Middle (SG-2) and Lower (SG-1) Fraser River Sturgeon Monitoring Plan Guide

Middle (SG-2) and Lower (SG-1) Fraser River Sturgeon Monitoring Plan Guide produced for: British Columbia Conservation Federation prepared by: Robert Ahrens Page 1 of 20

Contents Contents... 2 Introduction... 4 Current targets and estimates... 6 Overview of Management Objectives... 7 Middle Fraser (SG2 Unit)... 7 Current and Past Monitoring Activities Middle Fraser... 7 Potential Activities for the Middle Fraser... 8 Monitoring Plan Middle Fraser... 9 Lower Fraser (SG1 unit)... 11 Current and Past Monitoring Activities Lower Fraser... 11 Prioritized list of monitoring activities for the Lower Fraser... 12 Monitoring Plan Lower Fraser... 17 References... 19 Recommended citation: Fraser River White Sturgeon Working Group. 2009. Middle (SG-2) and Lower (SG-1) Fraser River Sturgeon Monitoring Plan Framework. Report prepared for the British Columbia Conservation Federation by Robert Ahrens, Vancouver, BC. Cover illustration: The white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. (Drawing by Paul Vecsei provided courtesy of Golder Associates Ltd.) Page 2 of 20

Figure 1. Map of the Fraser River basin showing the approximate ranges for each of the white sturgeon stock groups taken from the 2003 conservation plan. Page 3 of 20

Introduction White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) within the Fraser River were uplisted to Endangered by COSEWIC in 2003 from the 1990 designation of Special Concern. The rational for this designation were based on the understandings that white sturgeon in the Fraser are a long-lived species with a 30-40 year generation time and late maturity, that has suffered over a 50% decline in the last three generations. Three of six populations are in imminent threat of extirpation. Extant populations are subject to threats of habitat degradation and loss through dams, impoundments, channelization, dyking and pollution. Illegal fishing (poaching) and incidental catches are also limiting. In addition, a developing commercial aquaculture industry may also impose additional genetic, health and ecological risks to wild populations. (Ptolemy and Vennesland 2003). While four populations were listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) the mid and lower Fraser populations were not, and for these two populations ongoing fisheries management is integral to achieving recovery objectives. This report addresses specifically the Middle (SG2) and Lower Fraser (SG1) stock groups (see Figure 1) which are not in imminent threat of extirpation and appear to be viable, stable or potentially growing populations (Ptolemy and Vennesland 2003). The Middle Fraser population (~3800 individuals >50 cm; RL&L 2000) is likely stable and near historic levels. Though no trend information is available, stability is inferred from an age distribution that suggests adequate reproduction. Absence of significant historic harvest and habitat alteration suggest the population is near historic levels. Threats to the Middle Fraser population have been identified but not quantified. Hatfield (2005) identifies food supply, potential hatchery influences, and spawning habitat as a high concern and small population size, fishing effects, and rearing habitat (mainstem) as a medium concern. In contrast, the much larger Lower Fraser population is thought to be recovering from substantial historic fishery removal that significantly reduced the population (Walters et al 2005, Echols 1995). Recent population assessment (Nelson et al. 2008) suggest there are ~46,000 individuals that are >40cm in fork length which is similar to 1999 values, but below the peak reach in 2003. Hatfield (2005) identified the lower Fraser population to be at high risk to threats relating to fisheries, habitat, and pollution. Walters (2005) and Whitlock (2007) further described risks to the population and limitations to recovery from fishery effects. Monitoring of the Middle and Lower Fraser population commenced in 1985 and was intensified in 1995 in response to unexplained mortalities of a number of large fish in the lower river (McAdam 1995). This initial program (RL&L 2000) was transformed for the Lower Fraser in the early 2000 s through a stewardship initiative fostered by the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society (FRSCS). The new mark-recapture program aimed to improve population estimates, increasing the geographic coverage of the assessment to include areas downstream of Mission to the Fraser estuary, and fill in data gaps regarding seasonal distribution and movement patterns (see Nelson et al. 2008 for more detail). The Ministry of Environment contribution to this program over the last 4 years has been >$100K per year in funding and staff resources. The results of this effort have culminated in a substantial improvement in the population assessment of a portion of the fish using Page 4 of 20

