Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Op-Ed: Rebuilding wild steelhead populations means more fishing opportunity

3K views 36 replies 20 participants last post by  Chris Johnson 
#1 ·
From the Bellingham Herald:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's recent decision to stop planting hatchery-raised, winter-run steelhead in most Puget Sound rivers for two-and-a-half years and in the Skagit River for 12 years was big news, and for good reason -- steelhead inspire great passion among anglers.
Media coverage of the decision has focused on disappointment expressed by some recreational anglers because, in their view, the loss of these hatchery fish will reduce fishing opportunity. As avid steelhead anglers ourselves, we share the concern about lost opportunity, but see the department's decision as a positive development.
Decades of data from Puget Sound rivers show the widespread planting of hatchery-bred, winter-run steelhead derived from a population in Chambers Creek in south Puget Sound has not improved steelhead harvest or fishing opportunity. As more hatchery fish were planted both harvest and wild steelhead numbers have plummeted.
And in recent years, the opportunity to even fish for steelhead practicing catch-and-release has declined dramatically. Winter steelhead fishing seasons in Puget Sound that used to extend through April now end by mid-February at the latest, leaving anglers high and dry. In our experience, it is the loss of fishing opportunity - not harvest opportunity, that the vast majority of recreational anglers are most concerned about.
When the planting of Chambers Creek hatchery fish began, wild steelhead were being harvested at unsustainable rates in sport fisheries. By augmenting the declining wild population with hatchery fish - fish that numerous studies have shown to have low survival rates and harmful impacts on wild steelhead through interbreeding -- these high harvest rates were maintained for a short period of time during which wild steelhead populations were driven even lower.
This is not to say that hatcheries are solely or even mostly to blame for the dramatic decline of Puget Sound's wild steelhead. In addition to excessive harvest in the past, habitat loss and high mortality of young steelhead in the marine waters of Puget Sound, are major reasons for today's severely depressed wild steelhead populations, estimated to be just a few percent of what they were in the late 1800s. Indeed, several Puget Sound rivers in Hood Canal and the south Sound, such as the Nisqually, have not had Chambers Creek fish planted for many years and yet their wild steelhead populations are in bad shape.
But the question we should focus on is not what deserves the most blame for the decline of wild steelhead and fishing opportunity; rather, it is what should we do to reverse the trajectory?
The key to both rebuilding wild steelhead populations and increasing steelhead fishing opportunity is strengthening wild steelhead in rivers with the potential to support abundant, fishable populations - rivers like the Skagit. This will require continuing the habitat protection and restoration work currently underway in western Washington, stopping hatchery operations that impede wild steelhead recovery, and improving the survival of young steelhead as the migrate through the marine waters of Puget Sound.
To be clear, we are not advocating closing all hatcheries producing steelhead in Puget Sound. It may be appropriate to use steelhead hatcheries as a life-support system for populations on the brink of disappearing or to provide steelhead for harvest in rivers with insufficient habitat to support abundant, fishable wild steelhead populations. Such decisions should be made based on the best available science, not a leap of faith.
On rivers like the Skagit that have the potential to support fishable wild steelhead populations, the state of Washington will best serve both wild steelhead and Washington's anglers by prioritizing actions, such as habitat protection and restoration and reducing marine mortality, that will rebuild the abundance and diversity of wild steelhead.
The time is now to make that shift.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ed Megill of Bellingham is owner and guide with Cascades Flyfishing. Contribution to this opinion were Hugh Lewis of Bellingham, president of 4th Corner Flyfishers; Chris Johnson, a fishermen and conservationist from Bellingham; and Dave McCoy, owner of Emerald Waters Anglers of Seattle.
Full Op-Ed here.

 
See less See more
#3 ·
"This is not to say that hatcheries are solely or even mostly to blame for the dramatic decline of Puget Sound's wild steelhead"

Then why start out by mentioning it at all?

I wish I could live to another 150 years, to see that hatcheries were most likely the "least" decimating factor in this whole equation...(provided, the continued trend to reduce and/or close hatchery practices stays the course.) ;)
 
#4 ·
Of course a guide wants the stay river open and is blaming everything else on poor steelhead numbers besides fishing pressure and advertising steelhead fishing for a living.

