IFish Fishing Forum banner

Some interesting smelt stuff...from the Canadians!

2K views 6 replies 6 participants last post by  Backlash2 
#1 Ā·
This is perhaps one of the most interesting reports Iā€™ve ever read.
Itā€™s a workshop that took place in Canada in 2007 in hopes to figure out and do something about the coast wide decline of smelt in Canada which also includes the west coast of the states.
I think one thing that impressed me most is their ā€œbrain stormingā€ approach that reminded me of the Japanese philosophy I learned in business classes in the 80ā€™s that made them so successful after WWII.

It makes me wonder if some of these smelt issues could play an important roll in our chinook smolts as they migrate up north through Canadian waters and if ODFW/WDFW will ever have such a diversified salmonid workshop as did these Canadians did with the smelt problems?

After the URL for this report, look at the diversity of folks they included in this problem solving workshop from fishery management to sports fisher groups, to commercial fishing groups, to sturgeon conservation groups, to native peoples, independents, etc.
I highlighted someā€¦



The February 2007 workshop finalized proceedings are available on the Internet at:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/hertags/2007eulawkshp.pdf

The ideas contained in this report draw upon the insights of the workshop participants, who provided a vast wealth of knowledge and experience as well as a strong desire to see eulachon persist. All participants were committed to the success of the workshop and the discussions were very thoughtful and productive. To these people we are very grateful for their time and contributions:
Les Antone, Kwantlen First Nation
Joe Bauer, BC Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, United
Fishermen & Allied Workers Union
Dan Clark, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Paul Cottrell, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Bill Crawford, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Karl English, LGL Limited
Harpreet Gill, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Michael Gordon, MR Gordon & Associates
Bob Guerin, Musqueam First Nation
Doug Hay, independent
Otto Langer, independent
Adam Lewis, Ecofish
David Marmorek, ESSA Technologies
Anna Mathewson, FraserRiver Estuary Management Program
Bruce McCarter, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Megan Moody, Nuxalk First Nation / University of
British Columbia
Barbara Mueller, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Brian Naito, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Craig Orr, Sturgeon Conservation Society
Darcy Pickard, ESSA Technologies
Vance Reach, Sport Fishing Action Committee
Dennis Rutherford, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Jake Schweigert, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Kerstin Stahl, University of British Columbia
Erin Stoddard, Ministry of Environment
Ken Wilson, Consultant
In the interpretation of the workshop notes, any errors of omission, oversight, or misunderstanding are our own. This summary is based largely on personal knowledge and direction of the workshop participants.
The workshop size was limited to ensure good opportunities for subgroup discussions, and we apologize in advance to anyone who was unable to attend. We hope that other voices can be included in future discussions, research and other actions, in support of eulachon. Many thanks to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for initiating this interesting work. We hope this work provides clarity, momentum and focus for future dialogue and action.

ā€œThis research priority relates to the only hypothesis which was found to be a probable
cause of the recent coast-wide declineā€.

Iā€™m not going to tell you which one it was but make you look it up in the report. :wink:
I believe it was located @ #4 - Conclusions

Hereā€™s a hint though:

ā€œIt seems probable that the effect is a combination of warm temperatures, larger hake migration and shrimp harvest.ā€

These are a few quotes I pulled from the report that might look as if they came from some of your recent anti-gill net threads: :bigshock:
(note ā€“ most of the bold and underlining was done by me).
ā€œThere was a concern that shrimp harvest may still be ongoing in nearshore areas (e.g., areas 8 and 9), despite cancellation of shrimp harvest in QueenCharlotteSound.ā€

ā€œManagement Need: Stronger monitoring and enforcement of nearshore fisheries, to minimize impacts on eulachon.ā€

ā€œIdeas on how to reduce this uncertainty:
ā€¢ Current program far too skimpy. Design a proper bycatch monitoring program.ā€

ā€œConcern about possible bias of observer presence.ā€

ā€œDifficult to accommodate observers on small boats.ā€

ā€¢ ā€œNeed to estimate mortality, not just bycatch. May be difficult to do this well; observers wonā€™t be sufficient.ā€

ā€œEstimating collateral damage from fishing gearā€.

ā€œMay be cheaper to reduce bycatch, and land eulachon that are caught (use them for research), rather than to implement an accurate observer program. It would be possible to put cameras on boats.ā€

ā€œHarvest policy: No harvest (bycatch included) should be allowed, until we
see a recovery of stocks.ā€
Of course that all pertained to the commercial shrimp trawl fleet.

Next is one of the most interesting aspects of the report which isnā€™t anything I was familiar with until I read it a couple months ago and would have never thunk it.
Warming ocean temperatures = Pacific Hake migrated further north into BC waters:

2.2.4 Predation by hake and other warm water fishes
Hypothesis 15: Increase in predation of eulachon by warm water species such as hake as their distributions move northward has reduced the survival of
juvenile (1+) eulachon.

