Download 2013-14 Renewal

F-81-R-15, Michigan
Study 230460
Renewed: 2013-14
New Study: 1989-90
Name of Study: Dynamics of the Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch populations and fisheries
A. Problem/Need: Walleye and yellow perch are the most valuable fishery resources in the lower
Great Lakes, where they contribute substantially to harvests in Michigan (sport), Ohio (sport),
and Ontario (commercial and sport). These species exhibit wide fluctuations in reproductive
success, which strongly influences their adult density, growth, mortality, and predation rate on
forage base. It is known that the same walleye move extensively throughout the different
jurisdictions where they are subject to fishery harvest. There are interagency agreements, through
the international Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), to conduct annual surveys of Lake
Erie walleye and yellow perch stocks and fisheries. These annual samples are critical to the
production of the data pool and statistics necessary to model population dynamics, and to
eventually determine harvest quotas. Survey data have been shared and analyzed through the
various working groups of the GLFC's Lake Erie Committee since 1978.
Tagging and genetic studies have shown that walleye move extensively throughout the
interagency management area in Lake Erie. Therefore, successful management depends upon
consistent, collaborative annual assessment of population structure and harvest, as well as finding
adequate age-structured modeling techniques for predicting future standing stocks and desirable
harvest rates. Annual sampling has been conducted by the agencies of the Lake Erie Committee
since 1978 and results pooled to establish long-term data sets for modeling. Considerable
fluctuation in reproductive success and population abundance has been observed for both walleye
and yellow perch. At present, there is little known about the effects of environmental variation on
walleye and yellow perch reproductive success, and, therefore, no suitable means exists to predict
future year class strength from broodstock estimates. Annual surveys of young-of-year and
yearlings are needed by each agency to produce estimates of recruitment into catchable stocks at
ages 2 and 3. Recruitment estimates need to be combined with model predictions of adult stocks
to set quotas. All survey data and analyses need to be shared with other fisheries management
agencies to meet interagency commitments.
B. Purpose and Objectives: The purpose of this study is to carry out annual surveys of walleye and
yellow perch populations and fisheries in Lake Erie to meet the objective of providing the
necessary data for annually updating fish population models used to develop interagency (Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, Ontario, and Michigan) harvest quotas for walleye and yellow perch.
C. Expected Results and Benefits: This is a proposal to continue walleye and yellow perch
monitoring with surveys that have been carried out since 1978. A number of studies have been
published on various aspects of Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch biology and management
(Nepszy 1977, Busch et al. 1975, Parsons 1970, Wolfert 1963, Knight et al. 1984, Shuter and
Koonce 1977, Shuter et al. 1979). Survey data from Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
and Ontario have been reported annually by the GLFC's Lake Erie Committee. However, neither
methodology nor published data are available for adequately predicting future recruitment and
harvest. Therefore, walleye and yellow perch population dynamics (growth, mortality, and
exploitation) must be monitored annually to provide parameters required as model inputs and
information for evaluation of management actions and validation of predictions from population
models. Results from this study will supply annual Lake Erie fishery data required under
Michigan’s cooperative agreements with Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York through the
GLFC. Fishing effort, harvest, and population status information will be collected on walleye,
yellow perch, and a number of other predator and forage fish species and will then be contributed
to international databases being maintained through the GLFC. Annual reports will be generated
that describe the status of important angling fisheries on Michigan’s waters of Lake Erie and
related fish population resources. This information is critical to efficient and successful
1
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 2
management of shared Lake Erie fishery resources, and future changes in Michigan’s sport fish
regulations will be based on it.
D. Procedure: Lake Erie walleye index gill net surveys will provide data on age structure, growth
rates, mortality rates, exploitation rates, and recruitment of yearling and older fish into the
catchable population. These are a continuation of annual surveys that have been carried out by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources since 1978. They will be augmented by a Lake Erie
creel survey (Michigan F-81-R, Study 230499) and charter boat reporting data (Michigan F-81-R,
Study 430462) which will provide estimates of angler effort and catch by age group for walleye,
yellow perch, and other predator species. Trawl surveys will be conducted using interagency
survey methods (adopted by western basin agencies as the standard assessment for basin-wide
fish community abundance) to collect data on the abundance of young-of-year walleye and
yellow perch as well as the composition and abundance of the forage fish community.
