Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Terms of Reference

Annual Meeting of the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee

November 17 – November 20, 2008

Vancouver Island Conference Centre
101 Gordon Street,
Nanaimo, British Columbia

Chairperson: Don Bowen

INTRODUCTION

The National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee (NMMPRC) holds an annual meeting to conduct scientific peer review of marine mammal issues. This approach gives the opportunity to bring together experts on marine mammals from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with specific contributions from non-DFO experts to ensure high quality review of the scientific results and to provide sound scientific basis for the management and conservation of marine mammals in Canada. When time permits, this annual meeting is also an opportunity to review ongoing research projects and provide feedback or guidance to the scientists involved.

TOPICS:

Grey seals

Context: Last year a new grey seal population model was reviewed. This model treats the Canadian grey population as comprising three interacting populations. The model estimates trends in the size of each of these population components. The new model will be used to compute a new harvest limits for the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Scotian Shelf components of the grey seal population.

Working papers: One working paper on grey seals will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

Harp seals

Context: Harp seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus, are the most abundant pinniped in the northwest Atlantic with an estimate population size in 2006 of 5.5 (95% CI=3.8-7.1) million animals (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Response 2007/008). The Canadian and Greenland hunt for Northwest Atlantic harp seals is the largest marine mammal harvest in the world. Since 2003, the Canadian commercial harp seal harvest has been managed under an Objective Based Fisheries Management (OBFM) approach which incorporates the principle of the Precautionary Approach. Under this approach, precautionary reference levels are identified and are associated with pre-agreed management actions that are to be enacted if the population is estimated to decline further (DFO 2003). Under OBFM, the management objective is to set harvests that will ensure an 80% probability (L20) that the population will remain above the precautionary reference level (N70), of 4.1 million animals. The limit reference level, for this population, also known as a conservation reference level has been set at N30 or 1.7 million animals. In evaluating the impacts of different harvest levels on the population, reported harvests by Canadian and Greenland hunters, losses due to animals struck but not landed or reported, bycatch in fishing gear, changes in reproductive rates, and unusual mortality due to poor ice conditions are taken into account.

The objective of this peer-review is to provide advice to DFO Fisheries Resource Management on the impact of proposed harvest levels and sustainable harvest levels which will meet the objectives of OBFM and ensure that the harp seal population has a 80% likelihood that it will remain above N70 through the remainder of the duration of the Atlantic Seal Management Plan (it will end in 2010).

Working papers: One working paper on harp seals will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

Ringed seals

Context: Ringed Seal is a key component of Inuit subsistence harvest, and is in line for development of an Integrated Fishery Management Plan (IFMP). Periodically, DFO receives inquiries about the feasibility of establishing a commercial seal hunt in Nunavut. There is little information available with which to assess the potential impact of such an activity.

In 2007, an aerial survey of ringed seals in Western Hudson Bay was conducted to determine the distribution and abundance of that population. The results of this survey will be the object of the peer-review.

Working papers: One working paper on ringed seals will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One research document is expected.

Pacific Harbour seals

Context: An updated population assessment for harbour seals on the west coast of Canada will be presented based on surveys conducted since the last assessment in 2005. Aerial surveys were conducted in central coast inlets (an area under-represented in the previous assessment) in 2006, on the west coast of Vancouver Island in 2007, in the Queen Charlotte Islands in 2008, and in the Strait of Georgia in 2008. The results of these surveys will be presented and used to derive updated density estimates and population trends that are used to estimate the abundance and distribution of harbour seals in British Columbia.

Working Papers: Two working papers on harbour seals will be the subject of a peer review:

Output: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

British Columbia Sea Otters

Context: An updated assessment on the abundance, population trends and distribution of sea otters in BC will be presented based on a province-wide survey conducted in 2008. It is anticipated that the status of sea otters under the Species at Risk Act will be changed to Special Concern. In this event the updated population assessment will be required in the development of a Management Plan as required under SARA.

Working papers: One working paper on sea otters will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document is expected.

North Atlantic large whale survey (TNASS)

Context: The TNASS (Trans North Atlantic Sightings Survey) was an unprecedented effort in participation and scale to gather data on the distribution and abundance of a variety of marine megafauna in the North Atlantic. Participating countries included Canada, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Russia. Concurrent surveys were also conducted in the northeastern United States and the UK.

One of the objectives of the Canadian component of the project was to integrate the new data with concurrent data from other areas of the north Atlantic to produce north Atlantic abundance estimates to greatly improve our understanding of these marine populations, some of them listed under SARA, for which summer home ranges extend over the entire north Atlantic. The evaluation of the status and resulting management decisions for these populations could then be based on more representative data.

The Canadian survey effort took place in the July and August of 2007 and was the first in two decades to survey the continental shelf from the tip of northern Labrador to the U.S. border for marine mammals, sea turtles, and other large species of fish that occasionally reside near the sea surface. The Canadian data was collected using aerial survey platforms, while other TNASS partners used aircraft and/or vessels.

The results of the Canadian TNASS component will be presented for peer review. Working papers will include a summary of the Canadian TNASS analyses, plus the overall TNASS review document prepared by the TNASS Technical Group in Copenhagen in fall 2007.

Working papers: One working paper will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: Group approval to submit a Research Document to CSAS. Peer suggestions and refinements will be incorporated into the Research Document which will then form the basis of a manuscript to be submitted for publication in a special issue of the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management in the later fall of 2008.

Bowhead Whale

Context: Information on the status of the eastern Canadian Arctic population of bowhead whales has been reviewed over the past few years to refine our understanding of historical population levels, current abundance, seasonal distribution and movements, stock identity, and threats to the population. The resulting information and advice supports management recommendations for the population and are used for various Species at Risk Act (SARA) related processes including recovery planning, consultations, socio-economic analyses and listing decisions.

  1. Population re-analysis
    In 2007, the most recent survey results were reanalyzed to provide advice on the current population status. The results from the reanalysis, although providing a larger mean population size, also increased the confidence limits around the mean. The reanalysis was presented at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee meeting in spring 2008. At that meeting, a working group was formed to attempt to resolve issues of analytical approach with the survey analysis and to produce an estimate without positive bias. The method endorsed by the IWC Scientific Committee will be presented and discussed in the context of other methods.

  2. Hunt Structure
    Increased abundance estimates for the bowhead population have resulted in higher potential biological removal estimates for this population. Nunavut and Nunavik (northern Quebec) Inuit are interested in increasing their harvest of bowheads. Co-managers are requesting advice on potential impacts to population recovery of hypothetical biases in the hunt toward specific age or reproductive classes.

  3. Critical Habitat
    In spring 2005 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed bowheads in the eastern Canadian Arctic as Threatened. If listed under SARA, a recovery strategy will have to be developed. The Act further requires that critical habitat be identified in the strategy to the extent possible based on the best information available or a schedule of studies be included that, when completed, would allow critical habitat to be identified.

    In anticipation of possible listing, the Eastern Arctic Bowhead Recovery Team was formed in winter 2006 and is now developing a draft recovery strategy. The Team co-chair, on behalf of the Team, is seeking information and advice from DFO Science about what environmental features of bowhead habitat are critical to the survival or recovery of this species and what location(s)/region(s) in the eastern Canadian Arctic could be identified as critical habitat. This information and advice is also needed to complete the Recovery Potential Assessment conducted in April 2006 during which neither bowhead habitat requirements nor critical habitat was identified (please refer to Annex A and B for RPA and Critical Habitat Guidelines).

  4. Contaminants
    Contaminants are often sited as a threat to species recovery and in community meetings Inuit often raise the issue of contaminant levels in local foods. Contaminant levels in bowheads are also of interest from a recovery planning and resource management perspective. Changing climate would be expected to increase exposure to contaminants. Recent analysis of contaminants in bowhead whale tissue is presented for review.

Working papers: Four working papers will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: Four Research documents and one Science Advisory Report on Bowhead Whale habitat are expected.

Cumberland Sound Beluga

Context: The Cumberland Sound beluga population was assessed by COSEWIC and designated as “threatened” in 2004. A Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) was completed in 2005 but did not include an assessment of critical habitat. A working paper on critical habitat of the Cumberland Sound beluga was completed and will be the subject of this peer review (please refer to Annex A and B for RPA and Critical Habitat Guidelines).

Working papers: One paper will be the subject of a peer-review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

Humpback whales

Context: The North Pacific Humpback Whale population was designated as ‘threatened’ by COSEWIC in 2003, and listed under SARA in 2005. As required under Species at Risk Act (SARA), a Humpback Whale Working Group was formed to develop a strategy to promote the recovery of this population. Also as part of the SARA process, a Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) was drafted to investigate life history parameters for humpback whales, including the ability of the population to grow and recover. This work will inform both the determination of population recovery and assist in the establishment of future population objectives (please refer to Annex A and B for RPA and Critical Habitat Guidelines).

The RPA of the North Pacific Humpback Whale population will be the subject of this year’s review.

Working papers: One working paper will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

Lac des Loups Marins Harbour Seals

Context: The Harbour Seal (Lac des Loups Marins landlocked population) was assessed by COSEWIC and designated as “Endangered” in 2008. In the SARA process, a Recovery Potential Assessment is required as part of the information that will be taken into account for listing under SARA. The RPA of the harbour seal (Lac des Loups Marins) will be the subject of this year’s review (please refer to Annex A and B for RPA and Critical Habitat Guidelines).

Working papers: One working paper will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: One Research Document and one Science Advisory Report are expected.

Marine Mammal Advice

Context: At the 2007 NMMPRC meeting, the Atlantic Seal Management strategy (officially known as Objective based Fisheries Management) was used as an example of an approach to deliver Science advice for management of marine mammals. It identifies 'limit and precautionary reference points' and also provides some control rules if the population is lower than the precautionary reference levels. This precautionary approach divides species into data-rich and data-poor categories. Since then modifications to this type of approach has been discussed at ICES/NAFO Working Groups. Although a nationally consistent approach to providing advice is the goal, the implications of adopting this approach for the various marine mammals stocks within each of the regions needs to be discussed.

Working papers: One working paper will be the subject of a peer review:

Output of the meeting: TBD

Annex A: Guidelines for Recovery Potential Assessments

Recovery Potential Assessments should routinely address the following tasks (steps 1-17 below). In every case, the best science advice possible should be provided with the information that can be assembled and uncertainties taken into account.

Phase I: Assess current/recent species status

  1. Evaluate present species status for abundance, range and number of populations.
  2. Evaluate recent species trajectory for abundance, range, and number of populations.
  3. Estimate, to the extent that information allows, the current or recent life history parameters for the species (total mortality [Z], natural mortality[m], fecundity, maturity, recruitment, etc.) or reasonable surrogates, and associated uncertainties for all parameters.
  4. Address the separate terms of reference for describing and quantifying (to the extent possible) the habitat requirements and habitat use patterns of the species.
  5. Estimate expected population and distribution targets for recovery, according to DFO guidelines.
  6. Project expected population trajectories over three generations (or other biologically reasonable time), and trajectories over time to the recovery target (if possible to achieve), given current population dynamics parameters and associated uncertainties using DFO guidelines on long-term projections.
  7. Evaluate residence requirements for the species, if any.

Phase II: Scope for management to facilitate recovery

  1. Assess the probability that the recovery targets can be achieved under current rates of population dynamics parameters, and how that probability would vary with different mortality (especially lower) and productivity (especially higher) parameters.
  2. Quantify to the extent possible the magnitude of each major potential source of mortality identified in the pre-COSEWIC RAP and considering information in COSEWIC Status Report, from DFO sectors, and other sources.
  3. Quantify to the extent possible the likelihood that the current quantity and quality of habitat is sufficient to allow population increase, and would be sufficient to support a population that has reached its recovery targets (using the same methods as in step 4).
  4. Assess to the extent possible the magnitude by which current threats to habitats have reduced habitat quantity and quality.

Phase III: Scenarios for mitigation and alternative to activities

  1. Using input from all DFO sectors and other sources as appropriate, develop an inventory of all feasible measures to minimize/mitigate the impacts of activities that are threats to the species and its habitat (steps 9 and 11).
  2. Using input from all DFO sectors and other sources as appropriate, develop an inventory of all reasonable alternatives to the activities that are threats to the species and its habitat (steps 9 and 11), but with potential for less impact. (e.g. changing gear in fisheries causing bycatch mortality, relocation of activities harming habitat).
  3. Using input from all DFO sectors and other sources as appropriate, develop an inventory of all reasonable and feasible activities that could increase the productivity or survivorship parameters (steps 3 and 8).
  4. Estimate, to the extent possible, the reduction in mortality rate expected by each of the mitigation measures in step 12 or alternatives in step 13 and the increase in productivity or survivorship associated with each measure in step14.
  5. Project expected population trajectory (and uncertainties) over three generations (or other biologically reasonable time), and to the time of reaching recovery targets when recovery is feasible; given mortality rates and productivities from 15 that are associated with specific scenarios identified for exploration. Include scenarios which provide as high a probability of survivorship and recovery as possible for biologically realistic parameter values.
  6. Recommend parameter values for population productivity and starting mortality rates, and where necessary, specialized features of population models that would be required to allow exploration of additional scenarios as part of the assessment of economic, social, and cultural impacts of listing the species.

Annex B: Critical Habitat Guidelines

For the necessary information to be available for consultations, listing recommendations, and commencement of recovery planning, Terms of Reference (ToR) of the following types (1-7 below) should be included in the generic template of ToRs for RPAs.

  1. Quantify how the biological function(s) that specific habitat feature(s) provide to the species varies with the state or amount of the habitat, including carrying capacity limits, if any.
  2. Quantify the presence and extent of spatial configuration constraints, if any, such as connectivity, barriers to access, etc.
  3. Provide advice on how much habitat of various qualities / properties exists at present.
  4. Provide advice on the degree to which supply of suitable habitat meets the demands of the species both at present, and when the species reaches biologically based recovery targets for abundance, range, and number of populations.
  5. Provide advice on feasibility of restoring habitat to higher values, if supply may not meet demand by the time recovery targets would be reached, in the context of all available options for achieving recovery targets for population size and range.
  6. Provide advice on risks associated with habitat “allocation” decisions, if any options would be available at the time when specific areas are designated as Critical Habitat.
  7. Provide advice on the extent to which various threats can alter the quality and/or quantity of habitat that is available.
Date modified: