Technical Appendix A: Current Status Summary - ESSA



Southern BC Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative:Alternative Strategic Directions for the Management of Southern BC Chinook SalmonTECHNICAL APPENDICESContents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Technical Appendix A: Current Status Summary PAGEREF _Toc384061793 \h 3Technical Appendix B: Harvest map PAGEREF _Toc384061796 \h 17Technical Appendix C: Strategies Brainstorm PAGEREF _Toc384061797 \h 18Technical Appendix D: Quantitative Results of TWG Evaluation: Box Plots PAGEREF _Toc384061799 \h 23Technical Appendix E: Qualitative Results of TWG Evaluation PAGEREF _Toc384061801 \h 28Technical Appendix A: Current Status SummaryThe following materials were developed for the November 18 SPC workshop based on information presented at the November 8 workshop and the Science Panel Report.SBC Chinook – High-level Summary of Current Situation, by CU GroupRegion / CU GroupStatusHatcheriesHarvestHabitat(summarized from presentation)(summarized from presentations on Nov. 8 and Science wkshp)(from 1999-2011 data presented; top 2 Cdn fisheries listed)(from previous pressure-state indicator project)Lower Fraser River4 of 6 CUs show >30% decline in 3 generations2013 Production Plan = 2.9 million3 of 6 CUs with moderate/high level of enhancementHarrison: 11% in WCVI troll, 5% in SoG sportChilliwack: 6% in WCVI troll, 6% terminal sportSpawning watersheds:24% at HIGH risk56% at MOD riskMiddle & Upper Fraser4 of 5 CUs show >30% decline in 3 generationsNo active enhancement1 of 5 CUs with moderate/high level of enhancementDome: 40% terminal FN net, 12% Juan de Fuca sportSpawning watersheds:16% at HIGH risk49% at MOD riskThompson River (North, South, Lower)6 of 8 CUs show >30% decline in 3 generations2013 Production Plan = 1.3 million2 of 8 CUs with moderate/high level of enhancementShuswap: 10% NBC sport, 7% NBC trollNicola: 6% terminal FN net, 5% Nicola mouth sportSpawning watersheds:36% at HIGH risk49% at MOD riskLower South Coast & Other4 of 9 CUs show >30% decline in 3 generations2013 Production Plan = 16.2 million5 of 9 CUs with moderate/high level of enhancementCowichan: 27% SoG sport, 9% WCVI trollPuntledge: 10% SoG sport, 7% NBC sportNanaimo: 24% SoG sport, 6% terminal commercial netBig Qualicum: 9% SoG sport, 8% NBC sportSpawning watersheds:61% at HIGH risk26% at MOD riskWest Coast Vancouver Island & Upper South Coast3 of 7 CUs show >30% decline in 3 generations2013 Production Plan = 18.4 million1 of 7 CUs with moderate/high level of enhancementQuinsam: 15% NBC sport, 4% SoG sportRobertson: 13% terminal commercial net, 11% terminal sportSpawning watersheds:29% at HIGH risk34% at MOD riskKey uncertainties from Science Panel Report (examples)Incomplete monitoring of status (temporally and spatially, both within and across CUs)Limited understanding of extent of impact on wild stocks.Uncertainty about sustainable exploitation rates under poor marine survival.Dome CWT provides significantly less reliable info on distribution of harvest than other indicators, and no info after 2006. Dome CWT data provides some info on ocean distribution during tagging program, but in-river recoveries were insufficient for inferences about in-river fisheriesFew data on egg to fry to smolt survival.Potential causative linkages between habitat stressors and productivity (and potential gains) position of CU GroupsCU NamePredominant juvenile life history typePredominant adult return run timingLower Fraser RiverCK-03: Lower Fraser – fallOcean typeFallCK-04: Lower Fraser – springStream typeSpringCK-05: Lower Fraser – Upper PittStream typeSummerCK-06: Lower Fraser – summerStream typeSummerCK-07: Maria SloughOcean typeSummerCK-9000: Chilliwack Hatchery – Harrison transplantsOcean type FallMiddle & Upper Fraser RiverCK-08: Fraser Canyon – NahatlachStream typeSpringCK-09: Middle Fraser – PortageStream typeFallCK-10: Middle Fraser – springStream typeSpringCK-11: Middle Fraser – summerStream typeSummerCK-12: Upper Fraser – springStream typeSpringNorth/South/Lower Thompson RiverCK-13: South Thompson - summer (age 0.3)Ocean typeSummerCK-14: South Thompson - summer (age 1.3)Stream typeSummerCK-15: Shuswap River – summer [enhanced]Ocean typeSummerCK-16: South Thompson – BessetteStream typeSummerCK-17: Lower Thompson - spring (age 1.2)Stream typeSpringCK-18: North Thompson - spring (age 1.3)Stream typeSpringCK-19: North Thompson – summer (age 1.3)Stream typeSummerCK-82: South Thompson – Adams River UpperOcean typeSummerLower South Coast & OtherCK-01: OkanaganStream typeSummerCK-02: Boundary BayOcean typeFallCK-20: South Coast* - Georgia Strait (*includes watersheds managed out of Lower Fraser DFO office)Ocean typeFallCK-21: East Coast Vancouver Island – GoldstreamOcean typeFallCK-22: East Coast Vancouver Island – Cowichan/KoksilahOcean typeFallCK-23: East Vancouver Island – Nanaimo spring timingStream typeSpringCK-24: East Vancouver Island –summer timingOcean typeSummerCK-25: East Vancouver Island – Nanaimo & Chemainus - fall timingOcean typeFallCK-27: East Vancouver Island – Qualicum & Puntledge fall timingOcean typeFallWest Coast Vancouver Island & Upper South CoastCK-28: South Coast – southern fjordsOcean typeFallCK-29: Northeast Vancouver IslandOcean typeFallCK-31: Southwest Vancouver