Job 1. Survey design and coordination.–Coordinate survey efforts with management unit staff
and staff from other agencies. Collaborate with other agencies in survey design.
Participate in the Scientific Technical Committee, and the Walleye, Yellow Perch,
Habitat, and Forage Task Groups whose goal is to model the walleye and yellow perch
populations, and ultimately the entire fish community.
Job 2. Conduct surveys and process samples.–Carry out a minimum of two gill net lifts at the
index station 2 miles east of Stoney Point and a minimum of two gill net lifts at the index
station 1 mile east of Woodtick Peninsula to develop an index of abundance of yearling
walleye. Gill net survey gear and methods are described in Thomas and Haas (2005).
Conduct fall trawl surveys at sites previously established and sampled by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS-LEBS 2013) to develop an index of abundance of
young-of-year walleye and yellow perch and information on the composition and
abundance of the forage fish community using interagency trawl survey protocols
(Knight 1992). Process scale and spine samples collected from walleye and yellow perch
during netting surveys for age estimation. Process walleye and yellow perch spine
samples collected during creel survey biodata sampling (conducted under Study 230499)
for age estimation.
Job 3. Manage data and maintain databases.–Collect walleye tag recovery data from cooperating
sport and commercial fishermen and provide individual responses with tagging
information. Update catch-at-age datasets for walleye and yellow perch from creel and
gill net surveys. Provide gill net and trawl data files and summaries to cooperating
agencies involved in Lake Erie management. Incorporate data files from historical
surveys into a relational database.
Job 4. Analyze data.–Analyze walleye age and growth data collected during fall gill-net
sampling. Calculate age-specific gill net catch rates for walleye and provide them to the
Walleye Task Group for inclusion in the Lake Erie walleye statistical catch-at-age model.
Analyze walleye, yellow perch, and forage fish data collected during trawl surveys.
Annually, analyze walleye and yellow perch age data collected during creel survey
(Study 230499), and generate catch-at-age estimates for the Michigan recreational fishery
in Lake Erie and provide them to the Walleye and Yellow Perch Task Groups for
inclusion in statistical catch-at-age models. Participate in annual work by LEC Walleye
Task Group and Yellow Perch Task Group to model the populations and produce harvest
quota estimates for both species.
Job 5. Write annual performance report.–Annual progress reports will be prepared according to
the established Federal Aid timeline and format.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 3
Job 6. Write manuscripts for publication.–Fisheries research reports or journal publications will
be prepared describing the findings of the project.
Job 7. Publish manuscripts.–This job entails final editing and publication of the research
manuscript or journal article produced under job 6.
Job 8. Evaluate survey.–Survey design and data management procedures will be evaluated to
insure that study objectives are met and data are collected efficiently and are reliable.
Procedures will be evaluated periodically in terms of adequacy, necessity, reliability, and
improved efficiency.
E. Geographic location(s): Surveys will take place in the Michigan waters of Lake Erie. Data
analyses and report writing will be completed at the Lake St. Clair Fisheries Research Station.
F. Schedule/Budget1:
Proposed work
Job 1 Survey design and coordination
Job 2 Conduct surveys and process samples
$1,035
$1,066
$1,098
$1,131
$1,165
$12,583 $12,418 $12,791 $13,174 $13,750
Job 3 Manage data and maintain databases
$7,610
$7,838
$8,073
$8,316
$8,566
Job 4 Analyze data
$1,553
$1,600
$1,648
$1,697
$1,748
Job 5 Write annual performance report
$1,553
$1,600
$1,648
$1,697
$1,748
Job 6 Write manuscripts for publication
$1,553
$1,600
$1,648
$7,714
$1,748
Job 7 Publish manuscripts
NA
NA
NA
NA
$620
Job 8 Evaluate survey
NA
NA
NA
NA
$620
Totals
1
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
$25,887 $26,122 $26,906 $33,729 $29,965
NA = not scheduled
G. Personnel: Todd C. Wills, Fisheries Research Biologist; Michael V. Thomas, Fisheries Research
Biologist; staff of the Lake St. Clair Fisheries Research Station; Research Administrative
personnel.
H. Relationship with other federal grants: This project provides information to fishery managers
to consider in their regulation and management planning (F-94). The findings of this work are
regularly interpreted collectively with those of other Federal Aid F-81 studies including 230462
and 230499.
I. Potential for interaction with federally listed threatened and endangered species: At present,
there are no known federally threatened or endangered fish species thought to inhabit the
Michigan waters of Lake Erie. In the unlikely event one were to be encountered, every effort
would be made to liberate the fish and report the encounter.
Literature Cited:
Busch, W. D. N., R. L. Scholl, and W. L. Hartman. 1975. Environmental factors affecting the strength
of walleye year classes in western Lake Erie, 1969-1970. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 34:1039-1041.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 4
Knight, R. L. 1992. Analysis of interagency trawl catch and lengths data, 1988-1991. Ohio Division
of Wildlife, Sandusky Fish Research Station, Sandusky.
Knight, R. L., F. J. Margraf, and R. F. Carline. 1984. Piscivory by walleyes and yellow perch in
western Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:677-693.
Nepszy, S. J. 1977. Change in percid populations and species interactions in Lake Erie. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1861-1868.
Parsons, J. W. 1970. Walleye fishery of Lake Erie in 1943-62 with emphasis on contributions of the
1942-61 year classes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1475-1489.
Shuter, B. J., and J. F. Koonce. 1977. A dynamic model of the western Lake Erie walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) population. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 34:1972-1982.
Shuter, B. J., J. F. Koonce, and H. A. Regier. 1979. Modeling the western Lake Erie walleye
population: a feasibility study. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Technical Report No. 32,
40 pp.
Thomas, M. V., and R. C. Haas. 2005. Status of walleye and yellow perch in Michigan waters of
Lake Erie, 1999-2003. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research
Report 2082, Ann Arbor.
USGS-LEBS. 2013. Fisheries research and monitoring activities of the Lake Erie Biological Station,
2012. Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Erie Biological Station, Sandusky.
Wolfert, D. R. 1963. The movement of walleyes tagged as yearlings in Lake Erie. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 92:414-420.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 5
Evaluation and Review
I.
STUDY HISTORY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Length of study: Number of years survey
has been conducted? Any related or
previous studies that the current study
followed from?
Study 230460 (Dynamics of the Lake Erie walleye and
yellow perch populations and fisheries) began as a new
study in 1989 to extend walleye and yellow perch
monitoring efforts that have been carried out
continuously since 1978. Complementary data are
generated annually by Study 230462 and Study
230499.
B. Prior review: Has study been reviewed
previously? What was the nature / extent of
review?
This is the first formal review of the study as part of the
Federal Aid review process. However, protocol and
results of the study have been reviewed intensively by
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) Lake
Erie Committee (LEC) walleye and yellow perch task
groups since 1978.
C. Modifications / revisions: What were the
results of any previous review of the study?
Was the study modified to incorporate
suggestions and improve outputs?
Previous reviews of protocol and results have ensured
standardization in methods among Lake Erie partner
agencies and quality assurance/quality control for
harvest and abundance estimates used in the quotasetting process for the Lake Erie walleye and yellow
perch fisheries. Age determination of walleye and
yellow perch creel biodata samples (annually generated
from Study 230499) is now based on dorsal spine
sections as suggested by GLFC task group protocols.
D. Legacy considerations: Were there any gear
changes or site selection changes that might
render comparisons with past data difficult?
Any other historical changes or
considerations?
Sampling methods for walleye and yellow perch
assessment are standardized among Lake Erie partner
agencies. Sampling sites are fixed to provide
abundance indices and long-term trend data. Water
level changes have resulted in some minor shifts in
index trap net and gill net site locations.
II. ADEQUACY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Data end users: Who are the end users (e.g.,
state biologists, other agencies, universities,
public)?
Data from Study 230460 are used by Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries
Division management biologists, unit managers, basin
coordinators, and research biologists; biologists from
partner agencies including the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission, and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation; the Lake Erie Percid
Management Advisory Group (LEPMAG); commercial
fishermen in the Province of Ontario; and the public.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 6
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
B. Decision makers: Are resource management
decisions being made using information
collected in this project?
Fisheries management decisions for Lake Erie are
made using the information collected in this study.
