Terms of Reference

Reviews of stock assessments and recovery potential assessments for yellowmouth rockfish and quillback rockfish along the Pacific coast of Canada

Pacific Regional Science Advisory Process

30th and 31st May, 2011
Nanaimo, British Columbia

Chairpersons: Andrew Edwards and Sean MacConnachie

Context

When the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designates aquatic species as threatened or endangered, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), as the responsible jurisdiction under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), is required to undertake a number of actions. Many of these actions require scientific information on the current status of the species, threats to its survival and recovery, and the feasibility of its recovery. Formulation of this scientific advice has typically been developed through a Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) that is normally conducted shortly after the COSEWIC assessment. This timing allows for the consideration of peer-reviewed scientific analyses in the SARA processes including recovery planning and listing recommendations.

Yellowmouth rockfish and quillback rockfish along the Pacific coast of Canada have both been designated as threatened by COSEWIC. Commercial fishing is the primary threat to both species. For each species, DFO Science has been asked to provide advice in the form of a stock assessment and RPA document. These are the working papers to be reviewed at the meeting, and are intended to become DFO Research Documents.

The resulting information and advice may be used:

• to inform both scientific and socio-economic elements that are considered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in recommending whether a species is listed as threatened or endangered under the Species at Risk Act;
• to assist in the development of a recovery strategy and action plan;
• to support decision-making with regards to the issuance of permits, agreements and related conditions, as per section 73, 74, 75, 77 and 78 of SARA;
• in the development of groundfish management plans.

This Regional Advisory Process meeting is a science-based peer review meeting of the two working papers. Each working paper is a combined stock assessment and RPA. The RPA framework in DFO (2007) gives 17 tasks that should be addressed (these are given below). The stock assessment component should be guided by the DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework, particularly the Fishery Decision-making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (DFO 2009).

Yellowmouth rockfish (30th May)

Objectives

Meeting participants will review working paper 2011/P02:

Stock assessment and recovery potential assessment for yellowmouth rockfish (Sebastes reedi) along the Pacific coast of Canada, by Andrew M. Edwards, Rowan Haigh and Paul J. Starr

to meet the following objectives:

• address the 17 RPA framework tasks listed below;
• recommend a Limit Reference Point, an Upper Stock Reference, a Target Reference Point and a Removal Reference;
• provide rationale for the recommended candidate reference points;
• assess the status of the stock relative to the recommended reference points;
• evaluate the consequences of varying harvest levels on future population trends.

Quillback rockfish (31st May)

Objectives

Meeting participants will review working paper 2011/P03:

Stock assessment and recovery potential assessment for quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) along the Pacific coast of Canada, by Yamanaka, K.L., McAllister, M.M., Etienne, M-P., and Flemming, R.

to meet the following objectives:

• address the 17 RPA framework tasks listed below;
• recommend a Limit Reference Point, an Upper Stock Reference, a Target Reference Point and a Removal Reference;
• provide rationale for the recommended candidate reference points;
• assess the status of the stock relative to the recommended reference points;
• evaluate the consequences of varying harvest levels on future population trends.

The 17 RPA Framework tasks from DFO (2007)

Recovery Potential Assessments should routinely address the following tasks. 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. [Yellowmouth and quillback are each being considered as single 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

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. 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

12. 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).
13. 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).
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Expected publications

CSAS Science Advisory Report (2)
CSAS Research Document (2)
CSAS Proceedings (1)

Participation

DFO Science, Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk, Aboriginal Communities, Province of BC, External Reviewers, Industry, Non-governmental organizations and Other Stakeholders will be invited to participate in this meeting.

References cited

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger in Canada. 78pp.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi in Canada. 64pp.

DFO. 2007. Revised Protocol for Conducting Recovery Potential Assessments. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/039. (Revised in April 2009).

DFO. 2009. A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the Precautionary Approach.