IslandOcean typeFallCK-32: Nootka & KyuquotOcean typeFallCK-33: Northwest Vancouver IslandOcean typeFallCK-34: HomathkoStream typeSummerCK-35: KlinakliniStream typeSummerNOTE: Colour-coding represents status over past 3 generations. It does not reflect WSP status. Red = >30% decline. Green = >30% increase. Orange = -30% to +30% change.SBC Chinook – High-level Summary of Current Situation, by CU Group - ADDITIONAL DETAILSStatusHatcheries2013 Production Plans 2013 Production Plans Region / CU GroupSource: DFO presentation, SBC Chinook Science WorkshopRegion / CU GroupSource: DFO presentation, SBC Chinook Science WorkshopLower Fraser RiverTotal = 2.9 millionLower South Coast & OtherTotal = 16.2 millionMiddle & Upper FraserNo active enhancementThompson River (North, South, Lower)Total = 1.3 millionWest Coast Vancouver Island & Upper South CoastTotal = 18.4 millionHarvestHarvest by CU group. Source: Data table presented by K. English at Nov. 8 SPC meetingFootnotes:1. NBC AABM Sport includes ISBM North S. and ISBM Central S.2. WCVI AABM Sport includes ISBM WCVI Inside S.3. Other troll includes Central and any other Canadian troll fisheries not listed.4. Imputed CWT recoveries from Fraser Run Reconstructed catch, escapement CWT density, and relationship between recoveries based on CWT sampling and run reconstruction5. CWT recoveries were estimated using commercial and test fishery samples expanded to total catch for First Nation, test, and commercial fisheries (1989-1999, 2001-2004 ,2010).6. Estimated using direct and voluntary CWT samples from First Nation fishery and mark rates from Albion test fishery.7. Other Net includes Juan de Fuca net, Johnstone Strait net, and WCVI net.8. Terminal sport represents Fraser River and tributuaries downstream of Alexandria Bridge boundary.9. Nicola Mouth sport includes recoveries in all sport fisheries in the lower Thompson River (Kamloops Lake to Fraser R. confluence).10. CUs in bold (also with "?") have stronger association with marine exploitation rate indicator stocks (i.e., others are weakly associated, "?" ), which is further indicated by large square symbol.11. Dome CWT provides significantly less reliable info on distribution of harvest than other indicators, and no info after 2006.Cells with shading indicate exploitation rates greater than 5%.Data for CWT indicator stocks are only shown for Cus with a strong association.Average % distribution of total mortalities by fishery for South Coast Chinook indicator stocks, 1999-2011Source: Data table presented by K. English at Nov. 8 SPC meetingHabitatSummary from Pressure-State Indicator Project (Porter et al. 2013). Further details on following page. Further details behind the summary above:Technical Appendix B: Harvest mapHarvest map developed for SPC workshops in November 2013.Source: Data table presented by K. English at Nov. 8 SPC meeting.NOTE: The Strait of Georgia is incorrectly labelled as Georgia Straight.Technical Appendix C: Strategies BrainstormThe final table of brainstormed strategies, as developed in November 2013. The material below is the actual product circulated to the SPC in preparation for the subsequent stage of developing broad alternatives for the TWG to evaluate. Attribution of individual suggestions is anonymous.Strategies / Actions from Roundtable Discussion at November 18 SPC MeetingTable Key::(lightest colouration)Suggestions from participants, as summarized in workshop discussionBold listed bullets(medium colouration)Synthesis of major options suggested within each region(s)Bottom two sections (darkest colouration)Synthesis of highest-level strategies from all input across all regions.Associated questions for SPC to considerConsider different types of strategies suggested:concrete action suggestedaction suggested, but additional information required to specify actionsuggestion is to implement/maintain a policy or regulationsuggestion is primarily focused on learning (research & monitoring)POTENTIAL ACTIONS/STRATEGIES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND EVALUATEDRegion / CU GroupHatcheries StrategiesHarvest StrategiesHabitat StrategiesResearch & Monitoring StrategiesMiddle & Upper Fraser: need a new indicator hatchery in the Upper Fraser: important to have indicator stock for Summer 5-2 for the Upper Fraser that will assist in generating CWT information. The alternative is a wild indicator stock w DNA information, to replace Dome indicator info. Hatcheries for assessment only. Production is not an option.: see research & monitoring. Look at benefits of hatcheries for harvest vs. impacts on wild stocks.: evaluate re-instatement of Dome, considering impact on wild stocks; consider small hatchery operations (Ken Malloway’s comment from Nov. 8): summer 5.2 would be a good indicator stock; need good fish recovery program in both fisheries and on spawning ground; we many not have enough tags with current low marine survival rates (e.g., Nicola) – need higher rates of tagging (can also happen with low harvest rates): Dome is a spring 5.2 stock; might want more than 1 indicator stock; get as close as possible to a wild indicator stock w a small, “natural” facility: Decrease harvest until more information is acquired to evaluate the Upper Fraser CU’s. Develop biological based escapement goals. Greater monitoring across all fisheries.: look at higher impact fisheries for declining CUs; any opportunities for selective terminal fisheries by FNs or recreational fisheries to reduce mixed stock impacts: assess best estimates of productivity, and implications for harvest rates; review CWT sampling rates in fisheries (standard is 20%, but we’re not meeting this std everywhere, how can you fill gaps? – a general recommendation); use in season or other abundance based mgmt. approaches (have usually worked w annual information, but could work w Albion test fisheries for summer 4.1 Thompson fish in-season mgmt.); stringent restrictions on summer 5.2 may not be sufficient but hard to tell given absence of Dome stock: maintain current harvest restrictions and potentially further reduce marine harvest rates for middle /upper Fraser and Thompson stocks: (for Thompson too) for fisheries that dominate the total marine mortalities of a stock of concern (e.g., San Juan rec for Dome and Nicola): 1. scientifically defensible, fishery independent estimates of total chinook encounters 2. verifiable, fishery independent estimates of catch 3. scientifically defensible, verifiable, fishery independent estimates of discards 4. verifiable, fishery independent estimates of compliance 5. DNA analysis of both caught and discarded chinook to evaluate both stock composition and whether "slot" limits are achieving the desired results.: protect / restore habitat especially from mining, oil and gas, RoR, other industries, protect groundwater sources; protect marine habitat important for these stocks;Determine carrying capacity of the chinook habitat. Water Quality and Quantity sampling program involving FN fisheries authorities. Juvenile habitat assessment: are there any restoration opportunities for declining CUs?: further analyze temperature over peak as a potential limitation; consider Kenney Dam cold water release as mitigation option; collate local ATK on potential actions to increase productivity; : need to line up habitat restoration folks to assess what highest priority actions would be (funding and priorities don’t always line up): collaborate work by FNs, academia (UNBC) and DFO on groundwater issues, watershed management for habitat protection; research / monitoring that provide more info on status and trends, action effectiveness. Determine interactions amongst wild and hatchery produced chinook stocks. Continued monitoring of escapement and exploration of alternative methods that are equally as effective in terminal areas. Juvenile habitat assessments. Indicator System.: Need info on outcomes from various past hatchery outputs and harvest rates on next generation.: need more information on these stocks given lack of info and Dome problems; use DNA info retrospectively; for CWT – what would be best stock to use?: replace Dome – get spring 5.2 stock; separate FW and marine survival effects (SARs).: biologically based escapement goals for Fraser Chinook (only available for Harrison Chinook); Thompson River (North, South, Lower): Use of hatchery supplementation to assist w recovery: Maintain Thompson, Nicola and Shuswap indicator stocks (critical for assessments): production hatcheries in Interior for benefit of in-river harvest (Ken Malloway’s comments on Nov 8): Developing a representative Indicator program (Summer 5sub 2) is a priority, seconded by Spring 5sub2), hatchery OR wild; Ensure support is provided for CWT sampling ideally each CU represented)hatchery for assessment purposes only, otherwise reduce hatchery output in light of the enhancement’s influence on AABM harvest rates: complete public a risk assessment of the interactions of SBC Chinook with enhanced salmon in the marine environment.: address potential interactions in the high seas among wild and enhanced salmon from different countries, including developing plans for enhancement regulation and activities.: Ensure that 4.1’s are able to persist under reduced marine survival; adjust harvest rates accordingly: concerns with estimates for Nicola harvest rates being inconsistent between CWT and run reconstruction (probably because of differences in strength of CWT data across years): Reduce ERs in the marine area in fisheries with significant influence until more information is acquired; for benefit of upper fraser and Thompson CK; reduce mixed stock fisheries in ocean: Develop escapement goals (biologically based) for Interior SBC Chinook; similar to IFR Coho explore having a geographic-area based escapement strategy to ensure genetic diversity and seeding of the populaions within all the CUs.: Use MarkSelectiveFisheries only if enough funding to implement correctly and have knowledge of all the impacts: Use a precautionary buffer for fisheries with high CWT data uncertainty.: ensure that all Fraser River chinook salmon fisheries are monitored at an enhanced level (achieving catch estimates within 5 percent of actual harvest, with greater than 20 percent independent validation). To meet this objective, DFO should do an independent catch validation: Forecasting of Chinook in marine areas: Implementation of Aboriginal harvest priority; Rebuilding plans must incorporate FSC requirements: Manage to the CU level; where aggregates are proposed determine if the fishing pressure would be the same across