the Lower Fraser River and a stewardship program that contributes a substantial level of in-kind resources aimed at maintaining a high standard of science and a sustainable fishery. Currently, there is limited tagging of the Middle Fraser population, and monitoring is primarily focused on identifying important habitat. Mark-recapture work has been conducted annually by Ministry staff in the Cariboo, and recently (2008) a limited volunteer mark-recapture tagging program was initiated in the Lillooet area. The large population size in the Lower Fraser and the apparent stability of the Middle Fraser population highlight their importance, given the current COSEWIC status of white sturgeon within BC, and the need to provide effective management. A successful longterm monitoring program is an essential component in assuring the viability and recovery of these populations into the future. The 2005 conservation plan (FRWSWG 2005) identifies the goals and objectives for Fraser River sturgeon as to ensure that naturally reproducing populations of white sturgeon flourish over the long-term throughout the species natural distribution in the Fraser River basin, and opportunities for beneficial use of each of the major stock groups are provided, if and when feasible. The plan also identifies a list of general objectives and strategies for meeting these objectives. Monitoring programs to date have substantially improved the information available on the Middle and Lower Fraser stock units. However, knowledge gaps still exist (see Nelson et al. 2008, Whitlock 2007 and Walters et al. 2005) and recommendations regarding data improvements that would aid in establishing a better understanding of stock status and management reference points have been made. It is also important to note that information requirements necessary for effective management of each stock are likely different given the current understanding of threats to each stock and their status relative to historic levels. Furthermore, not all management objectives listed in the 2005 document need to be met for a stock to be, sustainable or recovered. However, monitoring activities for each stock must be evaluated against management objectives to determine there utility, efficiency and their potential long-term effectiveness. This report contains a brief overview of information useful in developing an effective monitoring plan for the Middle and Lower Fraser River white sturgeon stock groups. Management objectives as outlined in the 2005 conservation plan (FRWSWG 2005) are presented so that monitoring activities may be evaluated as to their effectiveness in meeting those objectives. A brief mention of current population status is made so that monitoring activities can be placed in the context of current status. An information required priority list, developed at a February 2009 meeting for the Lower Fraser stock unit, is presented so that consideration can be given to those monitoring activities that meet higher priority information. An assessment of monitoring activities to date in relation to meeting management objectives is made for both the Middle and Lower Fraser stocks. A list of potential monitoring activities is presented for each stock group. Ultimately, information in this report is intended to facilitate the development of a monitoring plan to provide direction for required work in the next five years as well as the long term, and to help provide direction to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF) technical review committee on eligible activities to be funded from revenue generated through the new sturgeon conservation surcharge. Page 5 of 20

Current targets and estimates The Middle Fraser population is thought to be near historic levels (Table 1), as there is no clear indication of substantial impacts or beneficial use that would have reduced population abundance in its history other than prey/food availability or flow changes. Population abundance may be more closely linked to habitat availability. RL&L s mean population assessment of 3745 individuals >50cm in fork length is assumed to reflect historic levels and a target of 750 mature individuals is currently set for this population provided the age structure shows no signs of significant recruitment change. White sturgeon in the Lower Fraser are thought to be recovering from significant historical catches during the early 1900 s (Walters et al 2005, Semakula and Larkin 1968) as well as First Nations and commercial salmon gill net interception catches prior to 1991 (Walters et al 2005, Echols 1995). Prior to 1991, intercepted sturgeon in the commercial salmon gill net fisheries were permitted to be caught, taken and sold without restriction. Prior to 1994, First Nations were not restricted or regulated with regard to Fraser River sturgeon catch, take or sale. In 1994 after a significant die-off of large sturgeon, the commercial gill net fisheries were no-longer permitted by DFO to take sturgeon, and First Nations were discouraged by DFO from taking sturgeon unless they died in their nets. Prior to 1994, additional mortality occurred as a consequence of the limited sturgeon recreational fishery. Since 1994 there have been continued mortalities due to incidental by-catch in the salmon gill and beach seine net fisheries and from the catch and release recreational fishery, but it is assumed to have not prevented the population from recovering and the population vulnerable to angling is estimated to have reached ~60,000 to 70,000 individuals in 2003 (Nelson et al. 2008; Whitlock 2007; Walters et al. 2006). The most recent mean population estimate is ~46,000 individuals 40cm-260cm which includes ~9,000 mature individuals (Nelson et al. 2008) and suggests that the population vulnerable to angling has recently declined from the estimated 2003 totals. The mature population target set for the Lower Fraser population is 10,000 mature individuals, natural and increasing recruitment, and an increasing total population (FRWSWG 2005, White Sturgeon National Recovery Strategy 2009). Table 1. Recent population and mature population estimates for the Lower and Middle Fraser River stock groups. Stock Group Middle Fraser (SG2) Lower Fraser (SG1) Target Mature Estimate Mature Population Estimate & Apparent Trend 750 1 749 (613-963) 4 3745 (3,064 4813) 2 Unknown 10,000 1 8897 (7373-11,636) 5 Decline (past 4 years) 46,108(43,972-48,244) 3 Stable (past 6-8 years) % of Historic Assumed near historic 30% (20-50) 6 35%(5-65) 7 70%(50-90) 8 1 FRWSWG (2005), 2 RL&L (2000) >50cm, 3 Nelson et al (2008) 40cm-260cm, 4 RL&L (2000) >150cm, 5 Nelson et al (2008) >160cm, 6 Walters et al (2006), 7 Whitlock (2007) low productivity, 8 Whitlock (2007) high productivity Page 6 of 20