Obviously allowing a break in fishing pressure and letting spawning fish do their thing is a smart thing to do in the spring time. Why don't we we all share the responsibly of a steelhead recovery even if that means you can't fish a river for a month or 2?
 
#5 ·
Of course a guide wants the stay river open and is blaming everything else on poor steelhead numbers besides fishing pressure and advertising steelhead fishing for a living.

Obviously allowing a break in fishing pressure and letting spawning fish do their thing is a smart thing to do in the spring time. Why don't we we all share the responsibly of a steelhead recovery even if that means you can't fish a river for a month or 2?
I know for a fact that your contention that Ed wants the river to stay open is incorrect. Ed and I disagree on this policy re: the Skagit. Few are more critical of fishing guides than I am, but I can assure you that regarding Ed your contention is incorrect.

I disagree with you though with regards to what the right thing to do is. I don't believe that C&R fisheries have anything to do with declining steelhead run sizes, especially in the PS. It's a red herring that distracts from actual helpful actions. I don't have a problem closing rivers with low run sizes. I don't like creating false crisis, like has been done with the Skagit's healthy run.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#8 ·
THat's the part of the issue that is the hardest to define. There's not a whole hell of a lot we can say about their tracks out in the ocean.....where they're being caught, bycatch, so on and so forth. Oceanic conditions are big, but hell if we can improve stream conditions, that's something we have at least a bit of control over
 
#9 ·
Paul Harvey would have said, "And now, the rest of the story."

But Salmo ain't Paul Harvey, and so this is just a bit more to the story. Looking at the op-ed:

"Decades of data from Puget Sound rivers show the widespread planting of hatchery-bred, winter-run steelhead derived from a population in Chambers Creek in south Puget Sound has not improved steelhead harvest or fishing opportunity. As more hatchery fish were planted both harvest and wild steelhead numbers have plummeted."

The above two sentences take a very narrow view and simply are not correct. When the Chambers Ck hatchery program took off, both steelhead harvests and opportunity in terms of a lengthened season at the front end, took off. Harvest increased, and December steelheading became worthwhile. As more hatchery steelhead were stocked in the 60s and 70s, harvest increased, not decreased, but it is true that wild steelhead abundance declined, so that sentence is half right.

" In our experience, it is the loss of fishing opportunity - not harvest opportunity, that the vast majority of recreational anglers are most concerned about."

If you were to poll all anglers who have a steelhead CRC, necessary for steelhead angling, you'd find that a majority feel that steelheading opportunity needs to include a harvest opportunity. Although CNR has increased dramatically in popularity, it's a stretch to call it the vast majority.

It is good to talk about what needs to be done to reverse the trajectory of declining steelhead populations (hatchery and wild), but in the interest of full disclosure such a conversation would also point out the remote probability of the fullest possible recovery ever again consisting of naturally self-sustaining wild steelhead populations in PS rivers that provide any direct harvest opportunity. So the more important "fishing opportunity" of the future consists, at best, of limited CNR fisheries for wild steelhead, which means that the majority of the anglers who have fished for PS steelhead in the past will not do so in the future. I can live with that because I rarely fish for hatchery winter steelhead, but I do and would fish for hatchery summer steelhead if they are available. I just think it's important to be clear about what the future holds when we ask people to jump on the wild steelhead with no hatchery steelhead option conservation train.

Sg
 
#10 ·
Before the marine survival of the Salish steelhead (both wild and hatchery) slide into the abyss the Chambers Creek steelhead hatchery program produced lots of steelhead for harvest. The high water mark was the winter of 1983/84. The Snohomish system that year had a return of Chambers Creek hatchery fish that exceeded 26,000 adults or which nearly 22,000 were harvested (split equally between the tribal and recreational fishers). That same year the Snohomish had a wild run of over 7,000 fish that supported some limited harvest and for the first time there was the popular spring CnR season. Somehow I think that is significant and the preserving the chance something even remotely like that sort of opportunity is worth some effort.

All that is needed is the restoration of habitat to the conditions of 30 years ago and an up cycle in marine survival. There are growing indications that marine survivals may be improving and if we could just focus attention on STEELHEAD habitat issues instead of red herring issues of hatchery impacts and over harvest (neither of which has been a significant issue in limiting PS steelhead in a couple decades) some of the readers may actually see those good ole days again.

