This is perhaps one of the most interesting reports Iāve ever read.
Itās 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 ābrain stormingā approach that reminded me of the Japanese philosophy I learned in business classes in the 80ās 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
āThis research priority relates to the only hypothesis which was found to be a probable
cause of the recent coast-wide declineā.
Iām 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
Hereās a hint though:
āIt 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).
Next is one of the most interesting aspects of the report which isnāt 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:
Sound familiar:
Sound familiar:
Some miscellaneous interesting quotes:
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 Iām not going to attempt to sort it out now or Iāll 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 āenlightenā some folks as to why there are ongoing sports & commercial smelt fisheries presently and other interesting data, maps & picās.
Followed by some URLās 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¦Lotās 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 āThe five main research recommendations for eulachonā in table 5 on page 46.
I couldnāt figure out a way to convert the tables to jpegās to post.
Executive Summary
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) funded a workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon which was held February 20ā22, 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 āforcing 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 yearās 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 Nationās 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
Itās 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 ābrain stormingā approach that reminded me of the Japanese philosophy I learned in business classes in the 80ās 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
āThis research priority relates to the only hypothesis which was found to be a probable
cause of the recent coast-wide declineā.
Iām 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
Hereās a hint though:
āIt 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).
Of course that all pertained to the commercial shrimp trawl fleet.
Next is one of the most interesting aspects of the report which isnāt 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:
If I didnāt know any better I might have though our own Freespool wrote this quote:
I would like to see this done here locally with salmon, smelt & sturgeon:
Sound familiar:
Againā¦could have come from one of the ifish anti-gill net threads:
This could have come from one of our own Columbia River threads or othersā¦
Sound familiar:
Something Iāve mentioned the last several years on threads here and thereā¦
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:
Some miscellaneous interesting quotes:
Referring to Pinnepeds:
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 Iām not going to attempt to sort it out now or Iāll 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 āenlightenā some folks as to why there are ongoing sports & commercial smelt fisheries presently and other interesting data, maps & picās.
Followed by some URLās 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¦Lotās 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 āThe five main research recommendations for eulachonā in table 5 on page 46.
I couldnāt figure out a way to convert the tables to jpegās to post.
Executive Summary
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) funded a workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon which was held February 20ā22, 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 āforcing 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 yearās 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 Nationās 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