Fraser River Sockeye Fisheries and Fisheries Management - Cohen ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Request #5: Sockeye allocations by gear type were obtained for 2001-2009 fromCounterpoint which covers approximately 30% of the 1980-2009 period in the originalrequest. This was not a major information gap because catches have been very similar tothe defined allocations in recent years.Request #6: The response to this request was incomplete because the methods currentlyused to estimate commercial catch have not been documented; however, interviews wereconducted with various DFO staff to obtain information on the estimation methods. Thetwo reports provided and information from interviews was sufficient to address the tasksdefined in the SOW.Request #7: This information gap was not a serious issue because the sport fisheries are arelatively small component of the Fraser sockeye harvest.Request #9: For the purposes of our report, we defined non-retention to include those fishcaptured and released and those fish that encounter fishing gear but escape capture. Thefirst category of non-retention is primarily associated with in-river recreational fisherieswhile the second category is primarily associated with in-river gillnet fisheries. Theinformation requested on fisheries where sockeye non-retention restrictions have beenimplemented would have been helpful to confirm the locations, times and gear-types forthese fisheries but this information was not essential for our review of the consequences ofnon-retention fisheries on sockeye physiology, survival and abundance.3. Are there additional quantitative or qualitative ways to evaluate the subject area notconsidered in this report? How could the analysis be improved?The report could be strengthened by addressing the following:Would in-season management decisions be sufficiently accurate to achieve harvest rate goals, orwould lower harvests be required to achieve individual escapement targets given the existingmonitoring and assessment programs?The authors have pointed out that recognition and assessment of en route lossesis critical for deriving reliable estimates of total abundance and exploitation rates. How couldthese losses influence location, as well as the complexity and costs of management by CU?LGL Response: Our report explicitly addresses the first question above as follows:“In general, in-season forecasts have been sufficiently accurate, precise, and timely to makeM-10
the necessary management decisions to achieve harvest rate goals defined for each of thefour run-timing groups.”The magnitude and location of en-route losses for the major indicator stocks and runtiminggroups could be estimated using currently available telemetry techniques. Theannual costs would be in the range of $350-400K depending on the type and quantity oftags applied.4. Are the recommendations provided in this report supportable? Do you have any furtherrecommendations to add?The recommendations in the report are supportable with two exceptions:Recommendation Number Three: The analytical resources currently allocated to pre-seasonforecasts should be reallocated to defining a clear set of escapement goals and in-seasonmanagement models that will assist managers in fisheries planning and the achievement of thegoals. I support defining a clear set of escapement goals and in-season management models thatwill assist managers in both fisheries planning and goal achievement.The resources currently allocated to pre-season forecasts are inadequate. In order to improvetheir accuracy, performance and precision there is a need for research and development of betterprocesses and predictive models that incorporate changing freshwater and marine conditions.Rather that reallocating I suggest investing in this area.Recommendation Number Eight:DFO needs to maintain its commitment to the recovery efforts for Cultus Lake sockeye and themonitoring programs needed to evaluate such efforts.I agree with the recommendation as far as it goes. However there are a variety of sockeye salmonstocks at risk in addition to Cultus Lake. An integrated program is required. There is a need toexamine the range of drivers affecting the sustainability of the species for successful recoveryand a requirement that information be provided to prevent similar events occurring in otherMU’s if possible.LGL Responses:With regard to Recommendation #3, we clearly disagree with the reviewer regarding theM-11
Page 2 and 3:
Fraser River Sockeye Fisheriesand F
Page 4 and 5:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Catch Monitorin
Page 6 and 7:
implement harvest rate ceilings to
Page 8 and 9:
Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 10 and 11:
List of TablesTable 1 Annual estima
Page 12 and 13:
List of FiguresFigure 1 Fraser sock
Page 14 and 15:
Figure 21 Estimates of total catch,
Page 16 and 17:
List of AppendicesAppendix A Statem
Page 18 and 19:
used to (1) estimate catch for each
Page 20 and 21:
FISHERIES HARVESTINGOverview of Fis
Page 22 and 23:
Figure 1 Fraser sockeye marine migr
Page 24 and 25:
Table 2 Summary of available inform
Page 26 and 27:
Table 3 provides the annual estimat
Page 28 and 29:
Table 4 Summary of available inform
Page 30 and 31:
season update teleconference meetin
Page 32 and 33:
Catch Estimation MethodsThe procedu
Page 34 and 35:
catch estimates was detected using
Page 36 and 37:
of precision. The overall rating fo
Page 38 and 39:
1998-00 - No agreements with Sto:lo
Page 40 and 41:
initiation of the AFS Agreements in
Page 42 and 43:
Table 12 Comparison of annual socke
Page 44 and 45:
Table 13 Annual estimates of the ha
Page 46 and 47:
Canadian Commercial FisheriesThe pr
Page 48 and 49:
logbook systems. In addition to the
Page 50 and 51:
Table 15 Fraser River sockeye salmo
Page 52 and 53:
Available catch estimates for the r
Page 54 and 55:
Table 17 Summary of available infor
Page 56 and 57:
anged from less than 100 to over 30
Page 58 and 59:
Washington State Recreational Fishe
Page 60 and 61:
equirements have been applied to se
Page 62 and 63:
salmon were biopsied or tagged with
Page 64 and 65:
Stellako-Late Stuart and 531 Adams)
Page 66 and 67:
FISHERIES MANAGEMENTOverview of Pre
Page 68 and 69:
parents of the recruits). Effective
Page 70 and 71:
within the confidence limits. For e
Page 72 and 73:
Ratio of Return to Forecast5.04.03.