Curt
 
#12 ·
There are growing indications that marine survivals may be improving and if we could just focus attention on STEELHEAD habitat issues instead of red herring issues of hatchery impacts and over harvest (neither of which has been a significant issue in limiting PS steelhead in a couple decades) some of the readers may actually see those good ole days again.

Curt
Here's a crystal ball prediction for you. As the marine survival rate increases, and coincidentally happens right when hatcheries have been clear-cut from the landscape, the actual cause for the rebound in numbers will become hotly debated. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is to credit the removal of the hatchery fish exclusively and consider the job now done - requiring no further habitat restoration.

Hopefully it won't take decades to figure it out.
 
#19 ·
No. I get a cocktail of drugs for my cancer. Some of which are experimental. It would be like if I were cured they decided the wrong experimental drug was responsible and started treating all cancer patients with a drug that does no good. Results; dead cancer patients.
 
#16 ·
Nooksack Mac -
A better comparison might be a if after cancer patient with leukemia after having his right arm amputated their cancer goes into remission is to assume that amputating right arms is a key to recovery from leukemia.

Or in another example if a cancer patient is being treated with a number of experimental treatments and is cured it is to assumed that the easiest/cheapest treatment is essential to the recovery all cancer patients. Assuming so may well mean that the doctors will not be looking at the treatment(s) that really making a difference.

Curt
 
#18 ·
I would guess that when the biomass of the ocean rebounds our tender little salmon and steelhead morsels will have a better chance of making it back to their river spawning beds.

Not having hatchery fish sharing the same waters can only help them on their road to success or demise.
 
#20 ·
I don't think hatcheries are for sure a red herring. There are many ways they could be or could have led to decreased run sizes. I don't think it's wise to turn a blind eye to their known negatives or their unknown potential negatives. Biological interactions are sometimes difficult to study, especially in areas like the open ocean or even the PS. There are many ways that they could lead to increased predation, more effective predation or disease (that would likely lead to them being eaten before he body was found), that we just could not study. To write off these potential impacts from the little we know is the very definition of hubris.

I am more concerend that we all look for the easiest silver bullet (harvest, c&r impacts) or study the things that are easier and more fun to study (like introgression) rather than focuse on filling in the important gaps in info. The answer to the PS problem may very well lie on the mighty Skagit. Why, when all other rivers declined so sharply, did it remain so much more consistant. For all the concern and worry about her run size. Mama Skagit has held a pretty steady line. Why is she so bad ass? Why do the South sound fish fare so much more poorly than The S rivers and the Nooksack? This seems to be the place to look for answers.

I sure wish that I thought hatcheries were the reason for PS steelhead declines. It's really hard to get there though, for me. It seems that overall we'd be better looking under more promising rocks than hatcheries and introgression etc.

One other thought I often have is that fish don't understand borders. At the same time our Salish Sea stocks crashed so did B.C.'s. The big exception was the Vedder. The hatchery on the Vedder is a juggernaught. The Canadians run it differently that we do, but it still dumps in a ton of smolts. The wild runs have been better than the other lower mainland rivers from what I understand. It's smolts would likely take a similar path to the big ocean as the Nooksack, Samish and Skagit fish (see a pattern?)

Disclaimer: These are my thoughts based on computer based reseach, long rides with SalmoG and a B.A. in environmental science. None of these things make me an expert. My father has called me a sexual intellect, however.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#21 ·
Charles-

The answer to the question do you want more steelhead is indeed in the "mighty Skagit".

Overall on the Skagit the habitat to produce steelhead and other anadromous salmonids is 2 to 10 times less degraded than the rest of rivers found along the east side of Puget Sound. Want more steelhead? the answer is simple restore habitat; doing so is more difficult.

Historically the big 5 PS rivers in terms of producing steelhead were the Skagit, Nooksack, Stillaguamish, Snohomish and Puyallup. All but the Skagit have severely degraded habitats.

Curt
 
#22 ·
Is there a possibility that the combination of those huge hatchery & wild returns of the mid 80's may be partially to blame for the depressed runs that occurred later. An analogy may be, we put too many cattle out to pasture, and as a result, our field (in this case the ocean) became overgrazed, and it is now depressed?
I realize that oceans produce feed in cyclical oscillations, but it seems plausible that we were pumping too many fish into her to support that kind of growth long term. Thoughts?
 