Overview of Management Objectives The 2005 Fraser River white sturgeon conservation plan developed by the Fraser River White Sturgeon Working Group (FRWSWG 2005) identified a number of objectives intended to ensure population viability and provide opportunities for beneficial use for the Nechako, and upper, middle, lower Fraser River populations. Though these objectives will likely change over time with continued increases in beneficial use and threats, they provide a guideline to direct effective management. Monitoring activates can be evaluated against this list to what monitoring programs facilitate to be effective management or recovery. Management objectives identified by the 2005 conservation plan are: 1. Reach and maintain a natural population age structure and reach biological targets throughout the species natural distribution in the Fraser River. 2. Improve both the scientific and social basis for population targets for each of the major stocks of Fraser River white sturgeon. 3. Identify and quantify white sturgeon habitat availability and condition; make recommendations for important habitat designation. 4. Track the status of white sturgeon populations and their response to management actions by developing and implementing scientifically defensible monitoring programs for white sturgeon throughout the Fraser River. 5. Address basic biology data gaps (life history, habitat use, etc.) required to support conservation management approaches for this species. 6. Address specific data gaps to support improved assessment and prioritization of threats, and develop recommendations for specific management actions as required. 7. If consistent with SARA and conservation objectives, define the biological and social conditions that would allow for opportunities for beneficial use of Fraser River white sturgeon. Middle Fraser (SG2 Unit) Current and Past Monitoring Activities Middle Fraser The 1995-1999 monitoring program in the Middle Fraser established a population estimate that was assumed near historic levels and was used to set a population target. In addition, information pertaining to maturity, growth, movement rates, and age structure were collected allowing for the determination of a healthy age structure. Ongoing monitoring activities within the Middle Fraser include ongoing MOE mark-recapture PIT tagging program in Cariboo, the recent adoption of a volunteer-based mark-recapture PIT tagging program within the Lillooet area and recently initiated telemetry within the Page 7 of 20

Cariboo. The PIT tagging programs could provide age structure and mark recapture data to facilitate population assessment but the utility of such information will depend on the geographic scope of the programs. Currently the telemetry program in the Cariboo is aimed at determining critical habitats (i.e., spawning, overwintering, movement patterns). Little information is currently available to assess fishery impacts in either area. Monitoring Activity Information Relevant to Management Objective 1995-1999 RL&L Study 1 Assessed population size, age structure, life history characteristics, distribution, and movement. Allowed for the establishment of a population target and determination of a healthy age structure. Pit tagging program 2 May be used to assess population trends over time, movement and age structure Telemetry 2 Assess habitat use & Spawning Activity 1 RL&L (2000), 2 no documentation The following management objectives have been met for the Middle Fraser River. The population is assumed to be at the determined population target with a natural age distribution (objectives 1 and 2). The recently initiated telemetry program should identify and quantify spawning habitat (objective 3). There is some understanding of habitat use, life history, and distribution from the 1995-1999 study (objective 5). Additional mark-recapture work is being conducted with the initiation of a volunteer-based program in the Lillooet area. The status of the population is deemed sufficient to support the current catch and release recreational fishery. However, given that interest in this fishery has increased substantially over the last 3-5 years it is unclear if there have been or will be any future population effects (objective 7). Potential Activities for the Middle Fraser It is unclear what level of monitoring is required for the Middle Fraser as it is considered to be healthy and near historic levels. The following management objectives have not been met for the Middle Fraser River. It is currently unknown if the recent Ministry supported and volunteerbased PIT tagging programs are sufficient to track the status of the SG2 stock in relation to the target population level (objective 4) Biological data gaps exist for the juvenile component of the population. Such information may be more readily available once all available spawning locations are confirmed or determined. (objective 5). Page 8 of 20