Data on the age structure, growth rates, mortality rates,
exploitation rates, and recruitment of yearling and older
fish into the catchable population are used to set annual
harvest quotas for the Lake Erie walleye and yellow
perch fisheries.
C. Management / decision makers’ questions:
What are the specific management questions
being addressed? Are needs of decision
makers addressed?
Results from this study supply annual Lake Erie fishery
data required under Michigan’s cooperative agreements
with Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York
through the international GLFC. The fishing effort,
harvest, and population status information collected on
walleye and yellow perch is contributed to international
databases being maintained through the GLFC. The
annual reports generated from this study are used to
describe the status of important angling fisheries on
Michigan’s waters of Lake Erie. The results from past
tagging efforts completed through this study, in
conjunction with Ohio, New York, and Ontario tagging
projects, has been used to track movements of walleye
and to monitor their harvest and mortality. This
information is critical to efficient and successful
management of shared Lake Erie fishery resources, and
changes in Lake Erie harvest quotas and fishing
regulations are based on it.
Sampling difficulties due to increased intensity of
harmful algal blooms (mainly Lyngbya) and reduced
time and personnel resources caused trap netting efforts
in Michigan waters of Lake Erie that were previously
part of this study to be abandoned in 2011. Furthermore,
the interagency walleye tagging project on Lake Erie
concluded, so there was no longer a need to annually
trap net walleye for the purpose of tagging. Therefore,
information needs with respect to broader components of
the fish community, including occurrence and abundance
of other predator species or invasive species, cannot be
addressed. The MDNR currently does not participate in
inter-agency trawling efforts and is therefore unable to
provide information on the abundance of young-of-year
game species and the forage fish community in
Michigan waters of Lake Erie.
D. Stated purpose of study: What is the stated
purpose / goal of the survey? Does the
survey project, as designed, meet that
purpose? Were any data gaps identified
during the previous study period?
The purpose of this study is to develop and verify
models for interagency quotas of walleye and yellow
perch in Lake Erie with Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Ontario based on annual surveys of fish
populations and fisheries. In combination with results
of Studies 230462 and 230499, this survey project, as
designed, meets this purpose. As stated above, data
gaps exist for broader components of the fish
community, particularly other predators and forage, in
Michigan waters of Lake Erie.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 7
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
E. Timeliness: Is the information collected
through the survey project time sensitive?
What are the relevant timelines? Are they
being met?
Information collected through this project (and Studies
230462 and 230499) is time-sensitive and must be
provided to the LEC walleye and yellow perch task
groups ahead of their annual meetings held in the
month of February. This deadline is met each year.
F.
The results of this study are made available through
research manuscripts and a number of annual reports
produced by the MDNR Lake St. Clair Fisheries Research
Station (LSCFRS) and the LEC walleye and yellow perch
task groups. All of these reports are available online. Data
collected by Michigan and its LEC partner agencies are
maintained and available through the walleye and yellow
perch task groups. Michigan’s data are also stored in
Microsoft Excel files at the LSCFRS; incorporating this
information into a relational database in Microsoft Access
would improve efficiency for future data sharing and
summarization needs.
Availability (database storage, etc.): How
are results and data made available to end
users? Is availability of data adequate to
user needs?
III. NECESSITY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Data use in management: Are data used in
management decisions?
Results from this study supply annual Lake Erie fishery
data required under Michigan’s cooperative agreements
with Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York
through the international GLFC. Data on the age
structure, growth rates, mortality rates, exploitation
rates, and recruitment of yearling and older fish into the
catchable population are used to set annual harvest
quotas for the Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch
fisheries. These quotas, in turn, influence the walleye
bag limit for Michigan waters of Lake Erie.
B. Relationship of study to division and
department priorities: Do data meet priority
needs? Are data required for partner
agreements, agency collaboration, consent
decrees?
The data from this study meet priority needs for
managing walleye and yellow perch stocks in Lake
Erie and are required under Michigan’s cooperative
agreements with Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New
York through the international GLFC. These
agreements promote collaborative fisheries
management among LEC partner agencies.
IV. RELIABILITY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Confidence in data provided: Do users have
confidence in data provided?
