Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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