#24 ·
Is there a possibility that the combination of those huge hatchery & wild returns of the mid 80's may be partially to blame for the depressed runs that occurred later. An analogy may be, we put too many cattle out to pasture, and as a result, our field (in this case the ocean) became overgrazed, and it is now depressed?
I realize that oceans produce feed in cyclical oscillations, but it seems plausible that we were pumping too many fish into her to support that kind of growth long term. Thoughts?
Interesting idea. By increasing plants to offset poor returns, the suppression of the forage species may have been artificially exaggerated. Under natural conditions, the collapse of the food source would have dramatically reduced the predator numbers. This would/could have allowed the forage species to repopulate.

I also have often wondered about the impacts of commercial harvest for forage species. And habitat impacts such as loss of saltwater forage species spawning areas, population collapse from pollution and changes in ocean acidity.

But I have NO idea if this really has legs, or is just an interesting hypothesis. I mean the fundamentals are sound, but is there data to support or contradict this?
 
#25 ·
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a dfw bio in the last couple years. He recounted how people complained to him about the amount of steelhead that they felt or knew were being netted along with squid in the open ocean. His first thought was, "why aren't they concerned with people harvesting all the steelheads food (squid)."

It occurred to me a long time ago that givn the different population bottlenecks, hatcheries may not lead to their being 1 more steelhead in the world. They may just replace wild steelhead from one drainage with hatchery fish from another. It's a thought that really could not be tested because there's no way we shut down all the hatcheries in CA, OR, WA and BC, but if ocean conditions are the limitting factor in adult steelhead abundance, it makes some sense.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#26 ·
I'm trying to figure out who thinks habitat is not the major issue. Just because there is debate about the amount of negative impacts hatcheries have doesn't mean those negative impacts shouldn't be dealt with, especially since the agencies that run them are in charge of managing and protecting wild fish.

Why we have to only focus one one thing at a time baffles me. It seems like another case of "if the action ain't perfect it ain't worth doing.".
 
#28 ·
A few thoughts keep coming to mind for me. One is does anyone here believe that the hatcheries on the rivers in question are part of the solution for wild steelhead recovery? Does anyone think said hatcheries are effective economically or practically? And do you really believe that WFC and other conservation groups will stop advocating for habitat protection and restoration? The answer to these questions for me is no. I agree with Curt that Habitat and Ocean conditions probably have more of an influence, but that does not mean if something is of lesser influence that you should not do it if you have the chance. WDFW left the door open and WFC walked through it. You may not agree with their position or the science behind it but they are shaking up the status quo and holding the departments feet to the fire. According to the settlement in 2.5 years they can start up all the programs except the Skagit( if they can get NMFS buy off).

Chris
 
#30 ·
A few thoughts keep coming to mind for me. One is does anyone here believe that the hatcheries on the rivers in question are part of the solution for wild steelhead recovery? Does anyone think said hatcheries are effective economically or practically? And do you really believe that WFC and other conservation groups will stop advocating for habitat protection and restoration? The answer to these questions for me is no. I agree with Curt that Habitat and Ocean conditions probably have more of an influence, but that does not mean if something is of lesser influence that you should not do it if you have the chance. WDFW left the door open and WFC walked through it. You may not agree with their position or the science behind it but they are shaking up the status quo and holding the departments feet to the fire. According to the settlement in 2.5 years they can start up all the programs except the Skagit( if they can get NMFS buy off).

Chris
Chris,

No way is/was the Chambers steelhead program part of the solution for wild steelhead recovery. The rather solitary purpose of the Chambers program is to enhance fishing. Although it hasn't done very well at that in recent years, it certainly did so during the decades of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s - except on the Skagit where it petered out in the 70s and never went great guns again after that, but that gets into another story.

The reason I'm opposed to closing down the Chambers program is because having the program, at a reduced scale, preserves future options. The fact that the Chambers program has some negative effects on wild steelhead can, again IMO, be lumped into the pot of "many things that individually have a negative impact on wild steelhead." In NMFS' various recovery plans, a host of factors that are not good for the listed species are allowed if the factor is deemed quantitatively to not have a level of impact that precludes or interferes with survival and recovery. In my view, the data regarding the effect of the Chambers program falls in that catagory. IMO, there are a lot of other things that should be prohibited, but aren't, before the Chambers program enters the equation.

