Meeting Notes - ESSA - Environmental Consulting, Adaptive...

NOTES: Technical Working Group Meeting – Tools for Evaluating Strategic Options March 2, 2015

Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative – Technical Working Group

Models and Tools for Evaluating Strategic Management Options – Meeting Notes

March 2, 2015Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC

ContentsModels and Tools for Evaluating Strategic Management Options – Meeting Notes...................................1

Purpose of this Document.......................................................................................................................3

Attendees................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................3

Jeff Grout, DFO....................................................................................................................................3

Mark Saunders, DFO............................................................................................................................3

Dave Marmorek, ESSA Technologies...................................................................................................4

Background – General Characteristics of Southern BC Chinook Salmon Life History, Fisheries and Hatchery Production (Gayle Brown)........................................................................................................5

Overview of New CTC Simulation Tool (Gayle Brown).............................................................................6

The PSC Coast Wide Chinook Model....................................................................................................6

CTC Data Generator (DGM).................................................................................................................6

Hatchery-Harvest Analysis Tool for Strategic Hatchery Production Planning (Ryan Galbraith)...............7

Other Tools..............................................................................................................................................9

Current Tools: Assessment of Tools Ready for Analyses in 2015...........................................................10

Future Tools: High Potential Tools in Development..............................................................................15

Moving forward – Next Steps................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX 1: Flip Charts.........................................................................................................................22

APPENDIX 2: Submitted Comments on Unknowns................................................................................26

APPENDIX 3: Meeting Presentations.....................................................................................................27

1


Purpose of this DocumentThis purpose of this document is to provide a reference package for the proceedings of the March 2nd Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting. It includes extensive notes from the entire day, the notes from the flip chart throughout the day, and copies of the presentations given in the morning.

The notes provide a detailed record (i.e., minutes) of the discussions but does not included a synthesis of each topic. The intent is to provide a reference that can be used to review the details of particular discussions as needed, rather than a formal workshop report.

Attendees1. Jeff Grout2. Alex Hall3. Wilf Luedke4. Mike Staley5. Rupert Gale6. Jeremy Maynard7. Roger Dunlop8. Ryan Galbraith9. Jason Smith10. Sabrina Crowley

11. Eric Angel12. Louise de

Mestral Bezanson

13. Mike Bradford14. Jason Mahoney15. Steve Rossi16. Ashleen Benson17. Misty MacDuffee18. Andy Rosenberg

19. Mike Hawkshaw20. Ben Nelson21. Sarah Hawkshaw22. Chuck Parken23. Trevor Davies24. Gisele

Magnusson25. Karl English26. Gayle Brown27. Steve Baillie

28. Mark Saunders29. Kelsey Campbell30. Arlene Tompkins31. Marc Trudel32. Chrys Neville33. Cheri Ayers34. Teresa Ryan35. Richard Bailey36. Dave Marmorek

Introduction

Jeff Grout, DFORegional Resource Manager – Salmon; Fisheries Management Branch, DFO

- CSPI (southern BC Chinook Strategic Planning Initiative) – bilateral First Nations and DFO process, led by Jeff Grout (co-chair), Mark Saunders, Ryan Galbraith from DFO and Ken Malloway (co-chair) from Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat (FRAFS)

- CSPI initiated because of declines observed in Chinook- Technical information is challenging, need to understand what best available info is to make

decisions on how to move forwardo Today’s discussion to try to line up what tools might be most beneficial for achieving

progress within the CSPI

Mark Saunders, DFODivision Manager, Salmon and Freshwater Ecosystems; Science Branch, DFO

- Work on Chinook for last few years has been a priority, after emerging from Sockeye focus

2


o May have been an inquiry on Chinook, if had not been on Sockeye- Working through WSP is an ongoing learning experience - Excited to see the wide participation in TWG – just short of representation across the region- Increasing participation – other younger academics

o CFRN – different way of forging ways of working together

Dave Marmorek, ESSA Technologies- Goal of TWG (Technical Working Group) is to provide technical support to the SPC (Steering and

Planning Committee)- 2013/14 – first “iteration” of process

o Predominantly qualitative evaluation of broad strategic directions- Now – goal to use quantitative tools to make more rigorous evaluations and help SPC narrow

definition of alternatives- SPC & TWG roles

o Differing values may lead to multiple preferences of SPC- 5-step WSP planning process – see slide- Chicken and egg

o SPC wanted to know more about system outcomes of different types of actions before specifying potentially acceptable management alternatives to be evaluated

o TWG could only evaluate broad, general strategies from SPC- General timeline – see slide- Alternative Strategic Directions from 2014

o Very broado Some examples of how they could be more explicitly specified

- Qualitative evaluations by TWG – workshop and survey process (see 2014 report)o Quantitative roll-ups of qualitative evaluationso Open ended questions – rich source of information and predictions based on expert

knowledge- SPC process for expressing preferences among the broad alternatives

o Discuss alternative – what is meant, what is assumedo Express acceptability with clickero Look at results and have dialogue about different perspectives and rationales for

decisionso Re-do expression of acceptability and see how the results change based on dialogue

- Learning strategieso Started with many non-action actions (learning, research, policy, monitoring, etc.)o Process for narrowing down priority learning actions is described in final report

- Intended work going forwardo Decision analysis type of framework

Strategies, uncertain states of nature, objectives and PMs

3


o Draft schedule outline Iterations of defining scenarios, evaluating, reviewing results, modifying

scenarios- Challenges

o Nested spatial scaleso Many CUs – regional aggregation appropriate?o Only 11/35 CUs have CWT datao Current availability of appropriate toolso DFO resources – staff time and/or funding

- Objectives of this workshop o Prepare TWG for March 25-26 workshopo Identify and review tools available for assessing SPC alternativeso Identify gaps and solutions

- Objectives of March 25-26o Improve understanding between SPC & TWGo TWG learns questions and scenarios that SPC want to assess, including sensitivity

analyses to help SPC craft strategieso SPC understands available quantitative tools, including strengths and weaknesseso Identify questions/scenarios to be evaluated quantitatively by the TWG (and others) to

help SPC develop strategic plano TWG understands outputs SPC would like to seeo Develop realistic work plan to March 2016, including 2 iterations to develop & evaluate

alternativeso Review draft Table of Contents for Integrated Strategic Plan

- Task process – see ppt.- Principles and roles – see ppt.

Background – General Characteristics of Southern BC Chinook Salmon Life History, Fisheries and Hatchery Production (Gayle Brown)Chinook life history – unique characteristics that are important to consider in terms of modeling (i.e., these attributes make Chinook particularly difficult to simulate

- Provides brief reminder on context for why Chinook are modeled and managed in the way they are

- Juvenile Age typeso Determining ocean entry

- Adult run timingo Determines vulnerability to ocean fisheries, FW fisheries, stream temperature

- Extensive migrations – 3 broad patterns- Diverse age-maturation patterns

4


o Each brood has multi-year exposure to ocean stressors (biological and human)- Sectors

o Just about every sector and gear type catches Chinook- Types – terminal, FW, mixed stock Ocean fisheries, major US fisheries, incidental fishing

mortality can be high/stock-specific- High cultural/economic value

o Cultural and social importanceo Commercial/recreational sectors important to communities

- Hatchery productiono Long historyo Extensive / cannot be ignoredo Hatchery fish follow migration patterns but can be altered by ocean-ranchingo Stock recruitment relationships are not the same as natural stocks

Overview of New CTC Simulation Tool (Gayle Brown)

The PSC Coast Wide Chinook Model- Features and capabilities

o Only comprehensive modelo Developed over 30-35 yearso Predominantly – “what happened”, with some ability for “what if” analyseso Uses CWT info as inputo Total mortality = landed + incidentalo Non-retention – for released Chinook (some mortality occurs)o Can model fishery mgt strategies – numerous outputs (see slide)o Primary objective – pre-season planning tool, setting TAC

- Limitationso Single annual time-stepo Single poolo Deterministico Projection only for 2 yearso Structure difficult to modify

Substantial job to update “base period” datao Limited scenario testing

- Improvements (see slide)o Extensions, conversions & additions

5


CTC Data Generator (DGM)- Extensive inputs- Can be used as gaming tool to test scenarios

o Various parameters can be manipulated- Must incorporate all stocks occurring in region of interest (i.e., US stocks)- Outputs – produces all key outputs- Example of type of data inputs (e.g. , CTCstocks.csv)

o Highly modifiableo Uncertainty in parameters

- Simulation tool o will run multiple runs at onceo # of years, specify time periodso Single pool or multi-pool model (can specify migration)

- Tool is still in developmento Has been tested – runs fairly well – only with 5 stocks & 5 fisherieso Program can be run right now (without interface)o Current work is to improve interfaces/integration

- Work plan steps/needo Develop list stockso Fishery list – maybe already existingo Develop scenarioso Develop metrics of interesto Develop programs (i.e., R scripts) to process output datao Additional work (programmed in VB express 2012)

Add other new parameters (i.e., FW survival) Some input parameters have the ability to put changes in over time

Hatchery-Harvest Analysis Tool for Strategic Hatchery Production Planning (Ryan Galbraith)

- (“New SEP analysis tool” in agenda)- Still in development- Big picture – will help weigh tradeoffs between different types of options- Cannot change hatcheries independent of other effects

o Could change harvestingo Could alter conservationo Changes information available

- Background – see slideo Hoping to provide information to answer questions that hadn’t been able to be

answered in SPC / TWG process last year

6


o E.g., “what would happen if we changed production by X amount”- Developments

o Trying to maintain compatibility with other toolso Use common data sets to CTC model (as much as possible)

- Data sourceso See slideo Large/variable uncertaintieso Some data recent, some much older

- Methods and outputso Biomass of releases (easier than # of fish, due to different sizes/ages at release)o See slide for outline of basic method

- Assumptions and uncertaintieso Survival/catch indicators assumed to be representative

Will be assumed that outputs have large error barso Doesn’t account for sex

- Next stepso Current form will give broad indications

- Conclusionso Broad indications for comparing scenarioso Could inform elements of SBC Chinook planningo Continue reviewing, validating input/outputso Progress – dependent on resources (currently uncertain)

DAVE MARMOREK – able to use CTC outputs as inputs? what about feeding outputs back into CTC?