all CUs in that aggregate to ensure that all component CUs are adequately protected – Jeffrey Young (David Suzuki Found.): Increase in-river demonstration commercial fisheries that can target stronger stocks versus the weaker ones; to reduce mixed stock fishery impacts: Improve fish passage at BC Hydro facilities; look at stream flow requirements for healthy fish production, not just the minimum.:ensure that environmental quality monitoring and environmental effects monitoring related to pulp and paper, metal mining, and municipal wastewater discharges include consideration of Fraser River Chinook salmon (DFO & EnvCan, BC, regional and municipal governments): regulation of groundwater extraction in a manner that addresses the needs of Fraser River Chinook (water act modernization) and increased reporting and monitoring of water use : Canada should finalize a regulatory strategy to limit the impact of wastewater biosolids on fisheries resources.: Measure the amount of productive capacity of CK habitat (to see if achieving a net gain): Account for cumulative impacts on SBC CK habitat arising from projects versus considering only on a project by project basis: DFO continue implementing the 1986 habitat policy (the guiding principle which is achieving no net loss of productive fish habitat): Increase SBC Chinook access: ensure adequate flows for all life stages; restore fish passage past Wilsey Dam in the upper Shuswap watershed: Monitor stream temperatures and flows, use inseason similar to SK to develop buffers for management e.g., management adjustments. Determine if temperature over peak is a potential limitation: Reduce known anthropogenic stressors we can control (habitat loss, contamination, salmon farms): Get information from Shuswap Nation fisheries (Secwepemc Fisheries Commission):Closer examination of enhancement influences (mixed hatchery and natural fish can lead to hatchery fish replacing natural fish); develop tools to analyze interactions between wild and enhanced chinook (e.g., chinook enhancement and consequences of bycatch of other stocks of concern): Address potential interactions in the high seas among wild and enhanced chininook including developing plans for enhancement regulation and activities.: Continue escapement enumerations at not less than the level of precision recommended by DFO stock assessment staff for 2010. How does current assessment line up with the CU’s??: enhanced catch-monitoring programs;: research on Fraser River Chinook salmon smolts at the mouth of the Fraser River estuary, before they enter the Strait of Georgia, to determine stock / Conservation Unit abundance, health, condition, and rates of mortality.: Research where and when significant mortality occurs in the nearshore marine environment, through studies of the outmigration from the mouth of the Fraser River through to the coastal Gulf of Alaska, including the Strait of Georgia, Juan de Fuca Strait, the west coast of Vancouver Island, Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, and Hecate Strait. Studies to examine (abundance, health, condition, and rates of mortality. Also biological, chemical, and physical oceanographic variables, including water temperature. Also the presence or absence of harmful algal blooms, and disease. Also predators, pathogens, competition, and interactions with enhanced salmon affecting Chinook. And contaminants, especially contaminants of emerging concern, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and complex mixtures.): Determine what regulates SBC Chinook abundance and distribution via international, integrated ecosystem research program to measure biological, chemical, and physical oceanographic variables in the offshore Gulf of Alaska.: assess the cumulative effects of stressors on SBC CK and their habitats. Cumulative effects may include multiple sources of a stressor, exposure to stressors over the life cycle, or exposure to multiple types of stressors interacting in a cumulative manner.: consider the cumulative effects of stressors on SBC CK health and habitat in its management of fisheries and fish habitat.: steps to address the causes of warming waters and climate change; what can we do now to conserve SBC CK: Post-release survival rate studies for all fisheries: Calibrate visual survival escapement estimates with high precision estimates (determine expansion index)Lower Fraser River: why produce fish in Chilliwack when you already have fish from Harrison – could use resources for elsewhere in FraserSUMMARY OF IDEAS FOR:U/M Fraser,N/S/L ThompsonandLower FraserOptions: Develop indicator stocks where additional information is required using CWTs for assessment; includes enhanced production and associated M&E on spawning ground, fisheriesIncrease enhanced production for CWT assessment and for providing harvest opportunitiesExamine where resources can be potentially be reallocated from “lower value” production to areas of high priority. Options: Maintain current (reduced) harvest ratesReduce harvest rates further in higher impact fisheries to improve recovery potential (e.g. increase abundance and get stocks out of “red” level of decline)Review CWT sampling rates for fishery strata; improve where required.Increase use of in-season information, where possible, for better improved (abundance based) managementExamine inconsistency of Nicola harvest rates between CWT and Run ReconstructionOptions:Protect/restore habitat from industrial activityProtect groundwater sourcesProtect important marine habitatAnalysis of temperature over peak; consider Kenney Dam coldwater releasesCollate local ATK on potential restoration actionsDetermine highest priority actions from habitat restoration people (better align funding)Learning options not summarized in this table.Lower South Coast & Other: one recent success story (Cowichan) indicates substantial turn around; will be pressure for relaxed harvest constraints. Ocean net holding used to avoid seals and other predators. Though 70% of hatchery production is for harvest, this harvest is not taking place in SoG. Need to get a better measure of ocean survival to assess both hatchery effectiveness and effects on wild fish.: What’s rationale for Puntledge hatchery? Not necessary for assessment as Big Qualicum and Puntledge show same pattern. Could use resources elsewhere. : Have lots of info on L. South Coast (Puntledge, Big Qualicum, Cowichan). If no increase in overall resources, it would be good to shift resources to Fraser stocks and get more information. Changing timing of releases (and other strategies) might improve survival (e.g., later releases might survive better).: explore benefits of various indicator stocks, determine which are most effective, then adjust (may have some of these data already); explore alternative production strategies (e.g. sea pen reared fish have higher survival but also higher risk of straying, so there are tradeoffs); worth analyzing existing data on straying of hatchery fish into natural spawning areas; other aspects of hatchery operation besides quantity of releases include timing of release, size at release, locations of release. : Look at E coast hatcheries for reductions or re-profiling (rebuilding or conservation hatchery) to reduce harvest or increase returns to wild stocks. Investigate use of hatchery supplementation for Okanagan Chinook, from Okanagan Chinook recovery plan.: especially important to examine strategies, risks, successes and failures on S Coast – use Robertson Ck as a case study (failure this year an example worthy of study); develop recovery plans for wild stocks in trouble: Are Cowichan returns wild or hatchery? What are the criteria for success under WSP? Also applies to other hatcheries?: Cowichan Chinook harvested heavily in SoG sports fishery and terminal fishery (27% of harvest in terminal fishery in 2012); look further at these fisheries: Requests have been made to take advantage of terminal harvest opportunities where possible (e.g., Burman River); improved information likely required.: Reduce fisheries in lower S Coast to increase escapement: understand catch, catch and release mortality, seal predation (including of sportfish catch), natural mortality due to changes in predation; 65-95% of mortality comes from recreational fisheries, so one strategy worth exploring is reducing recreational fisheries; incorporate catch and release mortality estimates in commercial and recreational fisheries; need a strategy to work with Monitoring and Compliance panel to estimate catch and release plus C&R plus FN fisheries; work w FNs to understand their requirements for FSC catch of inner S coast stocks: Do terminal fisheries meet conservation objectives for stocks of concern? Do these fisheries only occur after escapement targets are reached?: ideal region in which to have formal advisory process to Fish Protection Program, targeting high risk watersheds that have been identified in stressor analyses; be strategic to get most salient information input into FPP; : inside population heavily enhanced so habitat not as much of an issue: look at mainstem Okanagan outlet dams for better upstream passage: what is main habitat threat in lower S Coast? Can we address those threats?: especially important to examine pressures on productivity, carrying capacity and survival on Chinook in Salish Sea by life history stage (Cohen Commission and other studies suggest marine survival bottleneck): especially important to examine human population pressures on quantity and quality of rearing habitat (esp. in estuary but also including marine env) – restoration activities around critical habitat (not just willy nilly): support of Salish Sea initiative even more important for S Coast stocks than for Fraser stocks: evaluate release strategies for SEP hatcheries to improve survival, reduce impacts on wild stocks. Look at alternatives to creel surveys that might be more cost-effective given budget reductions.: Trying to balance yield, effect on wild stocks – do we have right tools to do this?: Build on WCVI work by Ruth W – look at magnitude of effect of straying on wild stocks: CWT info for recreational and commercial fisheries are very important. Do conservation corridors actually work?SUMMARY OF IDEAS FOR:Lower South Coast & OtherOptions for both S Coast and WCVI:Assess incremental information benefits and harvest benefits from enhanced production (what is optimum allocation of resources across CUs for gaining understanding of mortality rates?)Explore potential effects on harvest and risks to wild populations of wide range of production levels