2008Final Report Template

FSWP File Number* / FSWP 08 SIFM D2

*Please use the FSWP File Number provided in previous FSWP 2008 project correspondence

Contact Information
Sponsoring Organization’s Legal Name
Lillooet Tribal Council
Are you a federally registered Charity, Non-profit organization or Business (Yes /No)? / Yes
If yes, please indicate which. / Charity / X / Non-profit organization / Business
Registration number / GST number
Are you a registered Society (Yes / No)? / Society Registration number
Mailing Address
Box 1420
Lillooet, B.C.
V0K 1V0
Street Address (if different from above)
Project Manager1
Name:Dr. David LevyTitle: Fisheries Advisor
Affiliation: Levy Research Services Ltd.Phone: (604) 929-2083
Fax: ( 604) 929-2081E-mail:
1 All correspondence will be directed to the Project Manager.
Alternate Project Contact
Name:Bonnie AdolphTitle: Fisheries Co-ordinator
Affiliation: Northern St’at’imc FisheriesPhone: (250) 256-4332
Fax: ( 250) 256-0445E-mail:

1

Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program 2008 Final Report

Partners / Subcontractors
Name:Don Sam / Affiliation:Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council
Phone: (250) 455-2592 / E-mail:
Name: / Affiliation:
Phone: ( ) / E-mail:
Name: / Affiliation:
Phone: ( ) / E-mail:
Project Information
Project Title
Pilot Evaluation of a Sockeye Enumeration System for the MiddleFraserRiver
Project Location
Lillooet and Lytton, BC
Amount Requested / $50,000 / Total Project Value / $84,700 / Non-FSWP funds2 / $34,700

2 Non-FSWP funds include both cash and in-kind funding. In-kind funding refers to all non-cash contributions such as equipment, supplies, labour, etc. Please refer to Budget Section for further details.

Project Summary
Please provide a single paragraph describing how your project has satisfied at least one of the FSWP priority activities. As this summary will be used in program communications, clearly state the issue addressed and avoid overly technical descriptions. Do not use more than 300 words.
This project relied on the collection of salmon catch and effort data via “log-sheets” from participating fishers to generate information for fisheries management purposes. The project addressed 4 priority FSWP areas:
  1. Initiatives which foster collaboration and information exchange
  2. New and/or improved approaches for stock assessment
  3. Building on the capacity of First Nations’ fisheries management
  4. Integrating harvest with stock assessment platforms
1. The log-sheet data collection project was a collaboration between St’at’imc and Nlaka’pamux fisheries programs, the first time these organizations have jointly carried out fisheries work in recent times. Communications were maintained during project execution, and the information that was collected was shared with participating fishers.
2. While the use of log books is widespread in the recreational and commercial fisheries sectors, this project was the first to successfully apply this approach to a First Nations food, social and ceremonial fishery. While the focus was the mid-Fraser River, the approach could be easily expanded to other First Nations fisheries in the FraserRiver and Approach Areas.
3. The program was administered by Northern Statimc Fisheries and the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council, thus providing a positive capacity building experience for both agencies.
4. The project was designed to collect stock assessment and harvest information from the Stat’imc and Nlaka’pamux fisheries for fisheries management purposes. These activities were tightly integrated.
OPTIONAL If your project lends itself to sparking interest through a compelling sound byte (for potential use in FSWP media communications), please tell us what that sound byte would be. Do not use more than 150 words.
Species and life stage(s) the project targets: please list
Adult sockeye salmon
Watershed(s) the project targets: please list
MiddleFraserRiver covering DFO Areas D-07 (Lytton) and D-11 (BridgeRiver Rapids)
Project Deliverables and Results
  • Paste in the deliverables outlined in your Detailed Proposal (question #3 under project ‘relevance and significance’ heading) into the table below. Then, please list the results associated with each deliverable.
  • Please include copies of any relevant communications products (brochures, posters, videos, website addresses etc.) resulting from this project.

Deliverable / Result
The project will pilot test a new, independent sockeye stock assessment system for the Mid-FraserRiver / Successfully Completed – results documented in the attached technical report
The NNTC and NSF fisheries will be assessed independently of downstream stock assessment programs such as the PSC Mission echosounding program / Successfully Completed - results documented in the attached technical report
The pilot project will evaluate the feasibility of using traditional fishing methods for estimating sockeye abundance, using CPUE statistics / Successfully Completed - results documented in the attached technical report
Quantitative assessment data will be obtained from setnets and dipnets at traditional St’at’imc and Nlaka'pamux fishing locations between Sawmill Creek and KellyCreek / Partially Completed: it was not practical during the pilot project to collect data from a large area and we focused on 2 specific sub-areas
Project Effectiveness
Please evaluate the effectiveness of the project, using the objective standards, quantifiable criteria and/or quality control measures identified in your Detailed Proposal (under question #1 in the ‘performance expectations’ heading).
The performance expectation was:
Success in the estimation technique will be achieved if there is low statistical variance in CPUE. This would provide a strong signal:noise ratio for estimating sockeye abundance. Where the data are highly variable, this will undermine the effectiveness of the approach.
We were successful in generating large sample sizes; at the peak of the project there were close to 100 Statimc and Nlkap’amux fishers collecting data on a daily basis. There was considerable variation in mean catch and CPUE statistics, reflecting a “noisy” data set that was nevertheless capable of adequately describing the fishery. Although somewhat imprecise due to the statistical variability, we believe the results were accurate.
What are the top three lessons learned from this project that would be important to communicate to others doing similar work throughout the Basin?
  1. Pre-determine the statistical analysis and data base management requirements of a system that will generate large amounts of data.
  2. A moderate number of participating fishers (50 depending on the areal coverage) will generate an adequate amount of data for analysis purposes.
  3. Carefully evaluate liability implications of engaging fishers for data collection.

Project Effectiveness
Please describe how your project has addressed each Priority Activity identified in your Detailed Proposal.
Priority Activity1 / How the Priority Activity has been Addressed
1. Initiatives which foster coordination, collaboration, and information exchange among fisher organizations and fisheries sectors / Close collaboration occurred between Northern Statimc fisheries and the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council, the two partners in this project
2. New assessment approaches for in-season management of salmon / While the fishing methods (setnets, dipnets) have been utilized in the mid-Fraser for many thousands of years, this project represents the first time these traditional methods were applied for in-season stock assessment purposes

1Please paste each priority activity identified in your Detailed Proposal in the space provided.

Further Comments (optional)
Please provide any further comments including recommendations for future conservation efforts and suggestions for helping partners to meet the goals of the Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program . If relevant, we encourage you to attach a narrative report or additional project products (e.g. maps, photos) as an appendix.
See Appendix attached

8) Appendix (optional)


Mid-Fraser Assessment Fishery Pilot Project

Jan. 7, 2009

Prepared for:

Fraser Salmon Watersheds Program

Pacific Salmon Foundation

#300 – 1682 West 7th Avenue

Vancouver, BC

V6J 4S6

Prepared by:

David Levy, Bonnie Adolph, Donald Sam[1] and Jeff Sneep

Northern St’at’imc Fisheries

P.O. Box 1420

Lillooet, BC

V0K 1V0

Executive Summary

During 2008, Northern St’at’imc Fisheries (NSF) and Nlakapa’mux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) collaborated on a sockeye fishery assessment in the mid-Fraser River. The project relied on the participation of fishers that monitored their daily fish catches and fishing effort on log sheets. The data collection extended over peak fishing periods in August. Three gear types were monitored: gillnets, dipnets and combined.

The sockeye catch and catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) results indicated:

  • uniform catch and CPUE over the month of August
  • uniform daily sockeye fishing effort over the month of August but considerable variation in the daily number of log sheet participants
  • higher catches and CPUE in St’at’imc areas
  • similar numbers of hours fished per fisher in St’at’imc and NNTC areas but higher number of fisher-days in NNTC areas
  • higher dipnet catches and CPUE compared to combined and gillnets
  • higher catch-per-fisher at night but lowest CPUE compared to morning, afternoon and evening
  • highest fishing effort (# hours) at night but lowest number of fishers
  • higher dipnet and combined catches and CPUE in St’at’imc areas
  • higher sockeye catch and CPUE at night in NNTC areas