RYAN GALBRAITH – theoretically will be possible, but only starting to discuss integration possibilities

MIKE STALEY – linked production means hatchery only?

RYAN GALBRAITH – other non-indicator, both hatchery and wild

MISTY MACDUFFEE – [missed]

RYAN GALBRAITH – doesn’t account for environmental changes

RICHARD BAILEY – does it use old CTC fisheries that only represent Fraser as single terminal, vs. new CTC that will project benefits within the Fraser

7


RYAN GALBRAITH – don’t currently know

GAYLE BROWN – will also depend on when CTC improvements are available

CHUCK PARKEN – using CTC tables right now that aggregate Fraser Fisheries, but updated tables (with more detail on specific fisheries) could be future improvements

Other Tools- Other tools available in 2015 for crafting, evaluating scenarios- ARLENE TOMPKINS – stock assessment programs or SEP analyses can be linked at CU levels;

allows exploration of larger picture- RYAN GALBRAITH – lot of assessment framework is integrated across sectors, Arlene is talking

about whole lot of work to try to bring it all together- DAVE MARMOREK – maybe possibility focusing on specific CUs where data / modeling is good –

waiting until all CUs can be addressed will not work within timelines- MARK SAUNDERS – big interest in straying [missed some]

o GAYLE BROWN – stray rates not in current CTC, but want to include- RYAN GALBRAITH – working on trying to incorporate straying – currently working on the paper- WILF LUEDKE – there is a whole level of detailed models specific to individual stocks and

fisheries, as compared to CTC model which is very high-level

- MARC TRUDEL – modeling is going to be done under assumptions of similar marine survival?o GAYLE BROWN – not necessarilyo MARC TRUDEL – others (PSF and LLTK) trying to work on better estimating marine

survivalo GAYLE BROWN – CTC DSM explicitly allows for changes in survival rates over time; but

currently only has one survival rate from smolt phase to juvenile ocean phases (cannot incorporate details like estuary effects)

Survival rates are built in for moving forward in CTC DSM Coast Wide model based on what HAS happened (uses past survival rates)

- TERESA RYAN – still don’t have a tool to incorporate TEK; most of the fishing is lower river and ocean; some TEK on other practices could be tested to evaluate (i.e., traditional FN practices could provide improvement for Chinook)

- JEFF GROUT – would also be beneficial to use models retrospectively for “what if” analyses; can these tools allow us to look at how things may have turned out differently if we had applied different managements approaches

- GAYLE BROWN – some capability for retrospective analyses – cumbersome, but possible to do it. Coast wide model only looks 2 years into future.

8


- MARK SAUNDERS – something to think about – still doesn’t seem completely convincing that these tools will be fully ready to run and apply this year – what about other pragmatic approaches for evaluating scenarios THIS year in a way that will be useful to SPC – are there other approaches that could be used now, or do we have to wait until we have the full suite ready

Current Tools: Assessment of Tools Ready for Analyses in 2015- DAVE MARMOREK – including social and economic models

o Objectives are to be able to assess changes in harvest, hatchery, habitat- WILF LUEDKE – broad scale models can’t really link to actual strategies

o These are high-level models – will show you that if you change Ricker alpha, everything else changes, but doesn’t help with the strategies that you would need to apply in order to achieve that change Ricker alpha

o Need to work at the lower scale to understand actual priorities- DAVE MARMOREK – could try to do at number of smaller scales to see common patterns- WILF LUEDKE – have we scoped correctly – science panel and CTC suggest limited benefits of

changing harvest, so why is this still a benefit?- RICHARD BAILEY – we don’t have the information to assess small changes in levers (5-10%), we

only have ability to consider on/off switches; need to reconsider what level of management changes can actually be measured/simulated

- DAVE MARMOREK – what about economic changes; tools that DFO uses for assessments?o GISELE MAGNUSSON – No ready “tools”, but examples of the types of analyses that

could be done. Will never be able to do assessments at the level of CUs, need to have much more coarse. Other approaches - Eric?

o ERIC ANGEL – input/output analyses of rec/commercial is one approach, but very coarse, only at provincial level

- WILF LUEDKE – what does scale of assessment for models need to be – comparisons among high level scenarios or actions within a scenario

o i.e., tradeoff analyses of water use – ecological vs. agriculture- DAVE MARMOREK – [missed]- TERESA RYAN – other values that can be measured as economic benefits other than just fish.

Other ecosystem linkages have economic benefits. Increased abundance can drive other benefits. Hypothesize how to increase productivity, then can measure benefits of linkages.

- JEFF GROUT – re: Wilf’s comments, Science Panel didn’t really address that issue – SP said “if productivity is 50%, then ER should be…” but we don’t actually know how the productivity has changed

- MISTY MACDUFFEE – still don’t know what the interaction between hatchery and wild fish are. SEP model seems to assume that reduced hatchery production is negative for fishery, but we don’t actually know

9


- DAVE MARMOREK – could CTC DGM model represent hatchery/wild interactions – i.e, scenario of increasing hatchery production to offset reduced ocean survival in populations.