using available tools Explore potential effects of changing hatchery operations (e.g., release timing and location) to achieve stated objectives while minimizing risk. Options for “Other”Investigate use of hatchery supplementation for Okanagan ChinookOptions:Examine impact of SoG sports fishery and terminal fishery on Cowichan ChinookIncreasing shift to terminal fisheries where possibleReduce harvestIncrease understanding of all contributions to mortality (catch, C&R, marine mammal, natural mortality)Examine relationship between terminal fisheries and conservation objectivesMaintain current harvest rates, increase information available on current fisheries, and wait for better ocean conditionsReduce total allowable mortality (including catch release, etc.) so that stocks in red zone can recover to yellow under current marine survival conditions (sharing the pain across all fisheries)Options:Ideal region for formal advisory process to Fish Protection ProgramDo not focus on habitat for inside population (heavily enhanced, habitat not an issue)Identify the main habitat threatsExamine pressures on productivity, carrying capacity and survival in Salish Sea, by life history stageExamine human pressures on quantity and quality of rearing habitat (estuary and marine)Prioritize restoration actions for critical habitatLearning options not summarized in this table.West Coast Vancouver Island & Upper South Coast: At science workshop, question emerged as to whether there are any wild stocks left? Implies a need to get more information to confirm / reject this hypothesis.: look at hatchery / wild contributions to spawning populations, estimate proportion of natural origin and hatchery origin fish: Should be able to model effect of changing production at Robertson Ck hatchery on various fisheries (e.g. N troll, N sport) – higher production -> higher AABM index -> harvest of wild stocks: Linkage between Robertson Ck production and harvest levels of AK fisheries, which also catch Fraser R stocks: look at effects of harvest rates on escapement retrospectively, or model to look at prospective benefits (E and W coast of Vanc. Island). Reduce fisheries in upper S Coast to increase escapement.: continue good work on reducing harvest pressure on these stocks until recovery is seen: Have used DNA sample to manage fishery in-season to meet objectives (e.g., N Troll, W. Coast Troll), avoid impacts on Fraser stocks. Are there other ways to use this information – e.g., use DNA info to develop abundance index for South Thompson chinook?: Aquaculture is of increasing concern; correlation between net cage aquaculture and lack of recovery of wild stocks on WCVI: Connect State of Ocean and Chinook management (e.g., increase in hake production from 2010 will affect survival up here)SUMMARY OF IDEAS FOR:WCVI & Upper S. CoastOptions:Assess hatchery/wild interactions, metrics of hatchery contribution, existence of wild stocks, where possibleModel effects of changing production on fisheries/harvestOptions:Examine relationship between harvest rates and escapement Reduce upper S Coast fisheriesContinue to reduce harvest pressureWhat are other ways to use DNA sampling informationOptions:Examine relationship between aquaculture and wild stocksLearning options not summarized in this table.ALL SBC CUs (i.e., strategy is not regionally-oriented): what is limitation for hatchery production: Risk assessment framework (Pathways of Effect); apply this to each CU: consider strategy of mass marking of Chinook so as to discriminate between hatchery and wild fish harvest: apply risk assessment framework broadly and look at information benefit of hatchery CWT information; look at it through lens of WSP and through lens of harvest – assess tradeoffs : effects of Vancouver Island hatchery releases on other stocks, harvest rates, AABM indices; improve monitoring on hatchery origin returns, PNI; do a Canadian cheap version of the hatchery and genetic management plan : Identify Canadian marine fisheries likely to have high impact; reduce harvest in high impact fisheries; require sci defensible estimates of total catch, short term release mortality, and longer term release mortality; require fishery-specific encounter rates and discard rates / mortality; DNA analysis of fisheries of concern; adjustments to human harvest due to increased marine mammal predation mortality: need to determine sustainable harvest rates, and connectivity with hatchery production. Which hatcheries contribute to which fisheries/: harvest already substantially reduced, causes Canada to lose out on harvesting of AK fish. Need to ensure that we have strong data before changing harvest significantly. Examine consequences of protecting one species (e.g., marine mammals) at the expense of others (e.g., Chinook).: would be good to generate pie charts by hatchery (e.g., % rebuilding, % assessment, % harvest) like those for specific regions. Mary: This is available from pre-COSEWIC report.: need sufficient catch monitoring to assess effects of all strategies. Do we really understand status quo?: all $ from recreational licenses should come back to W Coast for catch monitoring, and increase license fees even more than currently: area licensing for recreational fisheries: monitor key habitat indicators as per WSP; learn