The MDNR and other partner agencies involved in the
LEC walleye and yellow perch task groups have
confidence in the data provided by Study 230460 due to
their charge to continually review and improve assessment
methods. Stakeholder confidence in the data has improved
through collaborative partner agency/stakeholder
interactions as part of the LEPMAG process.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 8
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
B. Validity of survey design: Is survey design
valid / adequate / appropriate? Are there
better ways to collect data?
The survey approach follows that used by other LEC
partner agencies and is continually reviewed by the
walleye and yellow perch task groups to ensure that it is
the most appropriate way to collect data.
C. Statistical reliability: Are data provided
statistically reliable? Are sample sizes and
precision adequate?
The data and statistical catch-at-age modeling results
are reliable. This information is intensively reviewed by
individual agency biologists, as well as the walleye and
yellow perch task groups at their annual February
meeting. Walleye data and modeling results have been
intensively reviewed by the Quantitative Fisheries
Center (QFC) at Michigan State University and Lake
Erie stakeholders as part of the LEPMAG process.
Yellow perch data and results will receive the same
intensive review during upcoming LEPMAG meetings.
D. Appropriateness of survey methods and
techniques: Are sampling methods current?
Does study use state-of-the-art techniques?
Sampling and modeling methods follow current
techniques found in the literature and recommended by
the walleye and yellow perch task groups, the QFC, and
LEPMAG.
E. Assumptions: Are assumptions identified
and met?
The assumptions of survey methods and the statistical
catch-at-age models are identified and met through
incorporation of LEC walleye and yellow perch task
group review and QFC and LEPMAG
recommendations.
V. EFFICIENCY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Cost of data collection: How much is spent
annually to complete this survey?
Using fiscal year 2011-2012 time expenditures and cost
estimates, approximately $40,000 is spent annually by
MDNR to collect, process, and analyze data collected
through Study 230460.
B. Efficiency / Cost:Benefit of survey: How do
costs compare to applicability of survey and
benefits accrued?
The costs of this study represents less than one-quarter
of one percent of the Fisheries Division’s budget and
the total division budget that is dedicated to resource
management. The recreational fishery in Michigan
waters of Lake Erie is estimated to annually generate
more than $5 million of economic activity.
C. Survey effort: Can intensity of sampling be
reduced while still delivering necessary
information to managers?
The intensity of sampling cannot be reduced as the data
would no longer meet the requirements of Michigan’s
commitment under cooperative agreements with
Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York through
the GLFC.
F-81-R-15, Study 230460 - 9
VI. FUTURE OF STUDY
Areas of evaluation and example questions
Associated information
A. Modifications to study: What modifications
are suggested as a result of this review?
How will modifications be implemented in
the next study period?
The addition of a trawl survey to Study 230460 is
recommended to assess young-of-year walleye and yellow
perch abundance and the composition and abundance of
the forage fish community. Data that have already been
collected by the MDNR through this study should be
transferred from Microsoft Excel files to a relational
Microsoft Access database. These modifications will be
implemented in the next study period.
B. Suggested future analyses: Are there
analyses that could come from the data
currently collected that weren’t included in
documentation provided?
There are no additional analyses that could come from
the data that are currently collected.
C. Next steps: What are the next steps (e.g.,
renewal, new study “spin off”, delivery of
information / summaries to managers)?
This study will be renewed for fiscal year 2013-2014 to
continue providing data that meet the requirements of
Michigan’s commitment required under cooperative
agreements with Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New
York through the GLFC.
D. Evaluation summary:
Walleye and yellow perch are valuable fishery
resources in Lake Erie, where they contribute
substantially to sport fishing harvests in Michigan and
Ohio, and commercial and sport fishing harvests in
Ontario. These species have shown wide fluctuations in
reproductive success, which strongly influences their
adult density, growth, mortality, and predation rate on
the forage community. Interagency agreements through
the GLFC require Michigan to conduct annual surveys
of Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch stocks and
fisheries. The yearly samples collected by Study
230460 are critical to the production of the data pool
and statistics necessary to model population dynamics
and determine harvest quotas. A trawl survey should be
added to the study to assess young-of-year walleye and
yellow perch abundance and the forage fish
community, and historical survey data currently stored
in Microsoft Excel files should be transferred to a
relational database in Microsoft Access.
Prepared by: Todd C. Wills
Date: May 3, 2013