for ho 1 e s for holes ho 1 es for LOSSES # damage ho 1 es Fi sher ho 1 e s ho 1 es Sea son/Zone ho 1 e s incidents ho 1 es holes Grays Harbor summer - 28 78. 166 $ 238 21.4 $ 238 1.3 166 1.0 Subtota l- Grays Harbor Q.. t-J. Willapa Bay summ. 1.7 $ 598 fall 78. 133 100. a 168 37. 15. 2fm 1.2 1.0 320 1490 278 208 180 $1878 0'1 - 2G 2G 2H 2J 2K 80. 100. 20. a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1970 518 tIj (f) Subtota l- Wi 11 apa Bay 282 214 180 $ 266B t-J. I-' OJ Co 1 umbi a Ri ver wi nter 100 . 0 - 1 1.0 100. (f) rt Q.. - 2* early fall 1.0 106 1. 5 $ 148 cr' 1 a te fa - 1 - 1 5. Q 177 66. 35. 2fm 1.0 1.4 636 220 120 694 910 180 180 $1510 $ 220 H-I 0 t-J. ' c: (f) - 2* 33. 60. 100. 135 Subtota l- Col umbia 227 884 $1974 ::J : rt I'D , '"i CJ River 381 151 Q.. 1980 TOTAL STUDY AREA 550 3020 1500 360 $4880 (f) . c:: I-' (f) Columbia River 1981 wi nter 110 1. 7 - 1 151 . 18. 44. 50. 50. a 1.3 156 - 2* 4304 672 21. 2fm 8fm 6fm 9()0 H-I Q.. Q'Q I-" late fall 183 - 1 70. 85. 44. 10. 14. 11.1 - 2* 133 188 1.5 306 1.5 1.0 401 564 2464 722 708 752 1121 $ $ $ $ 6924 1394 2009 1316 I-' I-' Subtota l- Co 1 umbi a Ri ver 1981 50. 207 528 4646 5876 $11643 Q'Q Terminal Fisheries 1981 Youngs Bay - 7 50. 306 1.0 5fm 1200 1217 $ 1296 '"i 1981 TOTAL 576 4646 7076 $12939 Q.. Q'Q Columbia River 1982 - 1 wi nter 70** 68. 1. 7 3. 5fm 653 252 $ 1095 Q.. 36. 100. 1.9 1.0 190 172 362 172 653 per fathom for larger holes (see cr' 1982 TOTAL 113** 252 $ 1267 !! Repair costs estimated at $4 per small hole, $8 per medium hole, $10- text). fi el d sampl es were comb; ned to '"i 1-'. Projections made from dock sample data except for Zone 2, where dock and representation of damage types. ; ncrease ** Damage types do not add to total because multiple damages were reported in certain incidents. - - - ----- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - -- ---- -- - - -- -- ------ ------ - -- ------ -- ------ -- -- -- -- - --- ------ - --- - - ----- -- - --------- ------ ------ -- ------ -------- --- --------~------ -- ----- -- ---- ----- ------------------- - - - ------- - -- --- ----- - -- - - - - ------- - --- ----- - - -- --- - - -- - -- - - -- --- - - - - - --- - --- ------ ------ - -- ----------- - --------- - - - ---- --- ---------- - ------ - ------- ------ - --- ----- - ------- -- - - -- ---- ' -,- -- - -- - - - -------- ---- ------ - ----- - ----- - --------- - -- ---- ---- - ------ -- - - ----- - ---- - -- - ---- - ----- Appendix C7. category of take Frequency and rate of incidental take of marine mammals fishery, season , zone and source of survey). (by species , CALIFORNIA SEA LION TAKE 1/ SAMPLED Zone/ KAI h PtR lU~~ HOURS PROJECTED l"Y Number of Za -Fis ing Hours Source of Number of Za 1 ophus Entangl ed Total Number of Za ophus Entangl ed hus Entan TOTAL Year Surve Total Hours 1980 2 combi oed 150. 555. 1981 1 dock 3 1. 2 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 1.6 2 field 11.2 1.2 1.2 fi e 1 1683. 617. 412. 16. 2 3. 2 18. 27. 21.2 11996. 11996. 5234. 5668. 5668. Fi s 194 316 329 116 117 117 1982 1 dock field 20. Number of Zalophus Tota 1 801.1 48. Number of Za 1 ophus Kill ed sh 17. 20. Kill ed ery Hours Number of Za1ophus Ki 11 ed TOTAL Tota 1 Hours 1980 2 combi oed 150. 555. 1981 38 . 9 1 dock 1 field 1.2 422. 102. 0 7. 6261.0 38. 6261 . 243 243 1982 Number of Zalophus 1 dock 1 fi el Harassed Total Hours 801.1 48. Fish 150. 20. 20. Number of Za 1 ophus Harassed TOfaT 5668. 5668. s hery Hours er o f Z arasse TOTAL 1980 2 combi ned 557. 1981 617 . dock 1683. fi eld 1.2 fi e 1 412. 11996. 11996. 5234. 1982 1 doc k 801.1 3. 1 field 48. 4 62. 0 - 62. 5668. 5668. 351 351 1/ Entangled includes drowned, killed, and escaped; killed includes entangled and not entangled; harassed includes all takes other than killed or entangled (injured, frightened, annoyed, etc. - - - -- --- - ------ ---- --- -- - - - ----- - ----- --- -- --- - -- --- ---------- ----------- -- ----- ---- - -- - - -- ---------- - - - - - - - -- - -- ---- - ------- - - - - --- -------- -- -------- --- - -- ---------- - ---- ------------- ------- --- --------------- - - ----------- ------ ---- --- ------- ----------------- -- -- -- -- - ------- ------ ---- - ---------- ------- ------------------ - -- - --- -- ------- - - - - - - -- - --- --- - --- ------- - --- ----- -- ----- - --- ------- ---- -- -- ------ ---- -- - - - ----- Appendix Number of Sea 1 s SAMPLED Entangl ed (Continued). Fishing Fishing Hours RATE PER 1000 HOURS Number of Seals Entangl ed PROJECTED HARBOR SEAL ENTANGLEMENT 1./ Zone/ Number of Seals Entangl ed Fi sheryl Source of Total Hours Tota 1 TOTAL SEALS ENTANGLED Sea son Su rv ey Grays Harbor 2B doc k 14. 