- ROGER DUNLOP – Wilf says ER is about the same as the Panel’s predicted – are those overall ER or age-specific rates? Accounting for size selection

o WILF LUEDKE – not age specific. problems to address in fishery – are fish getting smaller?

- DAVE MARMOREK – what would be the impact be of using the CTC DGM as the primary tool for assessing Chinook strategy

o 11 of 35 CUs have CWT info – would work this year be constrained to the 11 CWT stocks, or could it be a larger set with some stocks believed to be reasonably well represented by indicators stocks

- GAYLE BROWN – have compiled (with Mary Thiess) all the CWT data, assessing quality of datao Almost all CUs have some CWT info – so have at least some info on distribution (catch

distribution)o With CTC DGM, distribution of stocks and fisheries can be specified

- WILF LUEDKE – hard to see how the model really works without actually seeing ito How do you work in details like avoided stocks, while still modeling the big picture

- GAYLE BROWN – you can specify the details – e.g., size restrcitions, stock restrictionso Intention of building this was to be able to look at potential impacts of different types of

fishery management decisions- DAVE MARMOREK – need to distinguish between strategic and tactical

o Want to see big changes – if overall harvest changed in numerous fisheries, certain changes in hatcheries and given level of habitat improvement, do you see a substantial difference in the overall trajectory

o Then if you see a broad strategy that results in desired coarse level of change, then start to think about how you would change individual actions to achieve the overall strategic formulation

- MARK SAUNDERS – how do you assess a cumulative strategy that results from a whole set of tactical actions

o E.g., will continue to get money for habitat restoration, but how do we role this up to estimate regional impacts

o GAYLE BROWN – can program increased levels of productivity over time based on habitat improvements (need to make assumptions about what the impact would be)

Not saying this is the ultimate tool, but it appears to have the essential elements of a framework to do some analyses to see what is even possible

It is a starting point – before we had nothing to do this type of analyses

10


- DAVE MARMOREK – Snake river – went through 7 stocks and determine which actually have potential for improvement (some still pristine, some already hammered), then focus on ones with possible gain

- KARL ENGLISH – clarify Wilf’s question about what the model actually does – it appears to be a way of changing assumptions, a simulation for gaming, to see what the impact would be. It is not for detailed retrospective analyses or planning of actions. Need to have other model/monitoring to determine whether the assumptions are true (e.g., did habitat improvement actually improve productivity) – it’s not going to help evaluate what you did

- WILF LUEDKE – simple tool in the Cowichan – gaming in FW survival and fishery – see what habitat improvement is necessary to offset certain loss

o If gaming shows potential improvement in abundance from increase in FW productivity, then that’s the obvious type of action needed (e.g., action to improve FW productivity) – but real question is how do you actually improve that productivity

- RUPERT GALE – not sure if this can be done in aggregate across all CUs – makes more sense to follow Snake River example – look at each stock and determine best approach

- DAVE MARMOREK – for example, Science Panel, and Patterson and McIsaac, suggested that FW not likely the major factor

- MARK SAUNDERS – more recent work on Didymo suggests there could be broad scale drivers that affect even pristine watershed – Panel conclusions might need to be revisited

- MIKE BRADFORD – but panel was asked (similar to sockeye) what factors are most likely drivers of recent declines – this is not the same as assessing the impact of habitat on the populations over the longer period of time

o [missed - discussion of 1990s Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund watershed assessments]- KARL ENGLISH – lots of experience in modeling – I see the value, but how do you decide what

actions to do. Go back to actions discussed i.e., reductions in harvest. Then look at where would you make the reductions in harvest in order to achieve the overall reductions. Can make expert judgments on probability that the portfolio of actions would be >50% chance of improving stock. Then feed into models, but models are just going to confirm assumptions (that were specified for the model run). Need to specify the actions first, then do the detailed modeling. Don’t start with modeling.

- RYAN GALBRAITH – need to have more of a focus on CUs or groups of CUs and tailor actions to them. Worry that we’re not addressing what the “problem statement” is for each group or CU. For some CUs or groups of CUs, it could be possible to spend $$$$$ and not see any improvement at all. Doubt that we can come up with sweeping strategies that apply across the entire region. Need to tailor focus.

- KARL ENGLISH – [missed]- RICHARD BAILEY – interior stocks, some have habitat issues in limited areas, some water use

issues, but most of the probably have little you can do to improve habitat. The only thing to do in some places is remove the water licenses

- DAVE MARMOREK – seeing two approaches

11


o Study intensely to determine biggest threats and limiting factors before specifying any actions that should be taking place

o Eliminate types of actions that are not possible/applicable – then look at remaining options

o Could do both in parallel, then bring the info to the SPC – here are the actions where there is the greatest chance of seeing actual changes

- MARC TRUDEL – one lever not looked at is marine. May have some bias based on my research, but we know that marine survival is an issue. Often we hear that there are no mgt levers because we cannot control the ocean environments, but depends on what specific problems are. For example if predators are the major threat, predator control is a lever. If forage is important threat, then protect forage stocks as your lever.