If wild steelhead recovery is the goal, it would be more effective to prohibit ever adding another piece of riprap along the Sauk River instead of closing the Chambers program. But do the agencies, including NMFS, prohibit riprapping the Sauk? Hell no. The wimpy ass policy wonks don't find jeopardy with riprap that measurably reduces spawning and rearing habitat and instead are very concerned about the low level of genetic introgression that has occurred with Chambers Ck steelhead. With management like that I guarandamntee you will not see recovery. The failures to protect spawning and rearing habitat are limitless, but you can be sure that lots of paper will be filled out and sportfishing opportunities will dramatically decline.

Sg
 
#32 ·
Thanks for the reply Steve, your point about rip-rap and spawning habitat is well taken. So how do we change that, how can we put pressure on the powers that be to resolve some of these issues. I don't believe they are, or need to be mutually exclusive. Again thank you for the response. I find these interaction to be informative and encouraging ( discounting a few turds). We need to keep this in the front of our minds (imo). The more hands pulling, the quicker it comes.
 
#33 ·
Something for folks to consider. The 4 "Hs" (hatcheries, harvest, hydro and habiat) are considered to be the 4 broad categories of factors limiting the production of wild anadromous salmonids. Of the 4 factors two - hatchery and harvest (fishing impacts) are fishing related. The other two factors could lumped under the broad heading of "habitat".

Over the last 30 years the vast majority of the issues associated with adverse hatchery/wild steelhead interactions have been largely addressed. As Salmo g. has pointed those interactions have been addressed to point that today even the elimination of all hatchery fish will play a significant role in recovering wild steelhead. The fishing impacts/harvest have also been reduced to the point through out Puget Soundover the last two decades that in the ESA listing decision NMFS agreed that those impacts were not a significant factor in limiting PS steelhead.

The contrast that with the "gains" that have been made for steelhead in the habitat and hydro arenas. Throughout the Puget Sound region in spite of significant habitat recovery efforts (largely directed at Chinook needs) the quality of the habitat is no better (and likely worst) than what it was 20 years ago. The same situation exist with the hydro impacts.

Should the angling community continue to shoulder the majority of the conservation burden in recovery? Should that recovery onus continue even though any additional actions will have effects that will hardly be measured? The fact of the matter even if all hatchery releases were terminated and all fishing ended for the next 25 years the stocks will be no closer to long term recovery without significant improvements in habitat (including hydro).

I continue to ask the question for those that take part in this forum whether using some of the productivity of our wild salmonids stocks to support fishing is a reasonable and legitimate use of that productivity? If not then the logic actions are to end all hatchery releases (except rescue programs) and all fishing in waters support ESA stocks until such time that we as a society decide to prioritize habitat restoration and conditions improve to the point that all ESA stocks/species are delisted. If however you believe that fishing is a legitimated use of a limited portion of the population productivity then I argue that the fishing community has been shouldering more than our share of the "pain" of recovery and it is time for other users of that stock productivity step up in a similar fashion.

Chris - You asked the question of how we can put pressure on the power that be to resolve some of these issues? The first step is stopping providing those "powers that be" the out that further reducing hatchery and harvest impacts will significant contribute to recovery allowing them to escape making the hard choices that would actually contribute to recovery. It is past time in the steelhead arena for the myths of ending hatchery programs and further reducing in fishing are essential to recovery. Continuing to allow those myths to persist as valid actions all serves to delay actions in those arenas that may actually make a difference.

One of the arguments about taking habitat actions is the potential benefits from those actions maybe decades in the future; unlike in reducing fishing impacts benefits are more or less immediate. However there are steps in the other two "Hs" that could be taken that would also have more or less immediate benefits. An example for the Skagit would changes in how power is generated. The daily flow fluctuations to meet peak power demands yield high economic returns for the operators it comes at steep cost to the fish resource of the basin. When is the last time any of you have seen that potential action even remotely discussed?

