is Nicola habitat capacity underutilized and by how much – yes, but don’t know off hand by how much. – Misty even for sensitivity analyses, need to know what goals we are aiming for. – Dave about own objectives, perhaps looking at actions that increase escapement above recovery – targets. Model actions and see what impacts are, perhaps ends up being much higher than needed. good enough for what? What is recovery escapement goal. Keep coming back to fact that we Misty –but have already done an exercise to assess the status, so how are we relating actions to the status of these stocks. Dave but we don’t know what should be done to address that status, which is why we need to think of – potential impacts from variety of actions. [missed some discussion of approach] Bob looking at set of 6 stocks. like a mixture of things. Is Nicola meaning the stock or the CU? – Dave at Mar 2nd meeting wanted a set of pilots that had good information. – – on habitat issue, doesn’t make sense to look at stock-specific; only useful to look at habitat issues Bob – at CU scale. CWT stock is meant to be representative of a larger area, so consideration of habitat needs to be at that scale too. Dave so hatchery stock FW survival is not affected by actual habitat. – Ryan actually hatchery contribution to is only 25-30%, that is ~70-75% of stock is natural – Chuck agree with Bob about taking watershed perspective – Arlene [missed] – Mike probably need to aggregate up to Management Unit, because that is the scale at which harvest is – managed. Need to carefully consider scale of modeling if we are working on building up model. Chuck are we talking about scale for pilot sensitivity or the scale at which modeling framework will be – Dave both, 1 is pilot at stock scale, but scale may need to be larger for CTC – Nicola CWT is meant to be the indicator for the broader MU – Bob maybe tiered approach is good look at harvest at MU scale, habitat at watershed – –
– is Nicola habitat capacity underutilized and by how much – yes, but don’t know off hand by how much. Misty – even for sensitivity analyses, need to know what goals we are aiming for. Dave – about own objectives, perhaps looking at actions that increase escapement above recovery targets. Model actions and see what impacts are, perhaps ends up being much higher than needed. Misty –but good enough for what? What is recovery escapement goal. Keep coming back to fact that we have already done an exercise to assess the status, so how are we relating actions to the status of these stocks. Dave – but we don’t know what should be done to address that status, which is why we need to think of potential impacts from variety of actions. [missed some discussion of approach] Bob – looking at set of 6 stocks. like a mixture of things. Is Nicola meaning the stock or the CU? Dave – at Mar 2nd meeting – wanted a set of pilots that had good information. Bob – on habitat issue, doesn’t make sense to look at stock-specific; only useful to look at habitat issues at CU scale. CWT stock is meant to be representative of a larger area, so consideration of habitat needs to be at that scale too. Dave – so hatchery stock FW survival is not affected by actual habitat. Ryan – actually hatchery contribution to is only 25-30%, that is ~70-75% of stock is natural Chuck – agree with Bob about taking watershed perspective Arlene – [missed] Mike – probably need to aggregate up to Management Unit, because that is the scale at which harvest is managed. Need to carefully consider scale of modeling if we are working on building up model. Chuck – are we talking about scale for pilot sensitivity or the scale at which modeling framework will be Dave – both, 1 is pilot at stock scale, but scale may need to be larger for CTC – Nicola CWT is meant to be the indicator for the broader MU Bob – maybe tiered approach is good – look at harvest at MU scale, habitat at watershed
SBC-Chinook-March-25-26-workshop-Notes.docx