Page 74 and 75:
Ratio of Return to Forecast5.04.03.
Page 76 and 77:
Table 20 Pre-season forecast models
Page 78 and 79:
different from the straight line),
Page 80 and 81:
Prediction ability of ForecastsProp
Page 82 and 83:
Stock MAPEReturn Explainedby Foreca
Page 84 and 85:
test fisheries are analyzed in-seas
Page 86 and 87:
Inputs to the cumulative-normal mod
Page 88 and 89:
eginning of the runs, but by mid-ru
Page 90 and 91:
Median Absolute Percent Error (1997
Page 92 and 93:
variety of hydroacoustic techniques
Page 94 and 95:
enefited from improved technologies
Page 96 and 97:
Post-season estimates of Escapement
Page 98 and 99:
precision achieved was considerably
Page 100 and 101:
m 3 /sec during the sockeye run. Fi
Page 102 and 103:
Escapement TargetsOur evaluations r
Page 104 and 105:
20% of the average of the 4-year se
Page 106 and 107:
Table 24 Low escapement benchmarks
Page 108 and 109:
Table 25 Comparison of post-season
Page 110 and 111:
fisheries have been permitted to ta
Page 112 and 113:
sub-dominant cycle years (e.g., 200
Page 114 and 115:
SummaryLow Escapement Benchmarks (L
Page 116 and 117:
Extent of OverharvestingThe estimat
Page 118 and 119:
2,000,0001,800,000Early StuartCatch
Page 120 and 121:
Cultus Lake Sockeye Recovery Effort
Page 122 and 123:
Figure 23 Number of adult sockeye e
Page 124 and 125:
Recovery ObjectivesIn anticipation
Page 126 and 127:
2008 the escapement estimate was 34
Page 128 and 129:
BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA SOCKEYE FISHERY
Page 130 and 131:
accurate, precise, and timely, (2)
Page 132 and 133:
The Bay is subjected to large tidal
Page 134 and 135:
activity (Bocking and Peterman 1988
Page 136 and 137:
% of total run45%40%35%30%25%20%15%
Page 138 and 139:
Harvest estimation methodsTotal har
Page 140 and 141:
Millions of sockeyeYearFigure 27 Hi
Page 142 and 143:
management structure complements th
Page 144 and 145:
1.5Togiak4.03.5NushagakMillions of
Page 146 and 147:
Millions of sockeye7.06.05.04.03.02
Page 148 and 149:
logical given the dynamics of the r
Page 150 and 151:
1.61.4Number of fish (millions)1.21
Page 152 and 153:
Pre-season forecastsAs noted above,
Page 154 and 155:
8.0y = 0.79x + 1.59R² = 0.417.8Log
Page 156 and 157:
12010080MAPE60402001971-1980 1981-1
Page 158 and 159:
Median percent error (MPE)3020100-1
Page 160 and 161:
Table 28 Average age composition of
Page 162 and 163:
dampeners to reduce surface turbule
Page 164 and 165:
current year’s run is accounted f
Page 166 and 167:
and 1999 Revised Annexes. This inte
Page 168 and 169:
Bristol Bay was in 1997 when there
Page 170 and 171:
upon by managers to determine when
Page 172 and 173:
STATE OF THE SCIENCECatch Monitorin
Page 174 and 175:
2006) due to concerns regarding the
Page 176 and 177:
RECOMMENDATIONS1. DFO needs to ensu
Page 178 and 179:
LITERATURE CITEDAdkison, M.D. and R
Page 180 and 181:
Beacham, T.D., M. Lapointe, J.R. Ca
Page 182 and 183:
CSAS. 2007 Pre-season run size fore
Page 184 and 185:
Evans, D.G., J.B. Browning and B.G.
Page 186 and 187:
Hardie, D.C., D.A. Nagtegaal, K. He
Page 188 and 189:
Pacific Salmon Commission. 1998. Re
Page 190 and 191:
Robichaud, D., J.J. Smith, K. K. En
Page 192 and 193:
Valderrama, D. and J.L. Anderson. 2
Page 194 and 195:
Appendix A Statement of Work.Cohen
Page 196 and 197:
All sectors3.7 The Contractor will
Page 198 and 199:
“State of the Science”. Comment
Page 200 and 201:
3.3 The Contractor will review and
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix BList of requests to DFO b
Page 204 and 205:
DFO Request 15: Recent CSAS documen
Page 206 and 207:
Item Description DateRequestedReque
Page 208 and 209:
Appendix CFirst Nation catch monito
Page 210 and 211:
Table C-1 Summary of information re
Page 212 and 213:
Table C-2 Weekly catch monitoring e
Page 214 and 215:
Table D-1 Summary of information re
Page 216 and 217:
community of Port Renfrew. The area
Page 218 and 219:
IPrecision ( + % of the estimate)10
Page 220 and 221:
Table E-2 Annual Strait of Georgia
Page 222 and 223:
Table E-4 Annual Johnstone Strait e
Page 224 and 225:
Table E-6 Lower Fraser River recrea
Page 226 and 227:
0 would mean that the forecast does
Page 228 and 229:
the general ups and downs of the ob
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix G Graphical representation
Page 232 and 233:
Early Stuart Timing GroupEarly Stua
Page 234 and 235:
Summer-run Timing GroupSummer run7.
Page 236 and 237: Fraser River Indicator Stocks (list
Page 254 and 255: Appendix H Pre-season forecast: sum
Page 256 and 257: ManagementGroup(IndicatorStock)MAPE
Page 258 and 259: ManagementGroup(IndicatorStock)MAPE
Page 260 and 261: Appendix I Methods of In-season Sto
Page 262 and 263: Marine Gillnet Test FisheriesThe gi
Page 264 and 265: Expansion line (x1000)9080706050403
Page 266 and 267: Table I-2 Mean values for purse sei
Page 268 and 269: Figure I-5 Map of test fishing loca
Page 270 and 271: Appendix J The Hydroacoustics progr
Page 272 and 273: An SEF project was secured in 2007
Page 274 and 275: Conservation action Comments Partne
Page 276 and 277: Table K-2 Summary of actions to rec
Page 278 and 279: Table L-1 Catch and escapement of s
Page 280 and 281: Table L-3 Performance criteria of p
Page 282 and 283: Ratio of annual return to the avera
Page 284 and 285: Appendix M Reviewer comments on the
Page 288 and 289: utility of pre-season forecasts. Pr
Page 290 and 291: 3. Are there additional quantitativ
Page 292 and 293: made via tagging and experimentatio
Page 294 and 295: Page 60: The authors make extensive
Page 296 and 297: ensure the reader does not assume t
Page 298 and 299: The reported excerpts from Bradford
Page 300 and 301: (budgets, legal issues, pseudo-cons
Page 302 and 303: REVIEW 3/3Reviewer Name: Dr Sean Co
Page 304 and 305: season forecasts that eventually co
Page 306 and 307: allocation shows "No agreement", an
Page 308 and 309: size.Figures showing errors for pre
Page 310 and 311: Goals can easily generate confusion
Page 312 and 313: Total rows from all these tables be
Page 314 and 315: Exploitation Rate100%90%80%70%60%50
Page 316 and 317: Exploitation RateEarly Stuart90%80%
show all

Fraser River Sockeye Fisheries and Fisheries Management - Cohen ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?