A new spawning habitat was recently confirmed with the telemetry study. It is very likely that other spawning habitats exist, but have not been confirmed. No confirmations or determinations of important feeding or overwintering habitat have been made (objective 3). There are data gaps in relation to potential fishery induced mortalities. No information is available in relation to recreational angling activity and First Nations salmon gill net fishery incidental by-catch (objective 6). Current telemetry work if it can continue should help to identify spawning habitat allowing informed decisions in relation to habitat protection, management and potential impacts. The new sturgeon conservation surcharge provides opportunity to assess and monitor angling activity in the region in conjunction with angling guide reports. The utility of current tagging activities, to assess the population and track changes over time, is unknown given their limited effort and geographic extent. However, none of the current activities are sufficient to monitor population changes over time within the SG2 area. It would seem reasonable that monitoring of the Middle Fraser population should at least cover the first two priorities of monitoring the population and key mortality agents while addressing important habitat gaps. The following require consideration for advancing monitoring on the Middle Fraser: What funding is available? Can the geographic scope of current tagging activities be extended to provide sufficient coverage so an updated population estimate can be made? If the population is near capacity then a relative abundance index could be developed. How will key mortality agents be monitored? Is the level of net interception known? What frequency of monitoring is needed. Yearly? Every 5 years? Is a mark recapture program like that preformed in the 90 s every 5 years sufficient? Is there currently sufficient information to determine all available important habitats, including spawning, early juvenile rearing, important feeding and overwintering through the population range? Monitoring Plan Middle Fraser Current monitoring activities are sufficient to monitor the population upstream of the Chilcotin River confluence. This area is assessed annually through a mark-recapture program using PIT tagged individuals. The area downstream of the Chilcotin River confluence represents a substantial data gap in assessing the SG2 area in relation to meeting target population levels for logistical reasons, as increased funding and Ministry resources would be required to assess this more inaccessible area. A volunteer based mark-recapture progam was initiated in the Lillooet area recently. The Ministry is currently in year 2 of 5 of a telemetry study aimed at identifying and documenting critical Page 9 of 20

habitats (i.e., spawning, overwintering, movement/feeding). As long as the study is able to continue, then at the end of year 5 the Ministry will be able to map out critical habitats from the Chilcotin confluence upstream to Soda Creek. Studies aimed at identifying the following points should be considered a priority over the next five years for the Middle Fraser: Identify important habitats upstream of Chilcotin River confluence (in progress...year 2 of 5). Identify important habitats downstream of Chilcotin River confluence to Yale Requires significant funding. Development of relative index of abundance. Requires a multi-year study to determine relationship between population downstream of Chilcotin River confluence and the index area Requires funding. Monitor/assess First Nations incidental catch and take in the salmon net fisheries. Requires cooperation from the First nations and from DFO to provide the data. Would require funding for analysis. Monitor/assess angler catch and effort, and reach level use through angling guide reports.requires changes to reporting requirements and more dedicated Ministry staff resources. Monitor/assess angler catch and effort via mail out surveys annually or less frequently using information gathered through the sturgeon conservation surcharge (requires funding). A long-term monitoring plan for the Middle Fraser stock group could include: An annual assessment of an index area (i.e., upstream of Chilcotin confluence). This can be done with limited funding. Assessment of area downstream of the Chilcotin confluence to Yale on a longer time step (e.g., every 5 years). This part of the program would require significant additional funding. Page 10 of 20

