The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye - Publications du ...

The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye - Publications du ... The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye - Publications du ...

watershed.watch.org
from watershed.watch.org More from this publisher
18.01.2015 Views

Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River • Volume 2 • Predation by Humboldt squid. The Humboldt squid, a voracious predator that can feed on sockeye, was abundant in Canadian waters between 2007 and 2009 but absent in 2010. Washington-California sockeye returns from the 2007 ocean-entry year suggest that Humboldt squid did not have a significant effect. • Capture by US fisheries. Fraser River sockeye are intercepted in the US Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea fisheries, but the level appears to be very low. • Mortality attributable to sea lice. Sea lice from salmon farms in Discovery Passage could have contributed some mortality of juvenile sockeye in 2007, although the levels of lice present on farms in 2007 were similar to 2008 levels, which produced a strong sockeye return in 2010. 35 Finally, three other factors are stated to be unlikely to have contributed to the poor 2009 return: • Pollution / contaminants in the Fraser River. There is no record of any Fraser Basin–wide environmental incident that could have had an impact on juvenile sockeye. • Capture by Canadian fisheries. In 2009, the Canadian fishery was minimal and did not contribute to the poor return. • Predation on juvenile salmon in the Strait of Georgia. There are no known shifts in predator abundance during the 2007 outmigration. 36 Concerning the long-term decline in Fraser River sockeye, the memorandum prepared for the deputy minister stated: Climate / ocean conditions are also thought to be the most likely factors associated with the longer term decline in Fraser sockeye, although a number of additional factors (disease, delayed density-dependence, competitive interactions with pink salmon and contaminants) could also contribute. 37 I will now summarize the technical reports filed as exhibits and the testimony of those who gave evidence during the Commission’s hearings about the various stressors that may have caused or contributed to the decline of Fraser River sockeye salmon. Notes 1 Exhibit 614, p. 2. 2 Exhibit 614. 3 Exhibit 614, pp. 2−3. 4 Exhibit 614, p. 6. 5 Exhibit 614, p. 7. 6 Exhibit 614, p. 7. 7 Exhibit 614, p. 8. 8 Exhibit 614, p. 8. 9 Exhibit 614, p. 10. 10 Exhibit 614, p. 10. 11 Exhibit 614, p. 10. 12 Exhibit 616A. 13 Exhibit 616A, pp. 2−3. 14 Exhibit 616A, p. 2. 15 Exhibit 616A, p. 2. 16 Exhibit 616A, p. 2. 17 Exhibit 616A, p. 2. 18 Exhibit 616A, p. 3. 19 Exhibit 616A, p. 3. 20 Exhibit 616B, p. 3. 21 Exhibit 616B, p. 3. 22 Exhibit 11. 23 Exhibit 11, p. 1. 24 Exhibit 11, p. 1. 25 Exhibits 73 and 203. 26 Exhibits 73/203, p. 3. 27 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5. 28 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5. 29 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5. 30 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5. 31 Exhibits 73/203, p. 7. 32 Exhibits 73/203, pp. 21−22. 33 Exhibit 1364. 34 Exhibit 1371, p. 3. 35 Exhibit 1371, pp. 2–3. 36 Exhibit 1371, pp. 2−3. 37 Exhibit 1371, p. 1. 20

Chapter 4 • Summary of decline-related evidence Although it is common to speak about Fraser River sockeye salmon as though they are a singular grouping of genetically identical fish that behave in a uniform manner, the truth is far different. Fisheries managers have traditionally clustered Fraser River sockeye into “stocks,” identified principally according to their natal rivers or lakes distributed throughout the watershed. Nineteen such stocks have been the subject of most studies and monitoring. More recently, under the 2005 Wild Salmon Policy, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has grouped Fraser River sockeye into 20 to 30 Conservation Units (CUs) based on genetic differences. Indeed, a CU is defined as “a group of wild salmon sufficiently isolated from other groups that, if extirpated is very unlikely to recolonize naturally within an acceptable timeframe, such as a human lifetime or a specified number of salmon generations.” 1 In addition to this genetic diversity, Fraser River sockeye exhibit significant behavioural variation. They all begin life in freshwater, grow to maturity in the North Pacific, and return to freshwater to spawn. However, some spend one to two years in nursery lakes while others do not; some migrate out through the Fraser River in days while others spend several months in the estuary; some migrate north through the Strait of Georgia while others migrate south through Juan de Fuca Strait; most return to their natal streams to spawn in their fourth year while others do so in their third or fifth year; and some move directly from the Strait of Georgia into the Fraser River while others hold off at the mouth of the river for four or five weeks before moving upstream. Fisheries managers also group returning adults according to four run-timing groups, depending on when during the summer months they begin their return migration. (For a more detailed discussion of run-timing groups, see Volume 1, Chapter 5, Sockeye fishery management.) The decline in Fraser River sockeye that triggered the establishment of this Inquiry in 2009 can fairly be described as “a decline” when all stocks are studied on an aggregate basis. However, when individual stocks are examined, important variations in productivity (recruits returning per spawner) are 21