ā€¢ Recent changes in Pacific hake distributions correspond roughly with the decline of eulachons. (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 41). Hake are known to feed on eulachon (Outram and Haegele, 1972, Rexstad and Pikitch 1986).

In general, the abundance of hake in Canadian waters has increased in recent years with warming ocean temperatures.

Have California eulachon disappeared due to hake predation?

2.2.5 Competition by hake and other warm water fishes
Hypothesis 16. Increase in competition from warm water species such as hake as their distribution moves northward has reduced the survival of juvenile and
adult eulachon.
Life stages affected
Juveniles and adults
Evidence
Hake are known to prey on zooplankton and euphausiids, which are the primary food source for eulachon (Rexstad and Pikitch, 1986)
Possible coast-wide declines in 1994 (Columbia, Fraser and Klinaklini at least) suggest the impact is on a large scale, i.e., ocean conditions, so climate change and the resulting effects are a possible candidate.
If I didnā€™t know any better I might have though our own Freespool wrote this quote:
"Actions, not just research Research and monitoring should not be an excuse for
inaction."
I would like to see this done here locally with salmon, smelt & sturgeon:

Raise the profile of eulachon:Initiate a public awareness campaign; build on climate
change concern. Target public, government, media, and youth.

Sound familiar:
Eulachon may be listed as endangered; need to get information to assist with their recovery.
Againā€¦could have come from one of the ifish anti-gill net threads:
Economic Research: What is the expected future of the BC shrimp industry?
Management / Policy Research: What is DFOā€™s position on relative importance of commercial shrimp fishery versus native fishing rights for eulachon?
This could have come from one of our own Columbia River threads or othersā€¦
Sound familiar:
Invasive, non-native fish (carp, largemouth bass, crappie, catfish) have been increasing in the lower FraserRiver.
Something Iā€™ve mentioned the last several years on threads here and thereā€¦
6.3. Columbia River Catch
The total Columbia River eulachon harvest in a given year is considered a pre-season indicator for the same yearā€™s Fraser River return, insofar that this fishery may provide an indication of ocean survival.
I read a post on here recently regarding sturgeon that reminded me of this next quote except it might have been regarding shad and not smelt:
Sturgeon have shown a decline in growth, which could be partly due to the decline in eulachon. There is no doubt that many species have historically relied on eulachon as prey. The decline of eulachon is certain to have had a negative impact, but the magnitude of effects on different species is uncertain.



Some miscellaneous interesting quotes:
These analyses were intended to provide more information on mixed stock dynamic between FraserRiver and Columbia River eulachon in this area. Results indicated that there continued stock proportions of approximately 60:40 Columbia: Fraser in these areas.




Eulachon provide an important energy rich food source to the ecosystem at a time when food supplies tend to be low (Stoffels 2001 p. 2). They were called ā€œsaviour fishā€ because they were the first source of protein after a lean winter. They support breeding sea lions, seals, eagles and gulls as well as a variety of fish including: salmon, halibut, sturgeon (Lewis 2001), hake, dogfish and Pacific cod..
Participants made the following points with respect to this hypothesis
ā€¢ Evidence of decreased growth of sturgeon in 2005 and 2006 (see Figure 7 below). Also decreased abundance in recent years.
Stakeholders need to work together: All stakeholders need to work together including: First
Nations, shrimp harvest, DFO, NGO, U.S. Agencies (NOAA,
WDFW, ODFW). A Recovery Team would be an excellent focus.
Referring to Pinnepeds:
The hypothesis seems an unlikely cause of the recent coast-wide sharp decline in eulachon as this
predation effect is nothing new. However, it is possible that predation of spawners has a bigger impact when the eulachon populations are reduced and may inhibit the recovery. It is also possible that eulachon have become a more important food source for predators if other food sources have become scarce.

Harbour seals have increased significantly during the last 20 years, and may have contributed to the decline, but eulachon are likely only a small component of sealā€™s diet given their temporary appearance.

Density of seals in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia are the highest in the world
And the rest is some of but not all of the many interesting issues regarding BC & US recent smelt declines.
It appears I got some of the info from another Canadian report also and got them mixed up a couple months ago.
I spent a couple hours on it back then and also again tonight and Iā€™m not going to attempt to sort it out now or Iā€™ll never get this posted.
Again, most of the highlighting in bold was done by me and all of the underlining I did to point out items I found interesting.

At the end is the WDFW info and link where it comes from to ā€œenlightenā€ some folks as to why there are ongoing sports & commercial smelt fisheries presently and other interesting data, maps & picā€™s.
Followed by some URLā€™s that I had in a word doc that I must have used to gather some of this information on this post a couple months ago.

Enjoyā€¦Lotā€™s of interesting reading!
Make sure you look through the report though as I left a whole bunch out.

And especially the in-depth, intense, numerous hypothesis they came up with that could possibly negatively effect smelt from both fresh & salt water including; pollution, dredging, fresh & salt water harvest/by-catch, pinnepeds, avians, Pacific Hake and other predators, fresh water invasive species, logging, shoreline construction, dams, climate change, competition for food in the ocean, etc, in a convenient & informative chart. (page iv, table E1)

And then the narrowed down ā€œThe five main research recommendations for eulachonā€ in table 5 on page 46.

I couldnā€™t figure out a way to convert the tables to jpegā€™s to post.



Executive Summary

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) funded a workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon which was held February 20ā€“22, 2007 in Richmond, BC. There were about twenty-five participants from a variety of backgrounds including: DFO, First Nations, independent consultants, fishermen and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The purpose of the workshop was to:

ā€¢ bring together information on the causes of eulachon decline and possible recovery strategies with a focus on the FraserRiver;

ā€¢ reduce key uncertainties affecting science advice for eulachon management;

ā€¢ improve communication between scientists and stakeholders; and

ā€¢ evaluate the various factors affecting eulachon decline to elicit broad funding for solution oriented research.

The workshop began with expert presentations and discussion on eulachon biology (Doug Hay), recent changes in ocean conditions (Bill Crawford), and freshwater hydrology (Kerstin Stahl), traditional use of eulachon by First Nations (Megan Moody).
The rest of the workshop used an impact hypothesis approach to structure the review and interpretation of information, analyzing conceptual models called impact hypothesis diagrams (or IHDs). Each hypothesis is represented as a box and arrow diagram that illustrates the cause-effect pathways linking management actions (e.g., ocean and river harvest, and water management) and natural ā€˜forcing functionsā€™ not easily controlled (e.g., global climate change) to some Valued Ecosystem Component or VEC (e.g., spawning abundance of eulachon). Each step in the cause-effect chain is represented by a numbered arrow linking two system components. The specific hypotheses that underlay these links are also defined explicitly in words. The diagrams focus attention on the cause-effect linkages of greatest importance to management decisions (See Bernard et al. 1989, Jones et al. 1996.)

The impact hypothesis diagram and corresponding text hypotheses which were developed at the
workshop are shown here (Figure E1 and Table E1), with more detailed information in the main body of the report. Sub-groups came to one of three conclusions for each hypothesis:
A) likely not an important link (evidence against it);
B) potentially an important link but of uncertain magnitude;
C) definitely an important link (evidence supports it).

The conclusions are shown in the rightmost column of Table E1. Where possible the entire sub-group agreed upon the conclusion, but where a consensus was not possible the majority ruled. If there was strong disagreement or lack of evidence about the importance of a particular impact, conclusion B was chosen. The impact hypotheses are followed by a brief summary of the recommended research priorities from each sub-group and a list of the top five recommendations across all groups.
While this was a workshop to determine research priorities, there were many interesting ideas presented at the workshop. A discussion of possible non-research actions is included in Section 4 of the report.


6. STOCK STATUS
There is limited biological information available to guide management decisions regarding Fraser River eulachon. A 2003 PSARC paper (2003/051) provided direction for using this limited information. The PSARC paper recommended a management approach using three pre-season indicators and one inseason indicator as reference points to guide management actions. The three pre-season indicators are:
a) Spawning stock biomass from the previous two years.
b) Offshore biomass index from the previous year.
c) Same year Columbia River catches.
The in-season indicator is the cumulative catch in the New Westminster Eulachon Test Fishery. Note that this Test Fishery has not been in operation since 2005.

Prior to 1999, the total catch by weight of eulachon taken during the research surveys was the only recorded parameter. Since 1999, eulachon also have been sampled for length and weight to determine the average number of fish per kilogram and to estimate the age (year 1+ or year 2+) of the fish.

6.1. Spawning Stock Biomass
To estimate spawning stock biomass (SSB), an intensive sampling process takes place in the
Fraser River during the seven to eight weeks following spawning (April/May). This survey uses towed, small mesh nets to gather samples of eulachon eggs and larvae. The number of eggs and larvae gathered in each tow are hand-counted at the Pacific Biological Station. The egg and larval count is then combined with data on the daily Fraser River discharge and historical data on eulachon fecundity (eggs produced/female) to generate an estimate of spawning stock biomass. This estimate is generally produced in the summer following spawning.
The spawning stock biomass provides an estimate of how many tonnes of eulachon successfully spawned the previous year. Although eulachon abundance is subject to considerable annual fluctuations PSARC recommends that a low spawning stock biomass for one year is cause for caution and a low spawning stock biomass for two consecutive years indicates a conservation concern. A low spawning stock biomass has been defined as less than 150 tonnes. Spawning stock biomass has been estimated this way since 1995 and will continue in 2007.