19. 11017. 11017. 30181. 6 SUI1U11er fall 4210. 545. 3404. 623. a 2B field 2B dock 427. 364. 52. 25. 13. 19. 1594. 1594. 962. W ill a pa Bay 2G doc k summer 2G fi e 1 d fall 1.6 2225. 311 . 2G doc k 2J dock Columbia River 17. wi nter dock dock dock fi e 1 1.4 early fall late fall 1.4 1.3 1.3 14. dock fi e 1 fi e 1 155. 114. 3182. 692. 1798. 498. 784. 555. 23749. 23749. 15902. 15902. 13741.4 Subtotals (take zones only) Grays Harbor dock fi e 1 25. 13. Wi 11 apa Bay dock 1.6 1.7 1.5 fi e 1 l.U Columbia River dock field 13969. 2885. 479. 364. 8238. 545. 5251.3 1975. 1.5 163 149 214 165 TOTAL STUDY AREA (ta ke dock zones only) fi e 1 Columbia River dock 1.2 1.2 wi nter 1981' field dock fi e 1 11996. 11996. 5234. 5234. late fall 1981 dock 11.8 12. 12. 11.8 6261. 0 fi e 1 fi e 1 173 173 Youngs Bay 1981 1683. 617. 312. 412. 422. 102. 341.1 295. 2713 2. 6261. 19680. 7125. TOTAL 1981 dock doc 112 311 fi e 1 337 Columbia River dock 1.2 10. 42. wi nter 1982 field 1473. 801. 23. 18. 42. 5668. 5224. 220 106 220 TOTAL 1982 (projected from comb i ned samp 1 e) 824. 10. 1.2 19. 10892. 119 210 l! Entangl ements include drowned, killed. rel eased and escaped. - - - - - - - - -- - ---- ------ --- - - - - - - --- -- - --- - --- --- - --- - -- - - - -- --- - - - -- - - - ----- --- ----- --- -- - ------- - -- - ---- ------ ---------- - - -- - - ---------- - -- - ----- ---- -- - ------ - - - - - - ------- - --- .-. - -- --- -- - - ------ - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - -- - ---- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- ------ - ---------- - - - -- - - --- - - - ------- - - - - ---- - --- --- - -- -- ----- - - --- - ---- --- - -- -------- - --- -------------- ----- --------- ----- ------ Appendix C7 SAMPLED (Continued). HARBOR SEAL HARASSMENT RATE PER 1000 HOURS Number of Seals Harassed one Number of Seals Harassed 9 10- 25 Fi sheryl 150 Total Hours Tota 1 Source of 10150 Fis ing Fi she Season Survey Hours PROJEC TED Number of Seals Harassed 9 10- 25 150 TOTAL Grays Harbor 2B dock 35. summer 28 fi e 1 d fall 354 2B field 427. 364. 52. 19. 19. 1594. 1594. 962. 926 141 612 Willapa Bay 1.2 summer 2G doc k 2G field 2J dock fall 3182. 692. 1798 . 2G dock 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 10. 10. 1.2. 1.7 1.5 4210. 545. 99. 3404. 120. 623. 23749. 23749. 15902. 15902~6 2H dock 2J dock 84. 12. 40. 20. 33. 73. 11017. 11017. 558. 30181. 859. 2225. 164 224 Columbia River dock fi e 1 early fall ate fall 1.7 10. 10. dock 1.1 fi e 1 29. 44. 469 702 dock fi e 1 Youngs Bay dock 498. 583. 784. 569. 10. 13741. 13741. 8972. 140 SUBTOTALS (take zones only) GRAYS HARBOR dock 477 35. 151 fi e 1 WILlAPA BAY dock 1754 141 field 1.8 1. 5 1.8 1.8 1.8 COLUMBIA RIVER dock 583 191 835 fi e 1 427. 416. 8457. 545. 6133. 1975. 1.5 56. 12. 14. 16. 136 911 TOTA L S UDY AREA dock 1.9 1.2 (take zones on11) fi e 1 15018. 2937. 1.7 1.0 1.4 38. 14. 353 132 191 128 67 116 178 2645 1074 Columbia River 1 dock wi nter 1981 1 field 1.6 1.6 1.2 17. 17. 214 214 2 dock late fall 1981 1 dock 11996. 11996. 5234. 6261.0 6261 . 122 1 field 2 field 104 19. 14. 170. 19. 58. Youngs Bay 1981 7 doc k 1683. 617. 312. 422. 102. 341.1 295. 2713. 1061. 2 19680. 7125. 288 173 173 1068 122 1154 dock 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.1 115 429 173 212 TOTAL 1981 (take zones only) fi el d 38. 31.1 801.1 48. 1323 1490 Co 1 umbi a Ri ver 1 dock wi nter 1982 1 fi e 1 d or entangl 41.3 32. 41.3 5668. 5668. 234 184 234 !I Harassment includes all takes other than kill ed (i njured, fri ghtened, annoyed, etc. -- -- ----- - -- - -- - - --- - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - ----- -- -- - - - -- - ---------- --- - - - - - ---- -- ----- - ---- --- ---------------- - -- ------- - - - - - ---------- --- - - - ----- - - -- -- --- -- --- - - - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - - - --- ----- - ---- --- -- ----- - - -- ------------- ---------- - - - - - - - - ------- - ---- ---- - -- -------- - ----- ---- - -- - - -- -- -- - ------- --- - --- - ----- ---- - -- --- - - --- - ---- ----- ---------- - - - - - --- - - ---- ------- --- --------- --- Appendix RATE PER 1000 HOURS Number of Seals Killed PROJECTED (Continued). Fishing Number of Sea 1 s Killed Hours HARBOR SEAL KILLS 1/ Zone/ Fi sheryl Source of Number of Seal ~AMfJLEU 1\111 ed Fishing Sea son 4 -- Survey Total 16. 19. Hours r--T-- 3-'--ota 35. 19. 1594. 1594. 962. 4"-- TOTAL SEALS KI UEO Grays Harbor 2B doc k summer 2B fi e 1 d fall 1.8 1.6 26. 2B doc k 427. 364. 52. Willapa Bay 2G dock --1.8 4210. 545. 3404. 623. 11017. 11017. 30181. 2225. 114. 692. summer fall 2G fi e 1 d 2G doc k 2J dock Columbia River wi nter dock fi e 1 1.4 1.4 early fall late fall 1798 . dock fi el d Youngs Bay dock 784. 569. 555. 23749. 15902. 13741.4 8972. Subtotals 16. Grays Harbor dock field d 2481 . 33. 19. Willapa Bay dock l fi e- 479. 364. 8238. 545. 1.3 1.8 1.8 114 0. l.n (X) Columbia River 1477. dock 124 fi e1 d TOTAL STUDY doc-k AREA field 1683. 617 . 11199. 2387. 200 102 266 118 136 Columbia River dock 1.2 11.3 12. 12. winter 1981 fi e 1 dock fi e 1 late fall 1981 dock 11996. 11996. 5234. 5234. 6261.0 6261. 0 f1 e 1 d fi e 1 19680. 7125. 10. 173 173 Youngs Bay 1981 2713. dock 312. 412. 422. 102. 341.1 295. 1473. TOTAL 1981 dock fi e 1 330 165 434 Columbia River wi nter 1982 dock 1.2 801. 23. 824. 10. 42. fi e 1 18. 42. 10. 5668. 5224. 220 106 220 TOTAL 1982 (projected from 1.2 19. 10892. 119 210 combi ned sampl e) l! Kills include entangled (drowned and killed) and not entangled. Appendix D 1 . River . Inventory of boat surveys to harbor seal haulouts in the Columbia Wlilapa Bay, Gr ays Bar bar. . Tl11amook Bay and Netarta BAy. Haulout Site Columbia River Deadeacna sands Taylor Sands Seals Counted . Scats Date 1(I in water) Collected 1980 Apr Apr Apr Apr Jun Ju1 OCt OCt OCt Nov Nov Dee 1 Tracks Measured 1 aer ies) Deademona Sands Taylor Sanda Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sands Deademona Sands DeadellOna Sands Taylor Sands DesdeJIDna Sanda DesdelOOna Sands DesdeJIDna Sands Deademona Sands 23 23 30 30 28 18 10 24 24 17 18 17 1500 125-150 800(21) 200+ 11 (2 Bags) Aug 1 300-400 1:100 25(5) 51 (6) 200 200 230 250 39 (6) 66 (3) 1981 Taylor Sanda Miller Sands DeadeJllOna Sands Deademona Sands Taylor Sands Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb 15 15 29 30 30 11 240 370 300 240 0 (10) 250 325 150 (1) 650 300 Deadenr:ma Sanda DeadellDna Sanda Taylor Sanda Mar 3 Mar 12 Mar 12 Mar 31 Deademona Sands DesdellDna Sanda Taylor Sanda Taylor Sanda Apr 8 Apr 9 Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr 10 11 13 18 20 21 DeadellDna Sanda Taylor Sands Deademona Sanda DesdelOOna Sanda 300 150 400 21 (5) D.adellDna Sanda Taylor Sanda Deade.ma Sanda Taylor Sands Deadeacne Sands May 6 May 22 Mey 22 Jun 3 Green Island Deademona Sanda DesdellDna Sands Deademona Sands Jun . Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug 150 150 Green Ialand Desdemona Sands Deademona SandA 2 8 8 9 13 23 14 29 Desdemona Sands De sdemona Sands Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sanda Deademona Sands DesdellOna Sands 200 230 400 380 200 370 Sep 1 Sep 2 Sep 16 102 1982 Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sanda Taylor Sanda Jan 19 Jan 21 Jan 21 Rangefinder BauloutMiller Sands !bulb Jetty Feb 3 Feb 3 Feb 4 Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 26 27 28 28 30 30 31 300 0 (50) 150 50 (5) 200+ 100+Zc* 10-15 (1 bag) .. Deademona Sands Desdemona Sands DesdeJllOna Sands Taylor Sands DesdeJllOna Sands Taylor Sanda 200 200 300 150 Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sands Desdemona Sands Taylor Sands Hiller Sands Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr 8 9 9 9 10 10 21 27 Desdemona Sanda Miller Sand. 100 200 150 20ZC/5Ej* 1** Desdemona Sand. !buth Jetty .Zc- Zaloohua sea l10n scats. californianus l Ej- Eumetopiaa jubat 286 Appendix Haulout 51 te Willapa Bay Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel Ellen Sands Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel Ellen Sands Leadbetter Shoals Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel Pine Is Channel Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel Long Island Pine Is Channel (cont. Date 1980 Apr 24 Apr 24 .IW'I 16 Jun 16 Jun 16 . Seals Counted (t in water) . SCats . Track Measured Q)llected 125-150 4 (1 bag) 109 100 135 .Iul .Iul Jul 15 .Iul 15 .Iul 26 42-45 400+ 240+ 200 Jul Aug Aug Sep 26 13 24 18 150-200 100 150 31(5) 22(5) Nov Mar 11 .IW'I 15 .Iun 15 Pine Iii Channel Ellen Sands Pine Is Channel Leadbetter Shoals Pine Is Channel (25) 250 Aug Aug Aug 12 1982 Pine Is Channel May Grays Harbor Sand Is Shoal Whitcomb Sand Island Sand Island Flata .Iul .Iul .Iul 14 .Iul 14 350-400 115 170 1200+ Whi tcomb Flats Whi tcaab Sand Is Shoal III 105 (10) 83 (5) 64 (9) Jul 14 .Iul 25 Flats 600-800 600 Sand Is Shoal Sand Is Shoal Sand Is Shoal Aug Aug Aug 12 Nov 19 700-800 250 1981 Sand Island Sand Is Shoal Sand 18 Shoal Sand Is Shoal Campbell Slough Sand Is Shoal Mar 13 Mar 13 May 300 600 400 265 67 (6) May 18 May 19 MAy 19 .IW'I 26 .Iul 17 Sand Island Sand Is Shoal Whi tcomb Flats E of Ocean Shores North Bay Sand Is Shoal JulIO 50-70 1000-1200 Aug Aug 18 Aug 18 (2) 1982 Sand Island Sand Sand Sand Sand Is Is IS Is Shoal Shoal Shoal Shoal .Ian 28 .Ian 28 Apr 29 Apr 30 May 28 1981 Feb 10 125 100 700 700 500 (7) Oregon Estuaries Till~k . Tillamook (main) Tillamook Tillamook (_in) Netarta (main) (_in) Sep Sep 10 Sep 23 160 125 180 200 5(1 bag) Oct 287 Appendix D2 . -Scientif ic and common names of pr imary-type prey species identified in harbor seal scats, sea lion scats, and gastrointestinal tracts of stranded marine mammals. Str anded Mammals Prey Species asme r idae Whitebait smelt Amer ican ony Fish shad Family Common Name Scats Scats Harbor Seal Sea Lion Mar ine (Robins et ale 1980): Allosmerus elongatus Alosa sapid iss ima Clupeidae Anunodytidae Ammodytes hexapterus Amphistichus rhodoterus Anoplopoma t ida e Embiotocidae Pacific sand lance Redtail surfperch Anoplopoma fimbr ia Sablefish flounder Atheresthes starn ias Pleuronectidae Embiotoc idae Ar rowtooth Kelp Perch Spotted cusk-eel Br achyistius frenatus Chilara taylori Ci thar ichthys sordidus Ci thar ichthys stigmaeus Ophidiidae Bothidae Bothidae Clupeidae Cottidae Embiotocidae Pacific herr ing (sculpin) Shiner perch Common carp Pacific sanddab Speckled sanddab Clupea harengus pallas i Cot tUg sp. Cymatogaster aggregata Cypr inus carpio Cypr inidae Embiotocid Petrale sole Engr aul is mordax Embiotocidae Engr aul idae Rex sole (Irish lord) (Sur fperches) Nor the r n anchovy Enophrys bison Buffalo sculpin Eopsetta jordani Hexagr ammidae lyptocephalus z ach ir us Hemilepidotus sp. Hemilepidotus spinosus Cottidae Pleuronectidae Pleuronectidae Cot tidae Cottidae Pleuronectidae Osmer idae Hexagrammos decagrammus Brown Irish lord Kelp greenling la thead sole Sur f smel t Hippoglossoides elassodon Hypomesus pretiosus Icelus sp. ? (Sculpin) But ter Isopset ta isoleps is Cottidae Pleuronectidae Gobiidae sole Bay goby Lepidogobius lepidus Ibck sole Pacific staghorn sculpin Lepidopsetta bilineata LeptQ~attus armatus Lumpenus sagitta Lyopsetta exilis Pleuronectidae Cot tidae Stichaeidae Pleuronectidae Snake pr ickleback Slender sole Appendix D2 (cont. ) Stranded Harbor Seal Sea Lion Sea ts Mar ine Pre Cormnon Name Sca ts ecies Famil Mammals Merlucciidae Gadidae Pacific bake Pacific tomcod Merluccius productus Microgadus proximus Microstomus pacificus Pleuronectidae Dover sole (Lanternfi shes) Myctoph idae Myctophid? Myoxocephalus sp. Cottidae (Sculpin) Sockeye salmon Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Hexagr ammidae Salmonidae Salmonidae Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus English sole Parophrys vetul us Pepr flus simillimus Pacific pompano Whi te Pleuronectidae Stromateidae Embiotoc idae Phanerodon furcatus seaperch Pholis sp. Pholidae (Gunnel) Pholidae or Stichaeidae Starry flounder Pholis sp. or Stichaeid Platichthys stellatus (Gunnel or Pr ickleback) Bluebarred pr ickleback (Righteye flounders) Plainfin midshipman Whitebarred prickleback \.0 (X) Pleuronectidae Plectobranchus evides Stichaeidae Pleuronectidae Pleur onectid Per ich thys nota tus Batrachoididae PoroclIDnus ro~nrocki Stichaeidae Psettichthys melanostictus Pleuronectidae Cot tidae Radul inus asprellus Sand sole Sl im sculpin Pile perch Rhacochi Ius vacca Embiotocidae Ronquilus jordani Ba thymaster idae Northern ronquil Steelhead trou t Salmo gairdneri Sebastes spp. Osmer idae Osmer idae Spirinchus thaleichthys Gadidae Tr ichodontidae Salmonidae Scorpaenidae Longfin smelt Eul achon (Rock fishes) Thaleichthys pacificus The~gra chalcogramma Walleye pollock Pacific sandfish Tr ichodon tr ichodon Un ideo t. otol i ths Appendix D2 (cont. Sea Lion Str anded Marine Manunals Prey Species Family Co J1U'OC) n Name Harbor Seal Scats Scats Agnathans Myxinidae Petromyzon t idae Ri ve.r (Robins et al. 1980): (Hagfi sh) lampr ey Eptatretus sp. Pacific lamprey Lampetra ayresi Lampetra tridentata Lampetra sp. unident. agna thana Petromyzontidae Petromyzontidae (Jawless fishes) (Lamprey) Deca od crustaceans (NODe tax. code 1978): Callianassa sp. (Ghost shrimp) Cancr idae Cancr idae Callianassidae Dungeness cr ab Cancer magister Cancer sp. (Crab) (Cr angon shr imp) Crangon sp. unident. crab Crangonidae un iden t. unident. de'Capod shr imp Cephalopods (Roper e t al. 1969): Loligo opalescens octopoteuthis deletron OctoEuS sp. (Benthic) Loliginidae Octopoteuthidae OCtopodidae Ommastrephidae Market squid (Squid) (Benthic octopus) Squid) (Squid) Ommas tr eph id Onychoteuthis sp. Onychoteuthidae un iden t. cephalopod unident. squid Appendix D3. ,Frequency of occurrence or food remains, in phylogenetic order (Robins et al. 1980; Roper et al. 1969; NODC tax. code 1978), identified in harbor. in four estuaries. seal , scats collected June 1980-May 1982 Taxon PHYLUM Annelida CLASS Polychaeta (unident. FAMILY Nereidae Gr ays Willapa Columbia Tillamook Harbor Bay River Bay (n=403) (n=211) (n=436) (n=38 Nereis PHYLUM Mollusca (unident. CLASS Gastropoda (unident. CLASS Nudibranchia Dendrono toidae FAMILY Dendronotidae (unident. CLASS Bivalvia (unident. Heterodonta, Veneroida FAMILY Corbiculidae FAMILY Myidae Corbicula manilensis Mya arenaria CLASS Cephalopoda (unident. Teu thoidea FAMILY Lo1iginidae Lo1igo opa1escens Octopoda FAMILY Octopodidae Oc topus PHYLUM Arthropoda CLASS Crustacea (unident. 140 Copepoda, Ca1igoida (unident. Cirripedia, Thoracica (unident. Isopoda (unident. FAMILY Cirolanidae Cirolana FAMILY Cyrnothoidae (unident. FAMILY Idoteidae (unident. Sadur ia entomon Idotea Amphipoda (unident. FAMILY Atylidae Aty1us FAMILY Corophiidae Corophium sp Corophium spinicorne FAMILY Gammaridae (unident. Eogammerus confervico1us 291 Appendix. D3 (cont. ) Gr ays Wi11apa Columbia Tillamook Harbor Taxon IDecapoda (unident. ) Decapoda, Car (un iden t. ) (n=403) . (n=211) (n=436) (n=38) . Bay River Bay idea FAMILY Crangonidae Cr an on !E. Decapoda, Anomur FAMILY Ca11ianassidae Call ianassa !E. Decapoda, Br achyur a FAMILY Cancr idae Cancer !E. PHYLUM Chordata CLASS Agnatha (unident. ORDER MyxinifoIJme, FAMILY Myxinidae tatretus !E. ORDER Petromyzontiformes FAMILY Petromyzontidae etr a !E. Lam etra a etr a tr id resi ta ta CLASS 'Osteichthyes ORDER C1upeiformes FAMILY C1upeidae Alosa sa idissima Clu ea haren us FAMILY Engr au1 idae a11asi 113 rau1is IOOrdax ORDER SalIOOniformes FAMILY Salmonidae Oncorh nchus nerka Oncorh nchus tsha tscha Salmo Gairdner i FAMILY Osmeridae Al1osmerus e1on omesus retiosus atus 157 irinchus tha1eichth Tha1eichth acificus ORDER Cypr iniformes FAMIL Y Cypr inidae r inus car ORDER Batrachoidiformes FAMILY Batrachoididae Per ichth s notatus ORDER Gadiformes FAMILY Gadidae Mer1uccius roductus adus Micro roximus FAMILY Ophidiidae Ch i 1ar a lor i 292 Appendix D3 (cont. ) Grays Har bar Willapa Columbia Tillamook Bay, (n=21l) Ri ver Bay (n=38 ) Taxon ORDER Perciformes FAMILY Embiotocidae (unident. Amp histichus rhodoterus Brach istius frenatus ata mato aster a Phanerodon furcatus Rhacochi1us vacca FAMILY Trichodontidae FAMIL Y Ba (n=403) (n=436) Tr 1chodon tr ichodon thymaster idae uilus Ron Lum ordan1 FAMILY Stichaeidae enus sa itta Plectobranchus evides poroclinus rothrocki FAMILY Pho1idae Pholis Pholis (or Stichaeid) FAMILY Ammodytidae Ammod tes hexa FAMILY Gobiidae teru~ i~ o obius le idus FAMILY Stromateidae rilus simi11imus FAMILY Scorpaenidae Sebas tes FAMILY Anop1opomatidae Ano oma fimbr ia FAMIL Y Hexagr ammidae deca r ammo s hiodon e1on atus FAMILY Cottidae Hexa r ammo s Cottus E11o s bison Hemile idotus Hemile idotus s inosus Ice1us tocottus armatus oxoce Radul inus ORDER P1euronectiformes FAMILY Bothidae Ci thar ichth s sordidus C i thar setta halus rellus ichth s sti maeus ordani FAMILY P1euronectidae (unident. 293 Appendix D (cont. ) Gr ays Har bar Willapa Columbia Tillarnook Bay (n=211) Ri ver (n=436) Bay (n=38 ) Taxon FAMILY Pleuronectidae (n=403) toc Sf3~ Iso (cont. zachirus ido setta " bilineata setta e~ilis lossoides elassodon setta isole sis Microstomus Paro acificus s vetulus Platichth s stellatus Psettichth s me1anostictus 294 Appendix D4. Primary- type prey species identified in five analyses of harbor seal feeding habits from Grays Harbor, WA Neta rts Bay, OR. * Ha rbor Sea Scats Brown Sea 1 s Fou nd Dead Present Study lO88' BONY FI SH Present Study (n=50) Scheffer & Sperry Hunted Johnson & leffr i (n= (1981) n=150 (1931) (n=15 ( 1983 ) Allosmerus elongatus Alosa sapidissima Ammodytes hexa pteru Anopl opoma fimbria s Amphistichus Brachyis tius Chi lara rhodoteru s frenatus taylori Citharichthys sordidus Citharichthys stigmaeus Clupea harengus pallasi Cottus s Cymatogaster aggregata Cypri nus carpi 0 Embiotocid (juveniles) Engra u 1 i s Eopsetta jordani Glyptocephalus zachirus Hemi 1 epi datu s s pi nosu s Hexagrammos decagrammus Hi ppogl assai mordax Enophrys bi son des e assodon osu s Hypomesus preti Icelus sp. I sopsetta i sol eps i s epi dus Lepi dogobi us Lepidopsetta bilineata Leptocottus armatus Lumpenus sagi tta Lyopsetta exilis Merluccius productus Microgadus proximus Microstomus pacificus Myoxocepha 1 us sp. Oncorhynchus sp. (unident. Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Ophiodon elongatus Parophrys vetul us Peprilus simillimus 295 Appendix D4. (cont . ) Harbor Seal Sc~ts Sea 1 s Found Dead Hunted Johnson & Jeffri es Present Study (n=1088 ) Brown (1981 ) ( n =1 50) Present Study (n=50) Scheffer & Sperry (1931) (n=15) (19R3) n=72 Phanerodon Phol is fu rca tu s Pl at i chthys sp. stell atus Plectobranchus evides Porichthys notatus Porocl i nus rothrocki Radulinus as prell Psetti chthys mel anosti ctus us Rhacochi 1 us vacca Ronquilus jordani Sa 1 mo ga i rdneri Salmonidae (unident. Sebastes sp. Spirinchus starksi Spirinchus thaleichthys Thaleichthys pacificus Tri chodon tri chodon AGNA THANS Eptatretus sp. Lampetra ayresi Lampetra tri dentata DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Cancer sp. Callianassa sp. Cancer oregones i Crangon sp. Crangon styl i rostri Hem; grapsijs s oregones is Petrol i sthes ci n~ti pes Upogebi a pugettens is CEPHALOPODS Lo 1 i go cpa 1 escens Octopus s *Brown (1981)=Netarts Bay; Scheffer & Sperry (1931)=Willapa Johnson & Jeffri es (1983) =Grays Harbor. Bay, Columbia River; 296 '!) Appendix US. Percent of oCcurrence of miscellaneous invertebrates (secondary- type food, scats, collected July 1980-April 1982 in Grays Harbor (combined by month). in harbor seal etc. ) 1982 1982 (n=5) (n=O) 1981 (n=27) ((1=lll) Apr May 80% (n=O). 1981 1980-81 1980-8l (n=15) (n=94) (n=l37) (n=O) (n=O) 1980 (n=8) Nov (n=O) Taxon Mar Jan Feb Aug Jun Sep Jul Oct Dec Unident. fragments 85. 58. 52. 45. 62. PHYLUM Annelida Polychaeta (unident. Nereidae 11. 1 % N~reif3 0:9% 20% 46. 7% 33. 25% PHYLuM Mollusca l2. 5% Gastropoda (unident. 29. Bivalvia (unident. 10. 50% Myidae Mya arenar ia PHYLUlVl Ar thropoda 25. l. 8% 77. 20% 20. 19% 12. -...,J Crustacea (unident. Copepoda (Caligo ida) Cirripedia (Thoracica) Isopoda (unident. Cirolana irolanidae Cymothoidae 32.. Idoteidae Idotea Amphipoda (unident. Corophiidae Gammaridae (unident. Corophium EE. Eogammerus confervicolus Appendix D6. Percent of occurrence of miscellaneous invertebrates (secondary- type food , etc. ) in harbor seal scats, collected June 1980-May 1982 in Willapa Bay (combined by month) 1981 (n= 0) (n=O~ 1982 (n=O) (n= 1) 1980-81 1980 (n=O) (n=ll) Mar (n=ll) 1980 1980-81 1980 (n=26) (n=144) (n=l7) (n=l) Nov (n=O ) Taxon Jan Feb Jul Oct Dec Unident. fragments 64. 7 % 63. 100% Jun 54. 76. 60. PHYWM Annelida Polychaeta Nereidae Nereis 27. 15. PHYLUM Mollusca Nudibranchia Dendronotidae 19. 45. 100% 18 . 8 % Gastropoda (unident. Bivalvia (unident. 27. 15. PHYLUM Arthropoda ~ Crustacea (unident. 00 Cirripedia (Thoracica) Isopoda (unident. 35. Cirolanidae Cirolana Cymothoidae Amphipoda Atylidae Atylus Ganunaridae Ebgammerus confervicolus Appendix D7. Percent of occurrence of miscellaneous (secondary-type food , etc. ) in harbor seal scats, collected June 1980 - Apr il 1982 in the Columbia River (combined by month). invertebrates 1981-82 (n=30) 1981 1980(n=19) (n=22) 198019801981 (n=72) 1980 (n=12) 1980 (n=ll5) (n=69) (n=l6) Nov Taxon Jun Jan 36. 7 % 5l. 5 1982 1981-82 1981(n=15) (n=9) (n=33 ) Mar Feb Jul 22. Oct 44. l. 4% 1980 (n=24) Dec 50% Unident. fragments 33. 84. 35. 7 % 45. 40. 30. 56. 37 . 5 PHYLUM Mollusca Gastropoda (un-ident. 22. Bivalvia 33. (unident. 33. l. 4% Corbicul idae Cor bicula manilensis 7 % PHYLUM Arthropoda lS. 2% 36. 10. 17. 30. l8 . 12. Crustacea (unident. l6. Cirripedia (Thoracica) I sopoda (unident. Idoteidae l. \.0 \.0 Sadur ia entomon Amp h i pod a Coroph i idae Coro h i um Gamrnar idae spinicorne Eogarnrnerus confervi colus Appendix D8. Percent of nematode infection in harbor seal scats by month and estuary. Jan Feb Mar May Apr Jun Ju1 Aug Sep Oct Nov ( n =8) Dee (n=5 ) 51 . 50% (n=ll) (n=6) (n=76) Grays Harbor 60% (n=27) 25. (n=15) 33. 43. (n=17) 58 . (n=137) 56. 12. Wi 11 a pa (n=ll) (n=l) 100% Bay 45. (n=22) 50% 60 . 9% (n=ll) (n=26) 53. (n=115) (n=144) 44. (n=69) 72. (n=l) (n=12) (n=16) (n=24 ) Co 1 umbi a (n=30) (n=15) (n=9) 44 . 4 (n=19) 47 . (n=72) River 30% 46. (n=33) 18. 44. (n=25) 64% 33. (n=13) 18. 12 . 5% Ti 11 amook Bay 38. ..... ._- - ----- -- - - ---- - - - - - - - - - -- - --- --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- - - - --- - - -- - - ---- - - ---- - - - - - - - -- - - ----- -- -- - - -- - - - - - - ----- -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - --- - - --- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - -- --- - - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --- - - - - - - A~pendix D9 . Food Rema ins General categories of food remains present in the gastrointestinal tracts of marine mammals found dead in the study a rea, by common name (Ri ce 1977). Loca t ion Type Food I ntesAgnaOtol iths CrustaCeph- Other Un i dent. MMP Stomach Ca 1 i forni a tines thans ceans Sea Lion (n=16) Esophogus Bony Fi sh lopods Invert. Frags. Present Salmonids Unusual Present Content . X Empty 102 112 135 136 178 218 219 Tota 1 s Empty Northern Sea Lion (n=9) Empty 100 145 222 Tota 1 Lg. stone - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- -- - - - -- Appendix D9 . Type of Food Rema ins (cont. Gt her Un i dent. Gtol iths Location of Food MMP # Stomac h Intest. Esoph. Bony Fi sh Agnat. Ceph. =3) Crust. Frags. Invert. Present Salmon;ds Unusual Present Content Northern Fur Sea 228 Tota 1 Ha rbor Sea feathers (n=50) ---"3 mil k sa 1 man eggs salmon eggs Em pty Empty . 68 - - ------------- - ---- - ---- -----~ - - --- - - -------- --- - - ------------- -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - ----- ---- -- -- -------- -- --- ------ ------------------- --- ---- --------- - ---- --- ------ ---- - - --- -------- -------- - -- -- ---- --- -.,.. --- Appendi x D9. (cont. Type of Food Rema; ns Location of Food Bony Other Cru st. Uni dent. Otol iths Sa lmoni ds Unusual MMP Stomac h Intest. Eso Fi sh nat. Ceph. Invert. Frags. Present Present Content Harbor Seals coflhL Em pty Em pty 107 114 116 147 153 156 159 165 168 176 179 183 184 185 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 203 Tota 1 hant Seal Em pty (n=2) Tota 1 --------------- ----------- -- ----- ------- ------ ---------- -- -- --- --------- -- --- - ------,.------- --------- ----- ---------- ------ ------------- -- -- ------- -- ------ ---------------- ---- -- ------------------- - ---- - - - ---- - --- - - - --- - - --- - - - - - -- - -- - -- $~~ - -- - --- - -- - - - -- - - -- - --- --- --- - - - --------- -- ---- --- - - - -- - --- --- -- - --- -- - - - ---- - --- - - ----- --- -- --- -- -- -- - - ----- ------- --- --- - - - -- - - -- ----- - -- ---- --- ----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - Appendix D9. Type of Food Rema (Cont. Location of Food ins Unusua MMP # Stomach Intest. Esoph. Stri ped Dol phi n Bony Fi sh Other Unident. Otol iths Salmonids gnat. Crust. Ceph. Invert. Frags. Present Present (n=l) (n=2) Pacific Whiteside Dolphin Content 198 171 177 Tota 1 Northern Right Whale Dol phin (n=l t Harbor Porroi se (n=7 t feathers wood stick .X 105 108 .p.. 152 Empty Empty 154 Tota 1 s Da 11' s Porpoi se (n=4) 166 197 Tota 1 Beri ng 167 ~~C!~~d , Wb~ 1 ~ , ( n=l ) Appendix E1. Marine mammal carcasses examined 4 March 1980 to August 1982. Symbols used in Appendix E1: (length) = est. or approx. length (area) = ~ 5 mi. from estuaries mouth (cause of death) = tentative cause of death Area Codes - CR = Columbia River WB = Wiliapa Bay GH = Grays Harbor TI = Tillamook Bay PS = Puget Sound (includes Strait of Juan de Fuca) WA = Outer Washington coast ~ 5 mi. from an estuary estuary s mouth OR = Outer Oregon coast ~ 5 mi. from an s mouth Cause-of- Death Codes - GN = gillnet take OF = other fishery take OR = other human caused NA = natural UN = unknown 305 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Harbor Seal 004 009 162 3 Apr 1 May 1980 170 154 1980 1980 (CR) 014 025 036 042 043 044 045 30 May 11 June 1980 10 July 1980 19 July 1980 (WB) 100 168 176 20 July 24 July 25 July 5 Aug 6 Aug 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 (OH) 046 047 135 048 6 Aug 1980 1980 1980 1980 049 050 051 143 10 Aug 15 Aug 16 Aug 142 052 142 158 1 9 Aug 19 Aug 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 (CR) (OH) 053 054 055 (95) 151 20 Aug 25 Aug 3 Sep 15 Sep 18 Sep 056 057 130 140 142 058 1980 1980 1980 1980 (CR) 059 060 061 062 18 Sep 18 Sep 185 18 Sep 19 Sep 167 107 1980 1980 063 064 065 22 Sep 22 Sep 123 121 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 22 Sep 22 Sep 22 Sep 066 067 068 160 122 164 25 Sep 306 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Harbor Seal 069 070 071 128 1 Oct. 1980 14 Oct 14 Oct 16 Oct 16 Oc 150 130 1980 1980 1980 1980 072 073 076 078 079 (150) 148 123 168 10 Nov 1980 1980 12 Nov 8 Dec .1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 (CR) 086 088 091 137 26 Feb 27 Feb 140 113 3 Mar 13 Mar 096 M (120) 167 099 103 107 111 1 7 Mar 3 Apr 1981 1981 1981 (GH) 135 117 6 Apr 143 8 Apr . 1981 114 115 158 167 151 16 Apr 29 Apr 30 Apr 29 Apr 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 (CR) (NA) 116 117 119 121 146 7 May 8 May 18 May 125 133 159 2 June 1981 11 June 1981 11 June 1981 139 140 143 144 147 149 26 June 1981 26 June 1981 108 23 June 1981 26 June 1981 (CR) 153 156 165 8 July 1981 22 July 130 1981 307 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Harbor Seal 157 27 July 1981 14 Aug (OR) 159 161 165 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 (OR) 143 104 1 7 Aug 23 Sep 2 Oct (GR) 168 170 162 162 137 17 Oct 172 173 29 Oct 9 Nov 1981 1981 1981 174 175 7 Nov 162 9 Dec 176 179 150 113 28 Dee 1981 7 Jan 25 Feb 26 Feb 26 Feb 28 Feb 1982 183 184 185 187 1982. 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 148 129 188 189 108 106 124 122 128 154 117 28 Feb 1 Mar 2 Mar 2 Mar 190 191 192 193 2 Mar 2 Mar 1982 1982 194 195 4 Mar 5 Mar 27 Mar 1982 1982 1982 (NA) 146 202 203 206 211 110 152 28 Mar 1982 1982 1982 1982 (GH) 15 Apr 27 Apr 3 May (155) 156 F (117) 215 216 217 3 May 6 May 14 May 1982 1982 1982 (WB) 115 220 164 308 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Harbor Seal 221 (135) 141 14 May, 1982 (WB) 226 229 11 Mar 1982 1982 (WB) UN. (80) 11 June 17 May 230 231 1982 1982 . (GH) (WB) 22 May 25 May 232 235 237 1982 1982 8 July 1982 (GH) 20 July 309 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN # SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATR California Sea Lion 007 008 207 18 Apr 1980 (WB) 224 221 25 Apr 23 May 27 May 27 May 30 May 1980 1980 (CR) (OR) 010 011 221 1980 1980 1980 (WB) 012 017 220 (OR) 240 241 022 023 6 June 1980 6 June 1980 11 June 1980 19 June 1980 236 215 024 032 226 238 033 034 20 June 1980 24 June 1980 (GR) 264 230 - (20- 040 083 Jul 20 Feb 24 Feb 27 Feb 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 (WB) (CR) 084 087 180 195 089 160 2 Mar 3 Mar 090 200 206 094 097 9 Mar 13 Mar 098 101 200 15 Mar 24 Mar 24 Mar (OR) M (202) 196 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 102 104 212 224 195 6 Apr 7 Apr 109 110 112 113 118 8 Apr 10 Apr 10 Apr 2 May 7 May 18 May 213 195 173 1981 1981 (WB) 120 124 128 213 253 1981 1981 (OR) 21 May 310 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE. AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH California 129 131 Sea Lion 224 21 May 1981 253 29 May 1981 (OH) 132 135 136 142 235. 252 182 1 June 1981 3 June 1981 3 June 1981 12 June 1981 (NA) 231 237 (CR) (CR) (GH) (OH) 148 151 23 June 1981 M (171) 1 July 1981 14 July 1981 17 Oct 155 169 1981 178 182 232 7 Jan 21 Feb 1982 1982 1982 (WB) (OR) 230 218 196 199 8 Mar 14 Mar 200 201 M (205) M (150) 255 1982 1982 1982 (CR) 14 Mar 18 Mar (CR) 208 212 213 220 240 225 235 186 16 Apr 27 Apr 27 Apr 3 May 12 May 13 May 1982 1982 1982 214 1982 1982 1982 (CR) (CR) OR ' 218 219 222 224 233 M (250) 227 26 May 1982 24 June 1982 311 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH N. Sea Lion 013 021 221 29 May 1980 (CR) (OR) (NA) 235 102 6 June 1980 14 June 1980 17 June 1980 027 031 074 081 150 18 Oct 1980 1981 (CR) 220 139 30 Jan 8 Mar 23 Mar 093 100 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 (CR) (CR) 280 210 106 122 123 126 127 6 Apr 16 May 18 May M (190) 200 237 20 May 20 May 1981 134 137 145 2 June 1981 3 June 1981 9 June 1981 16 Se 17 Feb 252 163 180 M (285) M (145) 221 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 (NA) 210 222 223 225 2 7 Ap 225 202 F (230) 20 May 25 May 2 June 1982 234 (182) 30 June 1982 312 Appendix El (cant. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH . DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH N. Fur Seal 002 006 131 26 Mar 16 Apr 1980 1980 1980 1980 (CR) (WB) 015 018 026 30 May 30 May (GH) (100) 110 118 103 June 1980 17 June 1980 (GH) 030 035 037 7 July 1980 12 July 1980 12 July 1980 8 Dee 12 Mar (CR) 038 080 095 141 205 118 1980 1981 (CR) (CR) (OH) 110 113 111 12 June 1981 23 June 1981 18 Feb 150 181 1982 1982 186 207 (100) 116 28 Feb 16 Apr 7 A 1982 1982 227 N. Elephant Seal 005 075 077 205 169 3 Apr 18 Oct 1980, 1980 1980 1982 1982 269 214 282 10 Nov 14 Apr 209 M (190) 19 Apr 313 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Harbor Porpoise 020 041 182 173 166 131 18 May 19 Jul 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 (GH) (WB) 085 25 Feb (CR) 092 105 6 Mar 6 Apr 108 152 154 158 162 141 6 Apr 1981 1 July 1981 171 117 14 July 1981 30 July 1981 4 Sep 1981 164 178 16 Se 1981 236 11 July 1981 Dall Porpoise 029 082 166 197 132 17 June 1980 20 Feb (WB) 213 180 195 142 1981 1981 24 Sep 11 Mar 13 A 1982 1982 (CR) 204 P. Whitesided 171 177 228 Dol~ 176 190 186 29 Oct 1981 4 Jan 1982 7 Jun 1982 314 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPECIMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH N. Right whale Dolphin 001 201 184 1 Mar 27 Mar 1980 1980 003 Striped Dolphin 198 219 12 Mar 1982 (GH) Stenella spp. 130 24 May 1981 (CR) Bering Sea Beaked Whale 167 489 15 Oc 1981 (WB) (NA) Sperm Whale 243 M 1080 30 July 1982 (GH) Pilot Whale 039 295 12 July 1980 315 Appendix El (cont. Species MMP SPEC IMEN SEX/LENGTH DATE AREA COLLECTED CAUSE OF DEATH Gray Whale 016 138 146 800 781 30 Ma 1980 (WB) 6 Apr 1981 23 June 1981 610 Minke Whale 019 028 500 1 June 1980 750 10 June 1980 . (WB) 316 ii C) iI , i, 'V' t-';; (I: ""0' 'i'