Cohen Commission <strong>of</strong> Inquiry into the Decline <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sockeye</strong> Salmon in the <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong> • Volume 2<br />

• Predation by Humboldt squid. <strong>The</strong> Humboldt<br />

squid, a voracious predator that can feed<br />

on sockeye, was abundant in Canadian<br />

waters between 2007 and 2009 but absent<br />

in 2010. Washington-California sockeye<br />

returns from the 2007 ocean-entry year suggest<br />

that Humboldt squid did not have a<br />

significant effect.<br />

• Capture by US fisheries. <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong> sockeye are<br />

intercepted in the US Gulf <strong>of</strong> Alaska and Bering<br />

Sea fisheries, but the level appears to be very low.<br />

• Mortality attributable to sea lice. Sea lice<br />

from salmon farms in Discovery Passage could<br />

have contributed some mortality <strong>of</strong> juvenile<br />

sockeye in 2007, although the levels <strong>of</strong> lice<br />

present on farms in 2007 were similar to 2008<br />

levels, which pro<strong>du</strong>ced a strong sockeye return<br />

in 2010. 35<br />

Finally, three other factors are stated to be unlikely<br />

to have contributed to the poor 2009 return:<br />

• Pollution / contaminants in the <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no record <strong>of</strong> any <strong>Fraser</strong> Basin–wide<br />

environmental incident that could have had an<br />

impact on juvenile sockeye.<br />

• Capture by Canadian fisheries. In 2009, the<br />

Canadian fishery was minimal and did not<br />

contribute to the poor return.<br />

• Predation on juvenile salmon in the Strait<br />

<strong>of</strong> Georgia. <strong>The</strong>re are no known shifts<br />

in predator abundance <strong>du</strong>ring the 2007<br />

outmigration. 36<br />

Concerning the long-term decline in <strong>Fraser</strong><br />

<strong>River</strong> sockeye, the memoran<strong>du</strong>m prepared for the<br />

deputy minister stated:<br />

Climate / ocean conditions are also thought<br />

to be the most likely factors associated with<br />

the longer term decline in <strong>Fraser</strong> sockeye,<br />

although a number <strong>of</strong> additional factors<br />

(disease, delayed density-dependence, competitive<br />

interactions with pink salmon and<br />

contaminants) could also contribute. 37<br />

I will now summarize the technical reports<br />

filed as exhibits and the testimony <strong>of</strong> those who<br />

gave evidence <strong>du</strong>ring the Commission’s hearings<br />

about the various stressors that may have caused<br />

or contributed to the decline <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />

sockeye salmon.<br />

Notes<br />

1 Exhibit 614, p. 2.<br />

2 Exhibit 614.<br />

3 Exhibit 614, pp. 2−3.<br />

4 Exhibit 614, p. 6.<br />

5 Exhibit 614, p. 7.<br />

6 Exhibit 614, p. 7.<br />

7 Exhibit 614, p. 8.<br />

8 Exhibit 614, p. 8.<br />

9 Exhibit 614, p. 10.<br />

10 Exhibit 614, p. 10.<br />

11 Exhibit 614, p. 10.<br />

12 Exhibit 616A.<br />

13 Exhibit 616A, pp. 2−3.<br />

14 Exhibit 616A, p. 2.<br />

15 Exhibit 616A, p. 2.<br />

16 Exhibit 616A, p. 2.<br />

17 Exhibit 616A, p. 2.<br />

18 Exhibit 616A, p. 3.<br />

19 Exhibit 616A, p. 3.<br />

20 Exhibit 616B, p. 3.<br />

21 Exhibit 616B, p. 3.<br />

22 Exhibit 11.<br />

23 Exhibit 11, p. 1.<br />

24 Exhibit 11, p. 1.<br />

25 Exhibits 73 and 203.<br />

26 Exhibits 73/203, p. 3.<br />

27 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5.<br />

28 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5.<br />

29 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5.<br />

30 Exhibits 73/203, p. 5.<br />

31 Exhibits 73/203, p. 7.<br />

32 Exhibits 73/203, pp. 21−22.<br />

33 Exhibit 1364.<br />

34 Exhibit 1371, p. 3.<br />

35 Exhibit 1371, pp. 2–3.<br />

36 Exhibit 1371, pp. 2−3.<br />

37 Exhibit 1371, p. 1.<br />

20

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!