6.2. Offshore Biomass Index
The offshore biomass index is based on an annual trawl survey conducted in late April/early
May by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science Branch. The survey initially was designed to
index shrimp abundance but since eulachon also are caught by this survey, a eulachon index is possible. It is important to note that this is a biomass index and not a biomass estimate and that eulachon caught in this survey include stocks from both the FraserRiver, the Columbia River, and possibly other areas. This survey has been conducted since 1973 and provides an annual index of offshore abundance for the lower WCVI (Areas 121, 23, 123, 124 and 125).

6.3. Columbia River Catch
The total Columbia River eulachon harvest in a given year is considered a pre-season indicator for the same yearā€™s Fraser River return, insofar that this fishery may provide an indication of ocean survival. Columbia River eulachon return between January and March. In contrast, FraserRiver eulachon return in April and May. Columbia catches less than 500 tonnes indicate that a more cautious management regime should be adopted.
In 2008, the Columbia River catches to end of February have been approximately 7.5 tonnes.

6.4. FraserRiver Test Fishery
The Fraser River test fishery was designed to provide an in-season index of eulachon returns to the Fraser River. The test fishery is based on the cumulative catch of eulachon fished daily at a fixed site (New Westminster), with specific gear, at a specific tide level and for a fixed time period. The test fishery has operated from 1995 to 2005 (with the exception of 1999); the test fishery has not operated in 2006 and 2007. In past years, the test fishery has been used in conjunction with the pre-season indicators as an in-season guide to determining whether or not fisheries open on the Fraser River.
A test fishery catch of less than 5000 pieces is considered a conservation concern.

Table 3: FraserRiver Test Fishery Final Catches for 1995 to 2007
Year Final Catch (pieces)
1995 11,651
1996 42,071
1997 3,116
1998 2,052
1999 No Test Fishery
2000 12,991
2001 14,578
2002 14,754
2003 7,758
2004 12,433
2005 886
2006 No Test Fishery
2007 No Test Fishery

7. MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The following sections highlight the on-going or longer-term management issues that need to be addressed for Fraser River eulachon.

7.1. Limited Biological Information
At present, there is limited biological information available for Fraser River eulachon. The
biological indicators described in the 2003 PSARC paper and used for the management of
Fraser River eulachon are limited by their short time series. It is important to continue to collect and refine these indicators. Further research focussed in the areas of stock identification and genetic analysis of eulachon, eulachon habitat inventory, historical abundance of eulachon, physiological limits to spawning, salinity tolerance of eulachon eggs, and distribution and marine habitats of inlet eulachon populations are required. Development of biologically based total allowable catch (TAC) for all areas and refinements to the stock assessment process in the Fraser River are required.
Over the recent years some limited funding was dedicated to conduct genetic analyses of
eulachon landed off the WCVI. These analyses were intended to provide more information on mixed stock dynamic between FraserRiver and Columbia River eulachon in this area. Results indicated that there continued stock proportions of approximately 60:40 Columbia: Fraser in these areas.

7.2. Workshop to Determine Research Priorities for Eulachon / Future Research Plans
DFO hosted an eulachon science workshop in February 2007 to explore and seek stakeholder
and First Nationā€™s feedback on research priorities.
A science-based workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon was held February,
2007. The objectives of this workshop were as follows: (1) bring together information on the
causes of eulachon decline and possible recovery strategies with a focus on the Fraser River;
(2) develop ideas for relevant research, monitoring & evaluation strategies to reduce key
uncertainties affecting eulachon management; (3) improve communication between scientists and stakeholders; (4) raise the profile of the eulachon decline so that multiple sources of funding might be applied towards solution-oriented research. Sub-groups were developed to further study and document impacts of the following areas: land / water management; climate change; harvest and predation.

Continued on part 2
 
See less See more
#2 Ā·
Continuedā€¦


7.4. By-catch of Eulachon
2008/2009 Eulachon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Page 15 of 21
Eulachon are caught as by-catch in the WCVI shrimp trawl fishery. The Department has been
working with the shrimp trawl industry to minimize eulachon by-catch.
The following management changes have been implemented to reduce eulachon by-catch in the WCVI shrimp trawl fishery:
a) Mandatory by-catch reduction devices in shrimp trawl nets: A grid designed to prevent eulachon from entering the shrimp trawl net is mandatory for all shrimp trawlers.
b) Eulachon Action Levels: A very precautionary approach has been taken to set a
eulachon by-catch action level has been set for WCVI. This action level is one percent
of the offshore abundance index for eulachon from the WCVI shrimp survey (see 6.2
and Table 2). If estimated eulachon by-catch meets or exceeds this level, further
management actions may be implemented. Management actions could include: closure
of the shrimp trawl fishery, closure of certain areas to shrimp trawling, or restricting
trawling to beam trawlers which have been found to have a lower impact on eulachon
than otter trawlers.
In 2008 a very precautionary approach will continue to the setting of eulachon by-catch
action levels in the shrimp trawl fishery. The initial eulachon by-catch action level for
WCVI will be a total of 6.4 tonnes based on the 2007 eulachon biomass index; 3.8
tonnes for Shrimp Management Areas (SMAs), 23OFF and 21OFF and 2.6 tonnes for
SMAs 124OFF, 125OFF, and 126OFF. The initial eulachon action level may be
adjusted in-season based on the eulachon abundance in each area as determined from
the May shrimp trawl survey. Note that the action level may be revised in-season to
one percent of the estimated eulachon biomass based on the 2008 biomass survey.
For further information on the shrimp trawl fishery, please obtain a copy of the Shrimp Trawl
IFMP. This plan is available from a Fisheries and Oceans Canada licensing office or on the
Internet at:
www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet.content/MPLANS/MPlans.htm#Invertebrates