Curt
 
#34 ·
Curt,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I agree with most all of what you say, especially about sport fishers shouldering the majority of the load when it comes to impacts on steelhead. You pointed out that if we believe some impact to allow sport fishing is a good use of productivity ( in many cases I think it is). What I don't understand is why those impacts must come with rather feckless hatchery programs ( Kendall creek & Marblemount). Why can't we extract those impact through limited c&r fisheries? No doubt there is much left to be done, we all need to stay on point and pressure our elected officials to protect and restore habitat, including Puget Sound. It's hard to convince people to sacrifice for fish they know nothing about, and besides " if you want more fish, why don't you plant more in the river?". It's a common phrase from Joe & Jane Doe. Also, I believe WFC is monitoring PSE's management of there water releases.

Chris
 
#35 ·
Chris

To your comment/question -"What I don't understand is why those impacts must come with rather feckless hatchery programs ( Kendall creek & Marblemount). Why can't we extract those impact through limited c&r fisheries?"

First you must realize that under current ESA take rules PS steelhead impacts from recreational fisheries are limited to incidental impact while targeting non-listed stocks (various salmon or hatchery steelhead). Those impacts currently would not be available for CnR fishery targeting ESA steelhead.

If the "Occupy Skagit" effort is successful and the co-mangers and the feds are able to agree to Puget Sound steelhead fishery plan that includes river by river basin management criteria and depending on the details of that agreement it may well be that fishing impacts would be possible on a listed stock however I would expect that such targeted fishing impacts would be allowed in very limited and specific circumstances. Initially it was hoped that a new PS steelhead management plan might be in place by 2016 but I beginning to have doubts that is any longer a likely time line. WDFW has a pretty full plate with the PS Chinook plan (in this state agency resources directed to salmon/salmon fisheries will always be prioritized over steelhead) and the rush to get HGMPs for Puget Sound steelhead hatchery programs completed. The harsh reality is that without a completed and approved PS steelhead management plan with basin by basin allowable impacts or hatchery fish to target winter steelhead (and summer fish to follow?) will be a thing of the past and future fishing may require a delisting of PS steelhead.

Even with a new PS steelhead management plan the reality is that given the conservative requirement where target fisheries would be allowed on those listed fish in the next decade might be allowed would be the Skagit (and maybe the Samish). None of the rest of the Puget Sound basins would need a least a decade to develop a track record of consistent achieving robust escapements for the feds to be comfortable with allowing any directed fisheries (and that assumes that survival conditions improve almost immediately).

Do you really think that eliminating the steelhead hatchery programs on most PS rivers move the needle of the recovery gauge to any degree?

Another item to consider since you mentioned "Joe and Jane Doe" is that there is a sizeable chunk of the angling public that wants to take a fish home. The hatchery at least provided some sort of opportunity for them to do so. If there are no hatchery fish there will be demand to provide that opportunity by using at least a portion of the potential target impacts for a kill fishery. While you and I may well agree that the best use of those impacts would be in CnR fisheries there will be demand for some harvest opportunities and I would be surprised that the agency and the Commission would not make at least some sort of effort to spread those allowable impacts among the diverse angler interest. With hatchery fish there was somewhere to direct that harvest interest; without them there will be battle royal between the angler community on how to divide those impacts.

Bottom line from where I sit the elimination of hatchery steelhead will do almost nothing for the wild resource while greatly increasing the chance that there will not be any sort of recreational steelhead fishing in Puget Sound and also potentially throws a major monkey wrench in developing significant CnR opportunities in the future.

BTW -
Salmo g. mentioned that the hatchery returns on the Skagit "petered" out during the decade of the 1980s. While that is true in relation to some of the returns seen earlier (especially since before 1974 the tribal catch was limited) the actual hatchery returns were still relatively respectable. The average hatchery run size for the Skagit basin during the decade of the 1980s was 6,500 fish a year. To put that in prsepective the average wild run to the Hoh (catch and escapement) during the same period was only 5,000 adults.

curt
 
#36 ·
Maybe this is why PS steelhead stocks are so depressed? http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023825217_apxvictoriasewage.html Are all those hatchery fish, conditioned as it were to feeding on pellets, eating and choking on Victorian shit as they swim through the Salish Sea?

I know this isn't really news, but I'm always astounded this state of affairs continues every time it makes it into a news story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Johnson
#37 ·
Add to that the 4,500+ man made outfalls into Puget Sound region and you have a problem.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top