Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Terms of Reference

A Zonal Advisory Process for Redfish in Units 1 & 2 for 2010

February 25 and 26, 2010
Mont Joli, Québec

Chairperson: Dominique Gascon

Context

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has reviewed the stock definition of redfish (Sebastes mentella and Sebastes fasciatus) at two Zonal Advisory Processes (ZAP) in February 2006 and September 2007 and recommended at that time (Science Advisory Report 2008/026):

Stock assessments for the redfish species mix in Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3 and NAFO Div. 3O were conducted at Zonal Advisory Processes (ZAP) between 1995 and 1999. Unit 1 & 2 and Div. 3O continued to be assessed at ZAP to 2001. Since that time it was agreed inter-regionally to suspend zonal assessments to focus research efforts on the stock structure issues as evidence was mounting in the direction of biological similarity between Unit 1 and Unit 2. Regional assessment updates were last published in 2004 for both Unit 1 and for Unit 2. The Div. 3O assessment has been conducted at NAFO since 2002. The Unit 1 redfish fishery has been under moratorium since 1995 whereas the Unit 2 fishery has remained opened.

Given the interregional nature of the redfish populations, redfish scientists and resource managers of the Department have agreed there is value in resuming a Zonal Assessment meeting as the basis for scientific advice for Sebastes mentella and Sebastes fasciatus in these areas.

The advice from this meeting will become public as Science Advisory Reports which are subsequently used in departmental and industry consultations on management plans for 2010/11 and thereafter.

Objectives of the ZAP

  1. To the extent possible, evaluate separately the status of Sebastes mentella and of Sebastes fasciatus for Units 1 and 2 combined. Evaluations should include the following:
    1. A description of the fisheries in 2008/2009, for Units 1 and 2 combined, for Units 1 and 2 separately, and on a statistical unit basis, including a comparison with results from previous years.
    2. An update of abundance and biomass indices derived from DFO and industry surveys (including size structure and geographic distribution of catch). An evaluation is to be made whether a new pooled abundance index is viable for the following grouped surveys: Unit 1 Teleost, and Unit 2 GEAC.
    3. On the basis of the above data sources, advice on the current stock status of each of the two species, including mature biomass, biomass of fishable sizes, recruitment, and recent exploitation rate proxy.
    4. Highlight strong recruitment events that occurred in redfish Management Units 1 and 2, and when possible, identify the species, its origin and its fate.
    5. A discussion of the major uncertainties in the estimates and assessment(s).
    6. The implications of a range of removal levels that span, at the minimum, current levels and those of the recent past.
    7. Advice on measures that could be implemented to direct or to reduce fishing effort on a given species, including the extent to which different exploitation rates may be appropriate for the respective species overall.
    8. A review of the efficacy of existing closed areas and advice on warranted changes.
  2. Recommend action to facilitate the integration of data between DFO Regions and on the harmonization of data collection and sampling protocols.
  3. Identify what science, management and/or industry activities would be required in order to make possible the provision advice, in the future, on the following topics:
    1. Describe environmental and biological conditions affecting productivity and recruitment, and in particular the extent to which there is a stock/recruit relationship for the two species/areas.
    2. Provide advice on reference points appropriate for each of the two species, with reference to DFO’s Precautionary Approach Framework as appropriate.
    3. Provide advice, with rationale, on an appropriate exploitation rate for a redfish stock that is in a healthy condition, or in the absence of a stock - recruitment relationship, that would meet a maximum yield objective.
    4. Projections over multiple-year timeframes showing the impact of TAC/ exploitation rate options on exploitable biomass and SSB overall.
    5. Describe current spatial and temporal fishing effort and catch by species (overall, for Units 1 and 2, and for each statistical unit where possible)
    6. Comment on whether existing temporal and spatial conservation measures are adequate for conserving each of the two species and their component aggregations.

Products

Participation

Participation is by invitation only:

 

Date modified: