– is Nicola habitat capacity underutilized and by how much – yes, but don’t know off hand by how much. Misty – even for sensitivity analyses, need to know what goals we are aiming for. Dave – about own objectives, perhaps looking at actions that increase escapement above recovery targets. Model actions and see what impacts are, perhaps ends up being much higher than needed. Misty –but good enough for what? What is recovery escapement goal. Keep coming back to fact that we have already done an exercise to assess the status, so how are we relating actions to the status of these stocks. Dave – but we don’t know what should be done to address that status, which is why we need to think of potential impacts from variety of actions. [missed some discussion of approach] Bob – looking at set of 6 stocks. like a mixture of things. Is Nicola meaning the stock or the CU? Dave – at Mar 2nd meeting – wanted a set of pilots that had good information. Bob – on habitat issue, doesn’t make sense to look at stock-specific; only useful to look at habitat issues at CU scale. CWT stock is meant to be representative of a larger area, so consideration of habitat needs to be at that scale too. Dave – so hatchery stock FW survival is not affected by actual habitat. Ryan – actually hatchery contribution to is only 25-30%, that is ~70-75% of stock is natural Chuck – agree with Bob about taking watershed perspective Arlene – [missed] Mike – probably need to aggregate up to Management Unit, because that is the scale at which harvest is managed. Need to carefully consider scale of modeling if we are working on building up model. Chuck – are we talking about scale for pilot sensitivity or the scale at which modeling framework will be Dave – both, 1 is pilot at stock scale, but scale may need to be larger for CTC – Nicola CWT is meant to be the indicator for the broader MU Bob – maybe tiered approach is good – look at harvest at MU scale, habitat at watershed
Jeff – [missed some] – need to focus on what abilities of TWG are. Looking for specific habitat actions may not be best use. Look for opportunities for overall improvement, but leave details for others more knowledgeable. Bob – PSEF - $30 million program in late 1990s from federal. Work managed by PSF, $ managed by Vancouver foundation. Focused on developing recovery plans on number of watersheds (Shuswap/Salmon R, River Inlet, Coldwater, Englishman, Nimpkish, Cowichan later under different funding and same methodology). Program eventually folded into PSF funding framework. Lots of work on habitat, some on harvest. Probably all still relevant information. Not much has changed since then. David – suggest pairing Chilliwack and Harrison, thus representing almost all Fraser lates. Dave – run them separately, or together as single. Gayle/Chuck – run them separately Dave – what CWT represents Clayoquot? Chuck/Wilf – Roberston, ocean mortality adjusted at Area 23 (?). take info from CWT to characterize Clayoquot as wild stock. Dave – so this would be another paired stock set? (Yes) [discussion of hatchery/wild contributions to each of the pilot stocks] Dave – [description of homework, to think of sensitivities] Jeff – to test out examples of this – ideas like increasing harvest by X% and by Y%, or increasing production by 200% or decreasing by 50%, or assuming increasing in productivity from habitat of 10% or 20%. Then I say, I am interested in outputs of escapement vs. benchmarks over time, and catch by fishery and by area, and overall abundance. Is that what we’re looking for. Dave – yes, except cannot estimate overall abundance if all fo the populations and stocks aren’t in there. Jeff – need to understand broader impacts on overall catch and abundance – want to know if slight reduction in Nicola results in large reductions in catch of other stocks (due to mixed stock) [missed] Dave – often most useful to look at relative changes between scenarios instead of absolute. May be dangers with absolute predictions if analyses don’t include all stocks.
Like to see hatchery production further upriver More can benefit N/S/L Thompson Upper Fraser FN may be concerned about big hatcheries (e.g., in Shuswap) in terms increased pressure on natural stocks Work with natural fish from region first, before transplanting (sometimes works, sometimes don’t) – need to talk to FN in area about how they feel Wanli Ou Question about hatcheries – are they managed to a certain ratios of wild/natural Ryan – annual assessment of each line of production – goals, rearing/release strategies, operational guidance Guidelines on broodstock proportions/contributions, but varies by production and objectives (i.e., different objectives for harvest-focused hatchery like Robertson) Need to further about hatcheries Try low, medium, high harvest – see what happens Question about CTC – includes constant natural mortality Gayle – [missed] Any way to vary mortality parameters of DGM Gayle – need to learn more – some parameters can be varied over a run, some would have to be varied between runs – interested to see what effects of variation in natural/incidental mortality rates Chuck – what is the management action, don’t want to send TWG down a path of investigating something that has no potential for actual action and is just academic interest Dave – but may be useful in combination with looking at increased hatchery production – how much enhancement gets consumed by predators Tony Roberts, Jr. [missed] Concerns with hatcheries – produces lots of fish than come down Johnstone Strait with our fish Our fish get caught in these mixed fisheries Many of our streams poorly Need to do on-ground work to determine where our fish are going What is the composition of fishery Jeff – want to see effect of actions on local populations