Study on Coho mortality

[Rainier10]

Look I get it, the times wrote an article about something that has been know for a year and a half, they doctored it up to get attention which it did.  I am just trying to calm everyone down and show what the true numbers are from a guy that has waders in the creek experience.

[Special T]

Here is the good news. With the wide acceptance of telecommuting, and likely large new taxes on tires that uses this compound... the desire to head into Snohomish, King, or Pierce Counties will be  much lower...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Rainier10]

I can confirm without a doubt that over 90% of the returning coho to these two creeks in normandy park are dead before they ever spawn and the chums that are running right now are not having a bit of trouble passing on their genes.

Now does the chemical not affect them or has the chemical been flushed out of the creek by now with all the rain that we have had? That's still up for debate.

[Stein]

I really get your point and appreciate your insight.  It's awesome you volunteer to go out there and gather data. 

I just look at the claim, up to 90% of the salmon are killed in 40% of the Sound.  That would mean that 90% of the adults die before spawning, which only leaves 10% of the run to reproduce and then those fry would have to swim back through the toxin and 90% of those would die.  I just don't think you can have anywhere near that kill (even if it were just adults) and have a single fish return after a generation or two which is well under 10 years for coho.  I think if you put that into any of the return models, they will just break.

Maybe it's a new compound that has only been around a short period and we are in deep doo-doo, maybe it's not anywhere near 40% of the Sound and limited to a few very small areas, maybe it only occurs every once in a while when the rain, tires and fish all line up in perfect timing, who knows.

I hope this leads to more research instead of more legislation before we understand what is really happening and where.  Even the report did note that expensive habitat restoration could be making it worse.

[Stein]

Don't those two Normandy Park creeks go right up to SeaTac airport?

[Rainier10]

Don't those two Normandy Park creeks go right up to SeaTac airport?

Why yes they do.  Do you think there is a little tire wear on that runway?  Do you think the number of coho killing particles skyrocketed when the third runway went in?

[Rainier10]

Yes and yes to both of those by the way.

In my best Joe Biden voice, LOOK......Here's the deal.....now that we know what is killing these salmon in urban creeks we aren't going to do anything about it.  The tire companies need to use that chemical to make money and the airport needs to stay open.  What we can do is limit the number of fish that recreational fisherman take.

I am sure there is something that Jay Inslee can say also that "We as Washingtonians need to " blah blah blah.

If anything is actually going to get done about this it is going to be because the tribes sue the state over declining salmon runs.  They have already won the lawsuit about improving the habitat and fixing all of the concrete culverts.  If they take this to court they will win there as well and it will either take a payoff to the tribes for the lost fish.  That will be way cheaper than the actual fix to get rid of the chemical and clean up the particles getting into the streams.

[Rainier10]

I feel like the airport is a huge contributor to the problem.  You can filter this chemical out through dirt.  It would be expensive to do with every roadway catch basin but I would think the runoff from the airport should be something that could be done and tax the people flying in and out of seatac.

[Stein]

What's the quote, never waste a good crisis?

If you don't like cars, roads, pavement and impervious surfaces this report is pretty much an early Christmas present as long as you don't look too hard at the conclusions, especially the ones not supported by the study data.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

40% of Puget Sound is a HUGE area.  Looking at a map, a big chunk of the Sound has light development, so 40% would basically be every metro area in the entire sound.

The report claims up to 90% of returning fish from Olympia up to Bellingham are being killed every year before they spawn.

This isn't one or two creeks.

You are misrepresenting things Stein.  Here is the quote you focused on. "This mortality threatens salmonid species conservation across ~40% of Puget Sound land area " It means that this threat exists in 40% of the Sound, yes, but it doesn't mean the kill rate is 90% in every Stream in that area. But in some streams the kill rate is 90%. Other streams may have mitigating factors that shrink that 90%. But the potential is there in that 40% area.  What is clear is that that chemical is not good for salmon. What we do about it is another story.  As Rainier 10 pointed out, we can ignore it and end fishing, or we can use the best science and fix it. Maybe not 100% but to a point where fishing is decent again. It just depends on how much salmon mean to us.

[Skyvalhunter]

So what about football, soccer and other fields that have ground up tires on them?

[Stein]

I get it, but I don't think the solution will make 1% difference in the salmon returns to Puget Sound.  I think it's much more limited than the study suggests which is much more limited than what the interpretation will be.

It's 100% clear what is limiting recreational fishing in Puget Sound: Hood Canal, Stillaguamish and now Snohomish.  Same story this year, same story last year.  WDFW sets seasons based on those returns, right or wrong it's reality unfortunately.  If you don't fix those three or change the recovery plan, recreational fishing will continue to be much more limited with widespread closures we are seeing.

So, fixing a river not on that list won't fix fishing.  It's not a bad thing, hope they do it.  It won't change fishing seasons though. 

If this report is interpreted and followed up and we get to the bottom of where the chemicals are really coming from and fix a few waters that have the problem, I'll come back here and eat my words gladly.  If it's misrepresented and used as a sledgehammer to drive legislation in areas that don't have the problem or don't address the actual problem, well, we all lose.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I'm not a big Craig Medred fan, but he actually does a pretty good job explaining the research and the problem in this article. I'm still trying to find out when 6ppd was first added to tires.

https://craigmedred.news/2020/12/04/dying-cohoes/

[Stein]

I couldn't find it either.  Eastman and a few others make it.

Craig seems to have linked it to car tires already as well.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

This is the best I could find so far, but the dangers of 6ppd seem to have been known for over 30 years from what this report says. This was written in 2006 and there are references to studies of 6bbd back into the mid 1980s in this report.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjtspPsl73tAhVaJzQIHWCiDCkQFjAJegQICxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ospar.org%2Fdocuments%3Fd%3D7029&usg=AOvVaw28hkgd_juG7C-U5bbygf6W

Hopefully this link will work.