Lower Fraser (SG1 unit) The direction for monitoring of the Lower Fraser unit seems more clear-cut given the recommendations made by most studies aimed at assessing the population, and priorities arising from the February 2009 meeting. Maintaining some of the monitoring activity which uses current applied PIT tags and the infrastructure surrounding the marking and recapture process is considered a top priority. It would seem prudent that a monitoring program of the Lower Fraser population also address the two main sources of uncertainty, which are identified in the priority list as priority two and three. A number of studies suggest that the Lower Fraser population is much larger than that assessed by the current PIT tagging program. Not knowing what portion of the population is assessed each year hinders the interpretation of current population trends and complicates status determination. It seems clear that this data gap needs to be addressed in the near future. Furthermore, beneficial use including the salmon net fishery incidental by-catch is identified as having the potential to slow, prevent or reverse population growth. Understanding these impacts more fully would substantially improve assessment and provide a greater range of management options. Angling guide reports and the addition of the sturgeon conservation surcharge provides an opportunity to assess angler participation and success. Identifying and acting on these key data gaps as important additions to the monitoring plans should not exclude other items within the priority list and attention should be given to opportunistic collection activities. Current and Past Monitoring Activities Lower Fraser The challenge in determining monitoring activities for the Lower Fraser is to determine which information gaps need to be filled to more effectively meet the outlined management objectives. Current and past monitoring of the Lower Fraser stock unit have provided information that addressed, at least in part, all the management objectives outlined in the 2005 conservation plan. Monitoring Activity Information Relevant to Management Objective 1995-1999 RL&L Study 1 Assessed population size, age structure, life history characteristics, distribution, and movement. Allowed for the establishment of a population target and determination of a healthy age structure. Pit tagging program and Assessed population size, age structure, distribution, and assessment 2 Assessment of mortality agents 3 Important habitat determination 4,8 movement within Lower Fraser area utilized by anglers Assessment of direct and delayed mortality due to rod and reel as well as net fisheries for some areas of the Lower Fraser Assessment of spawning habitat for Lower Fraser Sturgeon as identified by presence of eggs, embryos and larvae above Mission Page 11 of 20

Important habitat Assessment of juvenile habitat in the Lower Fraser River determination 5,6 using tangle nets, gill nets Telemetry 7 Assessment of movement using acoustic tags and POST acoustic lines within the Lower Fraser. 1 RL&L (2000), 2 Nelson et al. (2008), 3 Robichaud et al. (2006), 4 Perrin et al. (1999), 5 Glova et al. (2008), 6 Lane and Rosenau(1993), 7 preliminary study underway, 8 Laidlaw and Rosenau (1998), Prioritized list of monitoring activities for the Lower Fraser The following section presents a prioritized list of potential activities developed during the February 2009 meeting. An attempt has been made to highlight the management objectives met by each activity and lists of comments/concerns with regard to the activity raised at the meeting are provided. 1. Population monitoring utilizing PIT tagging. Current mark-recapture activities evolved through the development of a stewardship program established by the FRSCS. In-kind efforts of resource stewards: angling guides, recreational, commercial, and Aboriginal fishers, test fishery and enforcement personnel, and various fishery monitors have all contributed to the momentum of this program and have received significant training. These activities, in some form, are viewed as a critical component of current monitoring activities as they provide mark-recapture and composition information used to evaluate population abundance of a large component of the Lower Fraser stock. Current activities have also contributed to improved resource stewardship. Maintaining some form of this program was considered a top priority at the February 2009 meeting. Current mark-recapture activities and associated population assessment provides information which allows a number of management objectives to be met. Size structure of the population vulnerable to angling activities can be monitored from length information collected during tagging and recapture events allowing some inference about natural age structure to be made (objective 1). Tagging and recapture locations provide information on some habitat use (objective 3). Population estimates of the population vulnerable to angling provided every year allow the population trend to be monitored over time (objective 4). The following items were highlighted for consideration when determining the scope of these activities: Current tagging and recapture activities as well as the associated population assessment utilize a large portion of the fund resources recently, and future direct funding from the Ministry may be limited. Ceasing current marking activities would likely have little impact on population assessment for the near future provided recaptures are reported. Restricting activities to recaptures only would likely result in a loss of volunteer participation, requiring a significant infusion of resources to restart a marking effort. There is a potential to reduce the number of tags made available each year by up to half the 2008 application totals. However, restricting tag availability may affect program results as volunteer taggers may choose to tag only certain size Page 12 of 20