from detailed indicators for Thompson coho; protect water resources critical for Chinook as per new Water Sustainability Act (water licensing, establish and protect fish flows; water and sustainability plan); monitor effectiveness of new Fisheries Act wrt habitat provisions: identify key / critical habitats, threats, to direct protection / restoration efforts: need to stress need for habitat protection (and sufficient monitoring) under Water Act, and Fish Protection Program: effects on pathogens / disease from hatchery or aquaculture fish;: partner with other groups to update the habitat and threat data (as much info is out of date): use Salish Sea work to look at effects of enhancement on habitat carrying capacity, particularly on nearshore area: might be good for this group to have a formal advisory process to Fish Protection Program, targeting high risk watersheds that have been identified in stressor analyses; be strategic to get most salient information input into FPP; might be good to think about how entire WSP program could have inputs into FPP, and also into SEP and resource restoration unit (do on the ground habitat restoration projects), targeting priority areas.: Risk assessment framework (Pathways of Effect); apply this to each CU: monitor exotic pathogens and test those in a lab acceptable to the public (piscine rheovirus, ISA, salmon alpha virus): from Chuck Parken - need to monitor and quantify effects of tools to manage harvest (are they achieving target harvest rate? Are hatchery stocks replacing natural stocks); identify research & monitoring that could be done collaboratively by entities other than DFO: agree w GT’s comments on M&E: CWT programs are in jeopardy. Need to be maintained and use other methods such as DNA.: Mass marking strategy (all fish adipose clipped) would need new assessment framework, since current assessment framework relies on CWT info: why does WCVI have a higher rate of return? How many returning fish actually successfully spawn and deposit eggs in gravel? : link up w PSF and Long Live the Kings Salish Sea research strategy; look at timing of ocean entry; DFO strategy on overall cumulative effects research; marine distribution of CUs in space and time (vs. stressors) is a key uncertainty; need combined set of hatchery and wild indicators: reorient how escapement data are collected so that they are CU-specific: need updated genetic info to discriminate between spring and summer run timing stocks.: effect of hatcheries on PST indices and harvest rates (e.g., Chilliwack); need an integrated model to look at effects of changing fishery-specific harvest rates at specific places and times; can we better integrate info from State of Oceans work into management, using ocean indicators to proactively adjust fisheries and other mgmt.?: assess historic effectiveness of past resource restoration projects (perhaps lower south coast; initiate research on cumulative effects of harvest-habitat-hatchery actions.: Is the juice worth the squeeze on harvest management, and research / monitoring actions. : need to sort out short-term vs long term research and monitoring strategiesSUMMARY OF IDEAS FOR:ALL SBC CUs (i.e., strategy is not regionally-oriented)Options:Apply a risk management approach to enhancement for all CUsConsider/evaluate pros and cons of mass marking of hatchery fish, including the benefits and costs of collecting information on Proportion Natural Influence (PNI)Examine value of CWT info and trade-offs between production objectives, conservation/ rebuilding and harvest (WSP lens vs. harvest lens)Evaluate existing assessment, production planning, and risk management approaches against other Pacific North West hatchery and genetic management systems (effects on other stocks, fisheries, harvest rates, hatchery-origin returns, straying, resources required and cost, etc.) Show hatchery production by objective, by production line.Options:Identify Cdn marine fisheries with high impact and reduce harvestRequire scientifically defensible estimates of catch, total mortality, encounter/discard ratesDNA analysis in high-impact fisheries to improve information on stock composition, run timing and distribution.Adjust harvest rates to adjust for marine mammal impactDetermine sustainable harvest rates in connection with hatchery productionDo not change harvest prior to having strong dataExamine tradeoffs in species protectionNeed sufficient catch monitoringArea licensing for rec fisheriesOptions:Monitor key habitat indicators as per WSPProtect water resourcesMonitor effectiveness of new Fisheries Protection ProgramIdentify critical habitats, key threats, then protection/ restoration actionsInvestigate effects of pathogens/disease from hatcheries and aquacultureUpdate habitat and threat dataExamine effects of enhancement on carrying capacityEstablish formal advisory process to Fish Protection Program; consider WSP inputs to FPP, SEP and resource restoration unitLearning options not summarized in this table.Strategic actions at highest levelAdd new hatchery production where required to meet specific goals/objectives. Reduce/eliminate/alter hatchery production where value is sub-optimal to free resources enabling other actions.Change hatchery operations to better achieve goals/objectivesApply risk management