There were deviations in CPUE results between the log sheet program and the DFO catch monitoring program with negative deviations (i.e. lower CPUE in the log sheet program) in St’at’imc gillnet and dipnet fisheries, but positive deviations in the NNTC gillnet fishery. DFO catch monitoring results were evaluated by scaling the total catch by the logsheet CPUE to generate estimates of the number of fishers that would need to be present to generate the catch estimated by DFO in Area D-07 (NNTC) and Area D-11 (Statimc). The calculation yielded the following results:

Area D-07 / 28 gillnets fishing per day
Area D-11 / 49 gillnets fishing per day
Area D-11 / 29 dipnetters fishing per day

Comparison of CPUE results with sockeye abundance estimated by the DFO Didson sampling program at Qualark, 150 and 90 km downstream of Lillooet and Lytton respectively, failed to show a close correlation. The log sheet CPUE results showed fairly uniform results over the month of August, while the Qualark results indicated declining sockeye abundance over the same time period. This discrepancy may reflect that in addition to fish abundance, processing constraints associated with fish packing, cutting and drying, may influence CPUE in the St’at’imc and Nlakap’mux sockeye fisheries.

Future refinements of the log sheet catch monitoring program include an independent census of the daily numbers of fishers so as to scale the CPUE and generate total catch.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... i

List of Figures...... iii

Introduction...... 1

Methods...... 2

Results...... 5

Discussion ...... 25

Appendix 1. Catch Statistics ...... 27

1 DFO Catch Monitoring locations in the mid-Fraser...... 4

A1 Sockeye catch per fisher...... 6

A2 Sockeye CPUE...... 6

A3 Sockeye fishing effort by date...... 7

A4 Total number of fishers per day...... 7

B1 Sockeye catch by area...... 8

B2 Sockeye catch per hour by area...... 8

B3 Sockeye fishing effort by area...... 9

B4 Total number of fishing days by area...... 9

C1 Sockeye catch by method...... 10

C2 Sockeye catch per hour by method...... 10

D1 Sockeye catch by time of day...... 11

D2 Sockeye catch per hour by time of day...... 11

D3 Sockeye effort by time of day...... 12

D4 Total number of fisher days by time of day...... 12

E1 Sockeye catch per fisher by area...... 13

E2 Sockeye CPUE by area...... 13

F1 Sockeye catch per fisher by method...... 14

F2 Sockeye CPUE by method...... 14

G1 Sockeye catch by area x method...... 15

G2 Sockeye CPUE by area x method...... 15

H1 Sockeye catch by area x time of day...... 16

H2 Sockeye CPUE by area x time of day...... 16

I Sockeye CPUE by method: Statimc vs NNTC...... 17

J Comparison of DFO and Log Sheet estimates of CPUE...... 19

K Day-night variation in number of gillnets observed during MERCI catch monitoring in 2008 at Areas D-07 and D-11 23

L Estimates of sockeye abundance migrating upstream past Yale...... 24

1

Introduction

There is a growing desire among First Nation communities to develop independent catch monitoring systems for in-season fisheries management. Fish catch and effort are 2 key variables required for catch monitoring. These data are required for in-season and post-season fisheries analysis.

The sockeye fishery in the mid-Fraser fishery relies primarily on gillnets and dipnets. Unlike the Lower Fraser where most gillnetting is done by drifting, in the mid-Fraser the gillnets are attached to shore and fished as setnets. The fishability of individual fishing rocks depends, among other things, on the FraserRiver discharge. Specific fishing sites are only available under certain flow discharges. Fishers respond to the river by changing their fishing positions laterally and vertically. These dynamics impact fishing success that ultimately affects fishing effort and catch estimation.

This project was undertaken in Statimc and Nlakapa’mux fishing areas to pilot test the effectiveness of a “log sheet” program for generating catch statistics. Similar approaches using “log books” have been widely adopted in recreational and commercial fisheries, and should also be applicable in First Nation fisheries. During the 2008 pilot year, the log sheet data were analyzed to get a better understanding of the fishery and to develop recommendations on how to refine the approach in future.

Specific objectives of the 2008 project were:

  1. Pilot evaluation of a test fishery in the mid-Fraser River that relies on traditional St’at’imc and Nlaka'pamux fishing methods;
  2. Derive quantitative CPUE (catch per unit effort) estimates for sockeye in the mid-Fraser River;
  3. Develop a near-real time data reporting system so as to provide results in a timely fashion for management purposes; and,
  4. Foster collaboration between St’at’imc and Nlaka'pamux fisheries personnel.

Methods

During 2008, we enlisted the participation of St’at’imc and Nlakapa’mux fishers by publishing notices in the St’at’imc Runner and sending out fax announcements to Band offices. The fishers were engaged to complete weekly data forms that they exchanged for a reward:

To qualify for a reward, participants were required to fish for a minimum of 3-days during the week and a minimum of 5 hours per day (gillnet) or 3 hours per day (dipnet).

The following instructions were provided:

Instructions: In 2008, Northern St’at’imc Fisheries, Nlkapa’mux Nation Tribal Council and Northern Shuswap Tribal Council are cooperating on a new project to improve sockeye management in the mid-Fraser. This project will rely upon fishers to collect information on St’at’imc fish catches using a “log book” approach. Each person who chooses to participate must fill out this form and will be given a $100 reward for participating over a 1-week period. Participants will need to fish for a minimum of 3-days during the week and a minimum of 5 hours per day (gillnet) or 3 hours per day (dipnet) to qualify for a reward.

To take part in this project, people need to pick up a data sheet from the Nlakapa’mux Nation Tribal Council office at1632 St. Georges Road on Tuesday afternoons between 1:00 – 4:00 pm. When the data sheet is returned the following Tuesday afternoon, a $100 reward will be provided. The data forms will be available for pick up on the following dates: August 5, 12, 19 and 26. Anyone can participate in the project up to a maximum of 4 weeks involvement per fisher.

In September when all of the information has been collected, the results will be summarized and a report prepared that will be freely available to anyone with an interest in this project.

For further information, please call Donny Sam, NNTC at 455-2711 ext. 229.

In addition to the data sheet and clipboard, 2 LGL announcements regarding the presence of tagged sockeye were stapled to the data sheets and handed out as part of the weekly data package.

When fishersreturned their data sheets we recorded the Statistical Location that is used in the DFO catch monitoring program. Over 90% of the fishing took place in areas D-07 (NNTC) and D-11 (St’at’imc). When the fishing location was not ascertained, those data sheets were omitted from subsequent analysis. DFO Statistical Areas for the mid-Fraser are shown in Figure 1.

1

Figure 1. DFO Catch Monitoring locations in the mid-Fraser.

1

Results

The results below are presented in graphical format using an approach similar to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) framework. Factors considered were: 1. Dates, 2. Areas, 3. Methods and 4.Time of Day. In total there were:

  • 28 Dates covering the period between August 5 – September 1,
  • 2 Areas: NNTC and St’at’imc,
  • 3 Methods: dipnets, gillnets and combined[2]; and,
  • 4 times of day: morning (06:00 – 12:00), afternoon (12:00 – 18:00), evening (18:00 – 24:00) and night (24:00 – 06:00)[3].

A total of 28 comparisons were evaluated as indicated in the 3 Tables below. Cells within the matrices represent 1 comparison and serve as the basis for one of the graphics which follows. Raw data used for the analysis are provided in Appendix 1.

Two-way comparisons.

Catch / Catch per hour (CPUE) / Effort (# hours) / # Fishing Days
Date / ● / ● / ● / ●
Area / ● / ● / ● / ●
Method / ● / ● / ● / ●
Time of day / ● / ● / ● / ●

Three-way comparisons.

Catch / Catch per hour (CPUE)
Date x Area / ● / ●
Date x Method / ● / ●
Area x Method / ● / ●
Area x Time of Day / ● / ●

Four-way comparisons

Catch / Catch per hour (CPUE)
Date x Area x Method / ● / ●
Date x Area x Time of Day / ● / ●

In the graphs which follow, 2 graphs are presented per page. Pages showing catch results are arranged so the upper graph represents catch, and the lower graph represents CPUE.