categories of fish, rather than all available fish they catch, or a random sampling of the fish they catch. Though currently, there are some taggers that already do this. The current statistical model used for population assessments does not account for significant migrations in or out of the population and makes several assumptions. It is possible to improve the model to provide a more accurate estimate. One improvement could be the incorporation of Bayesian statistical methods into a new model as presented by Whitlock (2007). Potential efficiencies could be gained by altering program reporting. Full reporting is not necessarily required every year and a presentation of the annual population estimate may suffice. Even population estimates could be provided biannually, and full reporting every 5 years as long as no significant changes in population status or beneficial use are identified. There is potential to collect additional information in the context of the tagging program that could be used to gain insight into life history characteristics such as movement, marine migration, sub-population genetics or aging. This would require additional training for volunteer taggers and likely additional funding for sample management and analysis. 2. Estimates of key mortality agents Hatfield et al. (2004) identified that distinct salmon net fisheries using a range of capture methods and gear catch Fraser River white sturgeons both intentionally and incidentally. Some attempts have been made to quantify potential losses by each fishery by determining gear dependent mortality rates and catch rates. Salmon gillnet interception mortality, as reported in Walters et al. (2005), has been estimated between 7%-13%. Robichaud et al. (2006), through a limited study of interviews and direct measurements, suggested immediate mortality rate due to angling was 0.012%, 4.6% for salmon drift gillnets, and 6.2% for salmon set gillnets. Robichaud et al. (2006) also determined through the same limited study that short-term post release mortality rates were 2.6% for angled fish, 0% for salmon drift gillnet intercepted fish and 46.9% for salmon set gillnet intercepted fish. Robichaud et al. (2006) further estimated through the same study during a relatively slow time of year, that the angler catch rate per rod trip was 0.32 sturgeon. Their estimated net interception catch rates were imprecise and highly variable. Salmon set gillnet catch rate ranged from 0.061-0.108 sturgeon per set hour and salmon drift net at 0.44-0.56 per fishery hour. Ultimately, such values could be combined with total effort estimates for all fisheries, total interceptions from the commercial and First Nations salmon net fisheries, and take from the First Nations salmon net fisheries to determine total losses. Walters et al. (2005) and Robichaud et al. (2006) suggest there is potential for such losses to have an impact on the sturgeon population potentially slowing population growth and recovery, and if sufficiently high causing population decline. The authors indicate that a significant data gap exists regarding the relative impact of fisheryinduced mortality. Good estimates of fishery-induced mortality would help identify the level of threat fisheries are facing (objective 6) and improve the ability to make inferences about status and productivity from stock assessment (objective 2). A number of activities were suggested to address this issue. Page 13 of 20

An assessment of total catch and take (e.g. from First Nationsgill net mortalities) for each fishery component would improve assessment. An assessment of effort intensity and catch rate information should be undertaken. o Better geographic and effort information could be provided by guides on their operations and could be used to estimate total angling pressure for the whole guided fishery and in particular areas. o The new sturgeon conservation surcharge provides an opportunity to gather catch and effort information through directed interviews with sturgeon anglers (mail or phone). o A creel program would help groundtruth phone and mail interviews and provide information for angling below the mission bridge where the surcharge is not required. However a creel program would be difficult on the Lower Fraser due to the extent of areas fished and number of access points. o In cooperation with First Nations and DFO, a program could be established to further assess salmon net fishery interceptions and effects. o Catch rate information could be made available by DFO to estimate or determine commercial salmon net fishery interception catches and mortalities. 3. Movement of Sturgeon within and outside the SG-1 area. Though it has been confirmed that seasonal movements with the SG-1 area can be substantial, seasonal and annual movement patterns of sturgeon both within and outside the SG-1 area are not fully understood and a key source of uncertainty and error in the assessment model. It is likely that a larger population, than can be measured through current programs, utilizes the Lower Fraser. Exchange between the monitored population and individuals using marine environments or areas not currently angled makes it difficult to interpret current trend information and population abundance (Walters et al. 2005, Gazey pers comm.). Furthermore, uncertainty in the proportion of the Lower Fraser stock that is monitored complicates determining population status and acceptable levels of loss or beneficial use from the population. Key uncertainties regarding the proportion of the stock within the monitored area could be addressed, which would improve population assessment and our understanding of the impact of different mortality agents. Confirming seasonal and inter annual movement patterns and marine migration would help identify important periods of overlap or transition through potential mortality agents. The relationship between movement and sampling intensity could also be explored. Improving information on movement and marine migration would help meet most management objectives. The following activities were suggested. A more detailed analysis of the current tag information could be performed. In the short term, there is the potential to piggyback on the current movement monitoring in conjunction with the POST project. Such an activity would provide information on movement rates outside the monitored area. Page 14 of 20