approach to operations and decision-making regarding productionPlus many other learning options.Adjustment to exploitation rates; range of actions suggested from: Maintain current (reduced) harvest rates Adjust harvest where there is a mismatch between updated MSY estimates and current ERReduce harvest on strategic areas to reduce impacts on stocks of concern Reduce overall harvest to promote rebuildingAdjust harvest location: e.g. balance of more terminal / freshwater vs. ocean harvest Use in-season info for better management, where possibleDNA analysis of high-impact fisheriesImprove catch monitoring to meet specified standards, including: catch and release estimates, CWT sampling rates, etc….Plus many other learning strategies.Increase habitat protectionProtect marine habitatIncrease habitat restorationIdentify high priority habitats for protection and/or restorationMonitor effectiveness Fish Protection Program; establish advisory processPlus many other learning options.Learning options not summarized in this table.Critical questions to SPC about high-level strategic actionsWhere do you want to consider/evaluate new production? What would be the goal/objective for any hypothetical new production? Would increased production be for conservation/rebuilding, harvest augmentation, or for information?What is the appropriate goal for the production (e.g., to stop decline, to increase to abundance, to increase harvest, to provide information, etc.)?Do you want to consider/evaluate where reduction, elimination, or alteration of specific production may be appropriate? Would knowing the effect of changes on other objectives (harvest, conservation/rebuilding, information) be helpful?What specific changes in enhanced production could be evaluated by the TWG? For what purpose are the changes in production?Is it helpful to have the risk management framework applied to a subset of stocks as an example (if possible) of how risks are considered?Do you want the TWG to evaluate any exploratory scenarios of a range of substantially increased/decreased/altered hatchery production?Changes to just production for harvest augmentation? Or changes to production for conservation/ rebuilding?What is the potential range of exploitation rate adjustments that you want the TWG to evaluate (e.g. no change, decrease by XX%, increase in some areas?What are the stocks of concern that you want the TWG to evaluate harvest reductions on?Greatest recent declines?ER > Emsy (adjusted) from Panel report (i.e., How much should exploitation rates be adjusted for individual CU’s?) For populations where exploitation should be reduced, what strategies should be considered? Reductions in specific fisheries, broad reduction across all areas, shifting harvest location (e.g., to more terminal), other? What are the “high-impact fisheries” that the TWG should evaluate reductions in?Is there a benefit to increasing use of DNA sampling in fisheries? Where? What are the specific goals of any particular reduction in harvest (e.g., balance declines in hatchery productivity/marine survival; allow greater escapement; reverse declining stock trend; recover abundance of stock)?What is the potential for use of mark-selective fisheries for chinook?What improvements are required for fishery monitoring and catch reporting? Which fisheries need improvement?Can the highest priority habitats for increased protection or restoration be identified immediately?Do you want the TWG to evaluate the potential relative benefits of increased restoration in those CUs or other areas?Or do the highest priority habitats need to be identified first?Do you want the TWG to consider which habitats are the highest priority?Or should the SPC / TWG be developing a strategic process by which to identify priority habitats (i.e., implement later)Do you want the TWG to make recommendations on an appropriate process?Do you want the TWG to provide feedback on ideas generated by SPC?Two ideas to consider:E.g., triage/funnel approach to identify priorities; screen candidates by pressure/state indicators, status of CUs, concentration of production; conduct detailed analysis in collaboration with FN & local knowledge; identify specific actionsE.g. apply actions in adaptive management framework with rigorous monitoring designIs establishing a formal advisory process to the Fish Protection Plan a strategic priority?Learning options not summarized in this table.Technical Appendix D: Quantitative Results of TWG Evaluation: Box PlotsPerformance of Alternatives against Individual Sub-objectivesThese figures show the maximum, minimum, 75th percentile and 25th percentile of the TWG’s ratings for each of the SPC alternatives against each of the SPC sub-objectives, over two timeframes. The short-term timeframes represents 2 generations and the long-term timeframe represents 7-8 generations, and both timeframes assume similar ocean conditions to the present. The numbers at the base of each box plot indicate the number of survey responses represented. These are the same graphs as the “Appendix 2” handout used during the workshops.Technical Appendix E: Qualitative Results of TWG EvaluationRefer to separate file: SBC Chinook Technical Appendix 5 – TWG Qualitative Comments.docx. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download