It is not clear whether the amount of eulachon taken in the shrimp trawl harvest is significant enough to have caused the recent decline, but Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 39) do not believe it is likely.
Participants made the following points with respect to this hypothesis

ā€¢ Canā€™t falsify hypothesis that QueenCharlotteSound shrimp trawl fishery was responsible for 1997 decline in Rivers Inlet eulachon and 1999 decline in Bella Coola eulachon, and adjacent stocks (e.g.
Smith Inlet). See references in Hay and McCarter (2000). It seems probable that the effect is a
combination of warm temperatures, larger hake migration and shrimp harvest.
ā€¢ Since Queen Charlotte Sound shrimp harvest has stopped in 1999, the Queen Charlotte Sound eulachon biomass index increased and then crashed again, suggesting that shrimp harvest was not the sole cause of the decline for Central Coast stocks. If shrimp harvest bycatch was the main cause of eulachon decline, then cessation of harvest should have led to recovery of Bella Coola stocks.See Figure 4c.
ā€¢ There was a concern that shrimp harvest may still be ongoing in nearshore areas (e.g., areas 8 and 9), despite cancellation of shrimp harvest in QueenCharlotteSound.

Conclusion
A - for some areas (likely not an important link for FraserRiver);
B - potentially an important contributing factor for mid-Coast stocks 1997ā€“99 declines, along with temperature / food / hake predation, but of uncertain magnitude and relative importance
Critical uncertainties and recommended research/analyses
Identified need to better understand stock composition and age structure of index trawls, to enable linking these indices back to individual stocks. West coast of Vancouver Island eulachon are probably a mixture of Columbia (40ā€“66%) and Fraser (60ā€“33%) fish. There is some limitation to DNA analyses (mixing of stocks) because of an incomplete baseline of eulachon data. Otolith chemical / isotope analyses may be feasible and Adrian Clark (U. Victoria) and Doug Bonner (UBC) are investigating this approach.
Management Need: Stronger monitoring and enforcement of nearshore fisheries, to minimize impacts on eulachon.

Legal Complexity:If an allowable bycatch of eulachons occurs on the West coast of Vancouver Island, DFO has been reluctant to close the FraserRiver eulachon fishery for conservation purposes. First Nations can voluntarily close their Food-Social-Ceremonial fishery, as they have on the Fraser. The eulachon sport fishery was closed.
Research Need: Review of the scientific criteria for action levels to stop shrimp harvest. Action level currently halts the shrimp harvest when cumulative bycatch > 1% of west coast of Vancouver Island eulachon biomass index. The action levels should be reviewed by PSARC or other peer review process.

2.2.4 Predation by hake and other warm water fishes
Hypothesis 15: Increase in predation of eulachon by warm water species such as hake as their distributions move northward has reduced the survival of
juvenile (1+) eulachon.

Evidence
Participants made the following points with respect to this hypothesis
ā€¢ Recent changes in Pacific hake distributions correspond roughly with the decline of eulachons. (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 41). Hake are known to feed on eulachon (Outram and Haegele, 1972, Rexstad and Pikitch 1986).
ā€¢ Significant decline in eulachon in 1993. Intensive coast-wide acoustic surveys (E-W transect
across Continental Shelf until encountering the outer (northern) edge of the hake distribution) are
conducted every three years in the 1990s; more recently every two years (2005 State of Ocean
Report, Figure 54 p. 51). In general, the abundance of hake in Canadian waters has increased in recent years with warming ocean temperatures. An extensive dataset of hake catch and stock biomass is available back to the 1970s.

Stomach samples do not indicate many eulachon in hake stomachs possibly due to low abundance
of eulachon, or depth of sampling (eulachon tend to be shallower than hake). While individual
hake may not eat a lot of eulachons, hake are very abundant and eulachon may digest very
quickly.

Have California eulachon disappeared due to hake predation?

2.2.5 Competition by hake and other warm water fishes
Hypothesis 16. Increase in competition from warm water species such as hake as their distribution moves northward has reduced the survival of juvenile and
adult eulachon.
Life stages affected
Juveniles and adults
Evidence
Hake are known to prey on zooplankton and euphausiids, which are the primary food source for eulachon (Rexstad and Pikitch, 1986)
Possible coast-wide declines in 1994 (Columbia, Fraser and Klinaklini at least) suggest the impact is on a large scale, i.e., ocean conditions, so climate change and the resulting effects are a possible candidate.
Conclusion
B - potentially an important link but of uncertain magnitude
This hypothesis is less likely than predation (H15), and food (H14), as the hake-eulachon overlap in diet is not well understood. If competition occurs it may magnify the effects of hake predation.


2.3.4 Mammal / bird / fish predation
Hypothesis 25: Mammal / bird / fish predation of spawners has been a significant factor
contributing to the recent decline in eulachon.
Life stages affected
Spawners
Evidence
The hypothesis seems an unlikely cause of the recent coast-wide sharp decline in eulachon as this
predation effect is nothing new. However, it is possible that predation of spawners has a bigger impact when the eulachon populations are reduced and may inhibit the recovery. It is also possible that eulachon have become a more important food source for predators if other food sources have become scarce.
Conclusion
A for many rivers, B for FraserRiver, and possibly some other rivers like Skeena.
Harbour seals have increased significantly during the last 20 years, and may have contributed to the decline, but eulachon are likely only a small component of sealā€™s diet given their temporary appearance.

Density of seals in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia are the highest in the world (1 / 100m) along 3700 km of shoreline.

Eulachon provide an important energy rich food source to the ecosystem at a time when food supplies tend to be low (Stoffels 2001 p. 2). They were called ā€œsaviour fishā€ because they were the first source of protein after a lean winter. They support breeding sea lions, seals, eagles and gulls as well as a variety of fish including: salmon, halibut, sturgeon (Lewis 2001), hake, dogfish and Pacific cod..
Participants made the following points with respect to this hypothesis
ā€¢ Evidence of decreased growth of sturgeon in 2005 and 2006 (see Figure 7 below). Also decreased abundance in recent years.
ā€¢ Brian Marsden (Alaska Department of Fish and Game), cited in Willson et al. (2006), showed the importance of eulachons to sea lions (50% of their protein intake). Strong correlation between
predator abundance and eulachon abundance in Marsden paper. Also seen in Kemano (large
increase in eagles when eulachon arrive); predators could be used as coarse, broad scale indicator.
ā€¢ In Nass, seagulls chased live eulachons, but eagles waited for them to die, so they could eat
carcasses (Otto Langer, pers. comm.). Similarly, in FraserRiver eagles only get dead ones in
shallow water (Joe Bauer, pers. comm.).
ā€¢ Auklets have shown declines in 2005 co-incident with eulachon decline as well as declines of
other fish species (e.g., other fish such as sandlance are eaten off of TriangleIsland).

Invasive, non-native fish (carp, largemouth bass, crappie, catfish) have been increasing in the lower FraserRiver.




2.3.1 Shrimp harvest bycatch
Hypothesis 17: Eulachon are caught as bycatch in the offshore shrimp trawl fishery.
Life stages affected
Adults
Evidence
Small mesh shrimp trawls sometimes have significant bycatch of eulachons (Hay et al. 1998 and 1999, also Olsen et al. 2000). Accurate estimates are difficult to obtain and only approximate estimates are provided.
Shrimp trawl fishers are held to a bycatch limit. The at sea monitoring is limited to 50 days per year, sampling only 1ā€“2% of trawl effort.
Participants made the following points with respect to this hypothesis
ā€¢ Shrimp harvest off of FraserRiver / Sturgeon Bank (area 28/29) is now only operating until total allowable catch (TAC) is taken. There are two openings: Nov 15th to Jan/Feb and June 1st. The fishery is now closed during the eulachon spawning migration.
ā€¢ See presentation of data on shrimp harvest and bycatch (Appendix F).
Conclusion
B - definitely happens, but canā€™t accurately quantify level of impact with present information.
Critical uncertainties and recommended research/analyses
Key uncertainties
Extent of eulachon mortality from shrimp bycatch in different areas, and their consequent effects on different stocks.

Ideas on how to reduce this uncertainty:
ā€¢ Current program far too skimpy. Design a proper bycatch monitoring program. Improve program as required. Concern about possible bias of observer presence. Value of this information depends on ultimate framework that uses information for management decisions.
ā€¢ Some estimates of bycatch not too bad for some years and places (e.g., QueenCharlotteSound
was 7ā€“8% of total effort in 1997/98). There are ā€œgeneralā€ data on eulachon catch rates (kg per
hour) that indicate eulachons are often/usually taken in shrimp trawls and research trawls in
Alaska. Difficult to accommodate observers on small boats.
ā€¢ Need to estimate mortality, not just bycatch. May be difficult to do this well; observers wonā€™t be sufficient.
ā€¢ Reconstruct shrimp catches historically based on shrimp processor records (Steveston)
ā€¢ ā€œEstimating collateral damage from fishing gearā€. Broadhurst et al. (2006) completed an
extensive literature review of over 80 published studies and identify the key causal factors and a
strategy for minimizing the impact.
ā€¢ Need to examine trawl procedures and have consistent gear, fixed number hours trawling; gear is adapted by individual fisherman. Beam trawl can be adapted to avoid eulachon altogether. May
be cheaper to reduce bycatch, and land eulachon that are caught (use them for research), rather than to implement an accurate observer program. It would be possible to put cameras on boats.
ā€¢ Dealing with all bycatch this way wouldnā€™t be practical. Not enough money in shrimp fishery to pay for large scale observer program. Focus on areas containing eulachon such as 123/124.
ā€¢ Some areas and times should be excluded from shrimp fishing (e.g. Portland Inlet in February /
March). Implement good procedures as outlined above. Make it mandatory to land all eulachon in
other areas. Eulachon may be listed as endangered; need to get information to assist with their recovery.
ā€¢ Find some compromise; land some portion, recognize mortality of remaining bycatch:
- This may be appropriate for eulachon, but DFO needs to consider all species (small flatfish, pollock, hake, etc.).
- Eulachon should be treated as a special case due to the very low abundance levels.
Recommended research/analyses
Differing opinions (listed above) on whether to get better estimates of impact, or to simply use every possible means to reduce impact. Therefore, evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and costs of each option outlined above (conservation impacts, practicality, reliability, cost, research benefit).




Conclusion
B - potentially an important contributing factor in reducing recovery, along with temperature / food / hake, other harvest, but of uncertain or unknown magnitude.


Critical uncertainties and recommended research/analyses
Economic Research: What is the expected future of the BC shrimp industry?
Management / Policy Research: What is DFOā€™s position on relative importance of commercial shrimp fishery versus native fishing rights for eulachon?


3. Non-research Recommendations
While this was a workshop to determine research priorities, there was a real concern with many
participants that research can be used as an excuse for inaction. In consideration of this concern a plenary session was held to discuss ideas about non-research related actions. In addition, participants were encouraged to independently submit their non-research recommendations during an individual exercise on the last day of the workshop. There was no clear consensus or recommendation from this discussion except that research alone will not be enough to ensure eulachon recovery. There were many ideas presented. A summary of the general topics discussed are shown here in no particular order.

How do we catalyze change?
Endangered Species Listing: Get SARA listing under COSEWIC and possibly under ESA.
This would stimulate recovery planning and appropriate resources to reduce key uncertainties.
Harvest policy: No harvest (bycatch included) should be allowed, until we
see a recovery of stocks. Develop policy position on commercial shrimp vs. native eulachon harvest. Work constructively with shrimp industry and other harvesters that might impact eulachon.
Actions, not just research Research and monitoring should not be an excuse for
inaction.
Habitat conservation: Protect critical habitat.
Raise the profile of eulachon:Initiate a public awareness campaign; build on climate
change concern. Target public, government, media, and youth.
Legal action: This may be the most effective strategy. There are legal
rights that First Nations can collectively assert. It is a much bigger issue than just one First Nation.
Stakeholders need to work together: All stakeholders need to work together including: First
Nations, shrimp harvest, DFO, NGO, U.S. Agencies (NOAA,
WDFW, ODFW). A Recovery Team would be an excellent focus.


The 2008/2009 Pacific Region Fraser River Eulachon IFMP encompasses the period of April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. Details about the history of eulachon fisheries, biology and First Nations can be found on the Departmentā€™s Internet site or by request from any Fisheries and Oceans Canada office:
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/Herring/Eulachon/default_e.htm

For reasons unknown, eulachon abundance have shown a declining trend in many rivers throughout their distribution in recent years. There was a sudden drop in returns to several rivers in 1994, most notably in the Fraser and Columbia. Eulachon have virtually disappeared in California and in the last two years they have not been seen in several BC rivers. Rivers which experienced virtually no returns in 2000 were: Stikine, Unuk, Skeena, Kitimat, Kemano, Kitlope, Bella Coola, Kimsquit, Owikeeno, and Kingcome Rivers. Concurrently, there has been a recent increase in the abundance of eulachons in marine waters, off BC and parts of Alaska. While this is an encouraging sign, previous observations of high eulachon abundance in marine waters were not followed by any apparent increases in spawning biomass in freshwater rivers.
This plan applies to fisheries for eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in the Fraser River.
4.1. Guiding Principles
Management goals have been defined for eulachon fisheries in accordance with the following
guiding principals:
4.1.1. To ensure conservation and protection of fish stocks and their habitat through the
application of scientific management principles applied in a risk averse and
precautionary manner based on the best scientific advice available.
4.1.2. To meet the federal Crownā€™s obligations regarding First Nations fisheries for food,
social and ceremonial purposes.
4.1.3. To consider opportunities for recreational fisheries subject to conservation
considerations.
4.1.4. To work collaboratively with First Nations organizations, industry and other
stakeholders to ensure conservation and sustainability of this resource.
4.1.5. To develop sustainable fisheries through partnership and co-management arrangements
with client groups and stakeholders to share in decision-making, responsibilities, costs
and benefits.
4.1.6. To develop fishing plans and co-operative research programs which will contribute to
improving the knowledge base and understanding of the resource.
4.1.7. To consider the goals of stakeholders with respect to social, cultural and economic
value of the fishery.
4.1.8. To consider health and safety in the development and implementation of management
plans, fishery openings and closures.

5. BIOLOGY
Eulachon (also known as candlefish or oolichan) belong to the family Osmeridae (smelts). The scientific name for eulachon is Thaleichthys pacificus, a name derived from the Greek roots thaleia (rich), ichthys (fish), which refers to the high oil content found in these little fish and pacificus (Pacific [Ocean]), which refers to where these fish live.
Within B.C., there are 33 documented eulachon spawning rivers, but only 14 to 15 are used on a sustained basis. All known spawning rivers experience increased spring runoffs known as freshets and most drain snow packs or glaciers. The major river systems where eulachon return to spawn are the Fraser, Skeena, Nass, and Klinaklini.
Eulachon spawning is limited to the lower reaches of rivers. Their adhesive eggs, about 30,000 per female, attach to sand or pebbles and hatch in three to five weeks at ambient temperatures, usually between 3 and 10Ā° Celsius. Spawning begins in April or May on the Fraser River. Once hatched, larvae are rapidly flushed to estuarine or marine waters.
Eulachon live at sea for approximately three years before returning to natal rivers for spawning. Large post-spawning mortalities occur as eulachon die after spawning. Adults reach a length of 15 to 20 cm and weigh between 40 and 60 grams.
In B.C., eulachon may be found on the offshore shelf around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, and the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI), generally at depths of 80 to 200m.

From the 2/17/2009 Cowlitz smelt thread:

Here's a link to the WDFW smelt page (eulachon) with lots of interesting info (some I pasted below), pic's of smelt larvae, a map of the smelt spawning rivers from the Mad River in northern Cal (where I caught my first chinook) to Twentymile River in Cook Inlet in Alaska and other interesting info & links.
What I coppied/pasted below explains the "low level" sport & commercial fisheries that take place on poor years like this one.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/creel/smelt/index.htm

Prior to 1995 only minor regulation changes were adopted for Columbia River commercial and sport smelt fishing seasons. During 1960-1977 commercial smelt fisheries were open year-round 3Ā½ days per week, except for 1965 and 1966 when the season was expanded to 4Ā½ days per week. Beginning in 1978 the commercial season was expanded to seven days per week. Prior to 1986 the season was open the entire year but beginning in 1986 the season was reduced to the December-March time frame to better reflect the run timing of Columbia River smelt. Prior to 1997 the sport fishery was open seven days per week the entire year.
As Columbia River smelt abundance began to decline during the early 1990ā€™s, fishery managers recognized the need to restrict fisheries to increase escapement to spawning areas. Lower Columbia River mainstem and tributary commercial fisheries were greatly reduced beginning in 1995. During 1995 and 1996, commercial fisheries were restricted to fewer fishing days per week, but the season extended through the end of March. During 1997-2000, commercial fisheries were further reduced to test fisheries, which ended in mid to late February. These test fisheries were intended to allow minimal smelt catch to provide fishery managers with data necessary to assess the annual run strength and provide an opportunity to sample catch for biological data. Seasons during these test fisheries were severely restricted in both days per week fished and duration of the fishing season. Sport fisheries in Washington tributaries were closed early during 1997-1999 in response to continued poor smelt returns to the Columbia River.






http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Smelt.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/wa/nwfishing/smeltreports07.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/334036/subpar_smelt_run_expected_this_winter/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2004061222_outn09.html

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/hertags/2007eulawkshp.pdf

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/creel/smelt/index.htm

http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/archive/publications/reports/report6_5.php

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/pages/eulachon_e.htm

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/herring/eulachon/default_e.htm

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/eulachon.htm

This Integrated Fisheries Management Plan is intended for general purposes only. Where there is a discrepancy between the Plan and the regulations, the regulations are the final authority. A description of Areas and Subareas referenced in this Plan can be found in the Pacific Fishery Management Area Regulations
 
#3 Ā·
Holy cow.....my eyes are burning! A whole bunch of issues. I think it's safe to say we are loosing a bunch of our smelt to the shrimp guys and hopefully the cooling ocean waters will lower the hake consumption going forward.

So many variables to look at. Great information.....digging up that much info this early would have made my brain explode.:passout:
 
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