There is the potential to collect additional information inside the current program with the collection of fin clips. Clips could be taken from older individuals for use in an assessment of movement using micro chemistry. Even if such a program with analysis is not currently supportable for analysis, samples could be collected so that they would be available at a later date for analysis. Clips from smaller individuals at the time of first tagging could also be used in aging assessment. These clips could only be taken by, Ministry staff or well trained contractors or volunteers. 4. Recruitment and early juvenile age structure A pilot study aimed at understanding habitat use by early juvenile white sturgeon in the Lower Fraser population occurred in 2007-2008 (Glova et al. 2009) building on previous work (i.e. Lane and Rosenau 1993). There is potential to continue and refine this program to improve monitoring of early juveniles aiding population and recruitment assessment, and monitoring of habitat impacts. Improving juvenile information supports management objectives 1, 3, 4, and 5. The current understanding of important juvenile habitat could be improved. There is very limited information available on 0+ habitat use, and only limited information on juvenile habitat use from 1+ until they recruit to the recreational fishery at about 40-60 cm. Such information could be utilized to develop an index for the juvenile component of the population. Juveniles could be sampled for aging improving assessment models and allowing for a better understanding of growth. 5. Growth rates Nelson et al. (2008) suggest, from recapture information, an apparent decline in sturgeon growth rate since 2005. Changes in growth rate have consequences for the current size structured population assessment. Changes in growth rates alter the predicted number of individuals moving out of and into various length categories within a year. These changes in number accounting can alter the mark-recapture based population estimate for each length category altering the population and composition estimate. Growth rate changes may also have population level consequences (changes in survival, reduced fecundity, etc.). It is currently unknown what caused the apparent change in growth though a reduced availability of food/prey is likely. Improving growth rate estimates supports management objectives 1,4, and 5. The following comments regarding growth rate monitoring were made. Developing an understanding of the relationship between food availability, temperature, and habitat was suggested though no specific monitoring details were put forward. There is a potential to more fully utilize the current data. Growth rates for any given year could be compared to eulachon and salmon returns. DFO currently maintains stock abundance data sets for these species. Page 15 of 20

Understanding the seasonal growth pattern may improve current assessment procedure and identify important growth periods. Such an activity may require the collection of fin rays for aging or a more detailed analysis of the current database. 6. Identification of Habitat There has been some improvement in the understanding of important habitats for various Lower Fraser Sturgeon life-history stages (Glova et al. 2008, Hatfield et al. 2004 and Perrin et al. 2000 etc ). However, additional information would aid determining the potential influence of habitat altering activities and provide insight into juvenile rearing capacity, spawning habitat availability and use, important feeding areas as well as important overwintering habitat. The following activities were proposed to aid in meeting management objectives 3 and 6. The current tag database could be more fully utilized to understand the habitat use of individuals >40cm. The pilot juvenile habitat assessment could be continued to assess important juvenile habitat and ontogenetic shifts in habitat use. Further assessment of spawning habitat in confirmed, suspected and potential spawning areas would improve the management and current understanding of spawning locations and population recruitment potential. 7. Stock sub-structure The final priority identified for a monitoring program was the determination of stock substructure. There is a suggestion from spawning and genetic studies, tag recapture patterns, and habitat use of a sub-stock structure in the Lower Fraser population. If there are distinct populations within the Lower Fraser the current assessment would need to change as well as the perception of management objectives and targets. Genetic sampling could be conducted to explore stock sub-structure. Fin rays could be collected and analyzed for micro-chemistry signatures Page 16 of 20

Monitoring Plan Lower Fraser It is clear that recent population declines and hindered recovery are a concern for stock managers and recovery stakeholders. Though the overall population size has not decreased dramatically since the beginning of a significant study of this population. The current volunteer-based mark-recapture program has provided a wealth of information and detailed population estimates. However, it requires supporting funds to be maintained and must be continued annually to address issues with training, quality assurance and participant interest. Recently conducted juvenile studies have also provided more updated information on 1+ early juvenile habitat use. However, continuation of these studies would also require supporting funds. The confirmation of key overwintering and spawning habits is also needed. This would also require significant funding or data from work completed by others. Lastly, the ongoing acoustic tagging work will provide some additional, but limited information on in-river movement and potentially marine migration and together with new potential genetic analysis may provide much needed additional information on stock structure and population dynamics. Studies aimed at identifying the following points should be considered a priority over the next five (5) years for the Lower Fraser: Continue the volunteer-based mark-recapture program with a reduced number of tags applied. Analysis and population estimate reporting should be completed biannually. Full reporting should be conducted every five (5) years. Make improvements to the assessment model including the integration of Bayesian methods of interpretation. If possible, incorporate fin clip sampling into the program by qualified participants for later analysis and potential marine use and population sub-structure identification. Significant funding would be required. Continue early juvenile habitat assessment studies. Continue studies to track potential index sites, and alter the study designs to determine potential 0+ habitat use. Significant resources and funding would be required. Support and expand if possible, the current acoustic tagging work. Utilize information gathered from the study on movement and migration to improve population estimates and management, stock structure and population dynamics. Resources required and significant funding required for expansion. Reconfirm or identify all available spawning habitats to better understand recruitment, stock structure and population dynamics, and to better manage and protect these critical habitats. Significant resources and funding would be required. Identify all available other critical habitats including, but not limited to seasonal feeding areas and migration routes, and overwintering habitats throughout the range. Significant resources and funding would be required. Monitor/assess First Nations incidental catch and take in the salmon net fisheries to track beneficial use. Requires cooperation from the First nations and from DFO fisheries managers to manage the incidental catches and provide the Page 17 of 20