- CHRYS NEVILLE – should focus also on stocks doing well and understand 1) why are they doing well, and 2) make sure we are protecting these stocks.

- KARL ENGLISH – go through process of deduction looking at what doesn’t appear to be important for different stocks, then add up the tick marks

o Perhaps many different assessments of different stocks all point to a one thing – e.g., marine survival

o If you do an action, need to have the detailed monitoring to give real data to assess whether the action had any impact

- DAVE MARMOREK – think that you still need a model to drive predictions to shape monitoring program and expected timelines of potential benefits

- KARL ENGLISH – need to think about the actions to take then determine what model will help you assess what the impact of that action might have

- JEFF GROUT – returning to SPC broad actions – could use model to get a sense of equivalency between different broad actions.

o What would impact of 15% coast wide reduction in harvest rate look likeo What magnitude of change in hatchery production would produce equivalent changeo There is reluctance to ride one strategy – what if you’re wrong – there is strong interest

in taking a multiple dimension approacho Models have a role to give a relative sense of what actions are comparable

- DAVE MARMOREK – [missed]- CHUCK PARKEN – sensitivity is an important part. Trying to understand what types of actions

actually have a direct implication to what the SPC is interested in. - BEN NELSON – updating diet studies for harbor seals. Updating the information foundation from

the 80s.o MISTY MACDUFFEE - Distinguishing between general food web predation and

problematic predation?o BEN NELSON – yes

- KARL ENGLISH – run reconstruction tool for the Fraser. Not run off CWT (timing informed by CWT, but not run from). Based off catch and escapement. Is a tool to assess harvest actions within one large basin.

12


- GAYLE BROWN – there is still a role for a larger approach that estimates returns to the river. Don’t have good in-season data. need to get abundance to the Fraser.

- KARL ENGLISH – obviously tool cannot be used for fisheries outside of the Fraser, but helpful for assessing fisheries in the Fraser.

- GAYLE BROWN – 2014 had record abundances of Columbia Chinook. Drives higher abundance estimates for entire coast, which then drives much higher harvest rate. Now seeing very low abundance in some far-north migrating stocks that are already at low abudnace. Need to be able to see what’s going on at the higher level.

- MIKE STALEY – we need both- DAVE MARMOREK – hierarchy of tools and interactions (see flipchart)- RUPERT GALE – take a few diverse locations (e.g., Cowichan, somewhere with limited habitat

improvement, somewhere completely different), then apply the models to these locations as an example of the types of inputs, outputs, the types of analyses

o A few tangible analyses- DAVE MARMOREK – great idea. But also need to have caveats on potential impacts of actions in

one stock on other stocks (e.g., a hatchery action will have impacts on other)- WILF LUEDKE – can combine with Karl’s approach. Try to place all of the stocks on the H-H-H

space to indicate what the most dominant influences are.- ROGER DUNLOP – productivity has to be related to cation-exchange capacity. Have lost the bank

on the island from cutting down all the trees, and the bank has been closed in the interior due to 100 years of fire suppression. After trees are lost, single storm washes away cation-exchange capacity. Cation-exchange capacity used to be maintained in interior by fire cycle, and maintained on coast in old forest.

- RUPERT GALE – [missed – need to run some quantitative modeling to get idea of range]- DAVE MARMOREK – could do sensitivity analyses on a subset of stocks/CUs, as a way of testing

and getting idea of range of outcomes, then take to SPC to share. Then SPC can react to how the outputs are presented – is this useful to them?

o how could this work be done- GAYLE BROWN – cannot say for sure. DFO can do the work to provide the inputs. No way that

DFO has the resources to actually do the work – need funding and people.- WILF LUEDKE – [missed question]- GAYLE BROWN – [missed most] – tool allows exploration of multiple types of interactions and

results may not be what was expected.- DAVE MARMOREK – so need to actually work through all the details to understand what the

impacts may be- WILF LUEDKE – what I’m hearing, you need to actually get into the details of tactics in order to

run this model- GAYLE BROWN – yes, you need to specify how it is that you will achieve the actions

13


- DAVE MARMOREK – important thing from Gayle – DFO doesn’t have the people to run the models. Are there people from universities with interest, or know masters’ sutdents looking for project work?

- ARLENE TOMPKINS – Gayle is saying that you can run these complex scenarios and sometimes get results that are counterintuitive, but with the CTC coast wide model, we have years and years of running the model and then seeing what happened, so this could be useful

o RICHARD BAILEY – but not useful for Fraser because it was always aggregated. But might be informative outside Strait of Georgia

- SARAH HAWKSHAW – thesis project is doing case study of WCVI mixed-stock fishery, modeling biological / conservation outcomes. Model will not be available in 2015.

- TERESA RYAN – that project is part of an industrial collaboration. Went through a process of identifying what the research needs are. Need to be able to identify research needs first, then attract students.

- DAVE MARMOREK – any sense of other people who might be able to do the work in universitieso MIKE HAWKSHAW – depends on timeline – won’t be able to get results from a Masters’

or PhDs within 2 years. If the work needs to be done sooner, then probably better aimed at Profs, post-docs, research associates.

o E.g., Sean Cox, Scott Hinch, John Reynolds, John Moore, Rashid S.- DAVE MARMOREK – seems like DFO is in the “little time” row of the diagram- ASHLEEN BENSON – depends on the scope of question and what actually needs to be done. Not

really sure exactly what is being asked. Scoping scenarios, defining performance measures, running models, summarizing – some of these tasks could be substantial undertakings. WSP is meant to include social and economic dimensions, but this is just about biological. Not clear what resolution/specificity is possible in the model. Don’t understand the scope of the management problem (also haven’t been involved in process)

- KARL ENGLISH – not talking about using one model. Need multiple models for different aspects of the problem. Currently talking about CTC DSM because Gayle needs to get from 5 stock, 5 fishery version to a more comprehensive version.

- ASHLEEN BENSON – what are the performance metrics; is it about tradeoffs between sectors or stocks, or CUs; are the performance metrics determined by the modeling exercises [missed some of this]

o Ashleen and Sean Cox have started company – management scenario analyses, would be interested in work to establish objectives and do modeling

- DAVE MARMOREK – need people to work on the other models while Gayle et al. are getting CTC DGM up and going

o Use models to test range of potential outcomes from range of actions on “case studies” or “straw dog”

14


Future Tools: High Potential Tools in DevelopmentDAVE MARMOREK – what are various pieces that are ongoing that would be useful for informing management decisions in the future (i.e., post-March 2016)

KARL ENGLISH – need to build in monitoring program. After doing sometime, need to be able to assess whether it’s had any impact. Need another indicator stock in the interior. Discussion of using Chilko as an indicator.

DAVE MARMOREK – wasn’t there some movement toward that?

RYAN GALBRAITH – looking at feasibility of enhancing Chilko fish on top of assessment work that Richard’s being doing.

RICHARD BAILEY – assessment work is now over until there is more money. That was step one of a number of further steps that would be need to done to determine the feasibility of an actual hatchery indicators stock. First step was highly successful, but much work remains. Also need to maintain ongoing relationship with Chilcotin Nat’l Government if it is to be successful

ASHLEEN BENSON – Aaron Springford’s individual-based model to look at impact of temperature on tagged fish.

STEVE ROSSI – research working on generalized forward run reconstruction model, which was developed and run for Fraser sockeye, now being run for Chum

DAVE MARMOREK – what is known about temperature effects on Chinook (i.e., enroute mortality)?

RICHARD BAILEY – been working in Thompson since 1995 but only ever witnessed large pre-spawn mortality in 1998.

CHUCK PARKEN – saw large pre-spawn in lower Thompson (2001 or 2002), seen large pre-spawn mortality in lower Shuswap. Classified as pre-spawn, not enroute mortality. Some enroute mortality.

MIKE STALEY – but no estimates of enroute – don’t have the data necessary

CHUCK PARKEN – have observed such events, more frequent in past 15 years, but don’t know what will happen in future. Not nearly the same level as sockeye (major issue).

RICHARD BAILEY – major issue with lakes that are heat sinks. Also major problem with decreasing streams (i.e., with water withdrawal on the Nicola) – then saw large losses (e.g., 1998)

DAVE MARMOREK – looking forward, what information might be coming out of Salish Sea Marine Survival study or other research.

CHRYS NEVILLE – have 15 years of survival studies, working to identify patterns with environmental factors. Seeing variation from what was historically reported as distribution (actual change, or effect of

15


different methods). Being reported right now. With Timber and others, have a rotary screwtrap in lower Fraser – targeting sockeye, but have been collecting outmigrating Chinook – starting to learn about timing of migration. But it stops in July (beause it’s a sockeye project) and therefore doesn’t capture South Thompson Chinook. DNA analyses of juvenile Chinook – seeing changes in migration, also changes in depth in water column (analyses not complete)

BEN NELSON – on marine mammal side of marine survival – colleague just about to publish updated diet info on seals, then we’ll work on conversion to consumption figures. Hoping to have manuscript by the fall on Strait-wide estimate of harbor seal predation of Chinook and Coho. Also, aquarium has seal-mounted PIT tag readers to identify juvenile predation events.

DAVE MARMOREK – updated estimates of Harbour Seal abundance?

BEN NELSON – last estimate in 2008, hoping for updated estimates soon

DAVE MARMOREK – sea lions?

BEN NELSON – less work on sea lions, trying but much more logistically difficult than for seals

DAVE MARMOREK – Dave Preikshot ecosim model?

BEN NELSON – part of research is to build stage-specific model to estimate impact of seals on juveniles (modeling seals basically as a fishing fleet on the juvenile)

RUPERT GALE – critical importance to maintain catch monitoring programs – very dependent on this information

CHRYS NEVILLE – PSF Salish Sea project looking at marine survival. we are also looking at marine growth. Christi Millers’s lab also looking at. Looking at other animals too. Early in the work, so don’t know what the impacts will look like. Also addresses a hatchery/wild interaction. In addition, record numbers of pink salmon are returning – no fishery on them, but they are interacting with other salmon pops.

DAVE MARMOREK – hatchery/wild interaction?

CHRYS NEVILLE – looking at otoliths for several years. Seeing differences in Coho between wild and hatchery fish, but don’t know what they’re responding to.

DAVE MARMOREK – updates since science panel on estimating early marine survival

CHRYS NEVILLE – could likely develop early marine survival indicator for some Chinook groups, but not for others

JEFF GROUT – what about All-H analyszer model?

16


DAVE MARMOREK – think it would be similar to what the new CTC tool will be able to do, and so much has been invested in this similar tool but specifically for Chinook. Don’t see the value in working to adapt a different tool from the Columbia.

DAVE MARMOREK – what about the PSEF work? Would it be beneficial to go back and synthesize?

MIKE BRADFORD – several watersheds were done – 4?

RUPERT GALE – do we have the tools to monitor changes in habitat?

DAVE MARMOREK – not much; have air photos, and some land use

MIKE BRADFORD – we monitor temperature. Some info on land use change over time, but relatively little. Much more substantial work done in Columbia, but still might be difficult to actually detect any change. Billion dollars has been sunk into Columbia – do we know what the improvement from restoration has been?

[missed some]

DAVE MARMOREK – would it be beneficial to have someone/student pull together all of the information available for assessing/triaging info on habitat changes over time.

WILF LUEDKE – that’s what we’ve done in Cowichan – start with pulling together all of the available info. But this is done at a local scale. And it’s expensive. Doing it for the West Coast too. For Barkely Sound, $60-70K to pull together all available info.

DAVE MARMOREK – apply this approach to case studies? Somewhere in Thompson?

RICHARD BAILEY – very different bioclimatic systems above and below Coldwater, also valley bottom vs. higher elevation. [missed – lots of details on habitat characteristics and concerns within specific systems]. Salmon and Nicola are areas where we might see habitat issues.

CHUCK PARKEN – Bessette system also one where you might see habitat issues.

MIKE BRADFORD – scale issues – if you are looking at a tributary in the Thompson, but all the production is coming from one major stock, then all the habitat improvement in a trib might be of no benefit at all. The objectives are to increase abundance system wide, which is different than objectives to recover for a specific tributary.

RICHARD BAILEY – the one stage where they have no choice to be is during time in gravel – so if there are issues then (water levels, groundwater withdrawals) they may be very substantial.

JEFF GROUT – is TWG at point to be able to identify which CUs are the top candidates for habitat assessment

17


DAVE MARMOREK – [missed – “habitat light” assessment]. When the habitat stressor work of Porter et al. was presented at the Chinook Science Panel workshop, many people reacted that although it was using all available information in a GIS framework, it didn’t include this or that specific detail.

BEN NELSON – if you want to do habitat light assessment, and think about marine (FW also important) and get an estimate of marine survival rates, then a way of scoping to a masters’ level project would be to focus on estuaries, just to river terminus. Similar work done by Magnusson and Hilborn in Puget sound in early 2000s.

DAVE MARMOREK – what other tools?

WILF LUEDKE – lots of other work going on. Straying research. Otolith microchemistry – to determine where in watershed production was happening.

CHRYS NEVILLE – work with Parental Based Tagging going on. Vaccination work on vibrio too.

DAVE MARMOREK – re: SEP tool – only looks at enhanced stocks?

RYAN GALBRAITH – yes.

DAVE MARMOREK – how does it account for fisheries

RYAN GALBRAITH – uses the CTC mortality table to account for mortalities in different fisheries

RICHARD BAILEY – would it account for changes in the abundance index and therefore how it would affect AABM fisheries

CHUCK PARKEN – no. mortalities in CTC table are based on where mortalities did happen. Doesn’t work for predictions that might change abundances.

Moving forward – Next StepsDAVE MARMOREK – idea. (someone) put together idea of case studies approach to present to SPC. This is how we could proceed with some analyses. Think of examples that might be good to use.

WILF LUEDKE – have we already done a bit of the prioritization through the habitat cumulative effects analyses that Marc Porter has been doing.

DAVE MARMOREK – think this is something quite different. That is similar to the risk rating work before. As compared to Karl’s suggestion of determining what actions are possible for a particular CU/stocks, then run through the model.

JEFF GROUT – is there some preliminary show and tell that could be done to the SPC – show what types of outputs would be possible. Some examples properly.

18


GAYLE BROWN – no time to run, but can talk about what the model is capable of

RYAN GALBRAITH – yes, that would be our idea as well – show some ideas about what it could do, and types of outputs

DAVE MARMOREK – types of outputs would be useful for SPC to understand and provide feedback on

ARLENE TOMPKINS – talking about current tools and future tools, but major question is what do you want to be able to do with the models. What is trying to be achieved?

DAVE MARMOREK – want a more quantitative analysis of different management actions/scenarios to inform the development of a strategic plan. Need to be able to produce a plan that says, “over the next 5 years, these are the actoins that should be taken for the best chance of recovering SBC chinook populaitons and achieving the objectives of the SPC” – what are the models needed to inform these decisions

MISTY MACDUFFEE – what is the confidence in the stock-recruit functions in the model? How well are we able to assess where we are vs. MSY.

GAYLE BROWN/CHUCK PARKEN – [missed some] quite confident on some aspects

RICHARD BAILEY – need to have about 25 cohorts before doing comprehensive reconstruction. Have this for Nicola, but still 12 years to go on the Shuswap

CHUCK PARKEN – [missed]

DAVE MARMOREK – what’s the all-star lineup for potential case studies, with best available data, and diverse subset of CUs/stocks

GAYLE BROWN – want at least one in each ocean migration type

RYAN GALBRAITH – stuck with stocks with CWT

[missed a bunch]

Case study list – from flipchart

- Nicola, Cowichan, Robertson, Clayoquot Sound, Harrison, Lower Shuswapo Mixture of ocean distributionso Mixture of hatchery productiono Mixture of fishery impact typeso Mixture of life history typeso Mixture of geographic distributiono Mixture of abundance / magnitude

- Assess limiting factors for these stocks- Use existing tools to assess strategies

19


o What levers?o What settings?

DAVE MARMOREK – is the work plan realistic? Don’t want to present work plan if it isn’t going to work.

[missed some about setting up for next workshop and timeline of work through summer]

KARL ENGLISH – focus on each of the case stocks. Identify what actions are needed to recover the sotcks, then determin whate analysis has to be done to evaluate the actions, then determine if models exist, if so use, if not, what is needed. Working with a new model is concerning when it hasn’t had the time to be tested and validated and had issues ironed out. Should be cautious about using a new model and then accepting the answers as being true.

DAVE MARMOREK – what tool would be used to e.g., assess impacts on hatchery actions on Nicola?

KARL ENGLISH – use the CWT data

CHUCK PARKEN – stepped approach, first use CWT data for reduction, then assess how many will then be intercepted by later fisheries. Start simple and add more complexity as possible. CTC DGM is trying to get more realistic than the PSC Coast Wide Model which is single pool, single timestep. Can then use the DGM to do some gaming to explore different.

DAVE MARMOREK – hearing Gayle say we need more work to get this DGM tool going, and Karl saying don’t rely on new model but use existing tools. But assessment of existing tools indicated that we don’t’ have any tools capable of this type of analysis, to look at different types of combinations.

WILF LUEDKE – but why are we trying to do gaming? Think it is more a risk assessment problem, to determine which actions are most appropriate for each CU/stock.

DAVE MARMOREK – helpful to understand that, to manage expectations of what we’re doing

GAYLE BROWN – important to remind that in Chinook world, we have lots of really good quality data, in particular through the CWT program.

KARL ENGLISH – use a multi-step approach, one to determine how many fish return to Fraser, then use Fraser run reconstruction to distribute.

DAVE MARMOREK – but then people will want to know what the impacts of these changes are going forward. “what do we get for giving up catching these fish?”

CHUCK PARKEN – then need to do forward-looking stock-rebuilding analyses.

20


21


APPENDIX 1: Flip Charts

22


23


24


25


APPENDIX 2: Submitted Comments on Unknowns(kindly provided by Mike Hawkshaw)

Key unknownThe current models estimate the CU level Stock-Recruitment relationships without escapement and recruitment data. I think it is challenging to credibly choose benchmarks that reflect the real productivity and capacity of the different CUs without the escapement and return information being incorporated into the modeling?

Habitat UnknownsThe Habitat impacts on productivity / capacity remain un-quantified

Some of these are very stock specific, for example spawning area /stream restoration effects. There are regional or watershed scale actions that could have effects (for example hatchery timing of releases to reduce competition or better match plankton bloom timing, estuary restoration / protection actions that could have benefits for all stocks in the watershed. All stocks could be affected by affected by ocean "habitat" issues (for example predator impacts, forage fish or other foods). Freshwater high temperature related pre-spawn mortality was also identified as a possible issue.

Hatchery UnknownsThe Hatchery impacts on wild fish survival needs to be analyzed

The density dependent effect of hatchery origin fish should be considered in areas where wild and hatchery fish mix across a range of scales (stream, estuary, marine). The hatchery impacts on Escapement/Recruitment estimation and subsequent SR analysis need to be considered (this is stock specific and would feed into filling the gap in SR analysis). The hatchery impacts on Escapement and impacts on genetic diversity of wild stocks are not taken into account in these models (this is stock specific and related to genetic diversity objectives)

Harvest UnknownsSome harvest impacts will not be fully captured by the primary modeling tools.

An expanded analysis of fisheries could show where the different Chinook stocks cause limitation on marine harvest (this is very fishery and stock specific and appears to be within the capacity of the DGM model if properly queried) The freshwater and terminal impacts on Chinook stocks needs a secondary model to be done properly, this appears to exist for the Fraser (Karl English) and might be able to be adapted for non-Fraser Chinook stocks

These unknowns all address biological issues and don't explicitly address many of the social and economic issues, it seems there is a big gap in the toolset there.

26


APPENDIX 3: Meeting Presentations

Introduction

27


28


29


30


31


32


PSC Chinook Coast Wide Model and CTC Data Simulator

33


34


35


36


Hatchery-Harvest Analysis Tool for Strategic Hatchery Production Planning

37


38

Meeting Notes - ESSA - Environmental Consulting, Adaptive...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting Notes - ESSA - Environmental Consulting, Adaptive...