data. Would require significant funding for coordination, consultation and analysis. Monitor/assess commercial incidental catch in the salmon net fisheries to track beneficial use. Requires cooperation from commercial fishers and from DFO to provide the data. Would require funding for analysis. Monitor/assess angler catch and effort, and reach level use through angling guide reports to track beneficial use. Requires cooperation from angling guides and additional Ministry resources for data input and analysis. Monitor/assess angler catch and effort via mail out surveys annually or less frequently using information gathered through the sturgeon conservation surcharge. Would require Ministry resources for support and funding for mail-out and analysis. A long-term monitoring plan for the Lower Fraser stock group could include: Monitoring of population status and recovery targets, including individual subpopulations. Monitoring of all critical habitats and migration routes. Monitoring of beneficial use from First Nations and commercial incidental catch in salmon fisheries and from targeted recreational catch and release fisheries. Page 18 of 20

References Echols, J. 1995. Fraser River white sturgeon long-term management objectives, strategies and uncertainties. M.Sc. thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Fraser River White Sturgeon Working Group (FRWSWG). 2005. Fraser River white sturgeon conservation plan. Report prepared for the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society by Solander Ecological Research, Victoria, BC. Glova, G., Nelson, T., English, K., and Mochizuki, T. 2009. A preliminary report on juvenile white sturgeon habitat use in the Lower Fraser River, 2007-2008. LGL Limited environmental research associates. Sidney, BC. Prepared for the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society, Vancouver, BC. Hatfield, T, McAdam, S. and Nelson, T. 2004. Impacts to abundance and distribution of Fraser River white sturgeon. A summary of existing information and presentation of impact hypotheses. prepared for: Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society Fraser River White Sturgeon Working Group. Laidlaw, K.A. and M.L. Rosenau. 1998. An assessment of putative white sturgeon spawning habitat in areas impacted by scuffle dredging in the Fraser River: Hope to Mission. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Regional Fisheries Report No. M557. 13 p. Lane, E.D. and M.L. Rosenau. 1993. The conservation of sturgeon stocks in the lower Fraser River watershed. A baseline investigation of habitat, distribution, age and population of juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the lower Fraser River, downstream of Hope. BC Habitat Conservation Fund Project Final Report. McAdam, S. 1995. Report on the mortalities of Fraser River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) during the summer-fall period of 1993-94. Ministry of Env. Unpubl. Report. Nelson, T. C., Gazey, W. J. and English, K. K. 2008. Status of white surgeon in the Lower Fraser River. Report on the findings of the Lower Fraser River white surgeon monitoring and assessment program 2007. Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society. Vancouver, B.C.. Perrin, C.J., A Heaton, and M.A. Laynes. 2000. White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) spawning habitat in the lower Fraser River, 1999. Report prepared by Limnotek Research and Development Inc. for BC Fisheries. 72p. Ptolemy, J. and R. Vennesland. 2003. Update COSEWIC status report on the white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and Page 19 of 20

update status report on the white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Ottawa. 1-51 pp. RL&L. 2000. Fraser River white sturgeon monitoring program: Comprehensive report (1995-1999). Report by RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. for BC Fisheries, Victoria, BC. Robichaud, D., English, K. K., Bocking, R. C., Nelson, T. C., 2006 Direct and delayed mortality of white sturgeon caught in three gear-types in the lower Fraser River Prepared by LGL Limited environmental research associates for Tsawwassen First Nation Fisheries, Sidney, BC. 50p. Semakula, S.N., and Larkin, P.A. 1968. Age, growth, food, and yield of the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) of the Fraser River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25(12): 2589 2602. Walters, C. J., Martell, S. J. D., Korman, J.. 2006. A stochastic approach to stock reduction analysis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 212-223 Walters, C. J., Korman, J. and Mc Adam, S. 2005. An assessment of white sturgeon stock status and trends in the Lower Fraser River. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document. 2005/066. p. 68. Whitlock, R. E. 2007. Applying Bayesian mark recapture and decision analysis methods to evaluate fisheries management options for Fraser River white sturgeon. Ph. D. Thesis. Division of Biology, Imperial College, University of London. p 231. Page 20 of 20