Terms of Reference

Pre-COSEWIC Peer Review Meeting for Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus)

Zonal Advisory Process - Central & Arctic, Quebec, Maritimes, Newfoundland & Labrador

February 28 to March 1, 2012
Iqaluit, Nunavut

Chairperson: Don Bowen

 Also available in Inuktitut / Inuktitut Atuinnaummijuq

Context

The implementation of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), proclaimed in June 2003, begins with an assessment of a species’ risk of extinction by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC is a non-government scientific advisory body that has been established under Section 14(1) of SARA to perform species assessments which provide the scientific foundation for listing species under SARA. Therefore, an assessment initiates the regulatory process whereby the competent Minister must decide whether or not to accept COSEWIC’s assessment and add a species to Schedule 1 of SARA, which would result in legal protection for the species under the Act. If the species is already on Schedule 1 of SARA, the Minister may decide to keep the species on the list, reclassify it as per the COSEWIC assessment, or to remove it from the list (Section 27 of SARA).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), as the primary generator and archivist of information on marine aquatic species and some freshwater aquatic species, is to provide COSEWIC with the best information available to ensure that an accurate assessment of the status of a species can be undertaken.

The Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) was listed on COSEWIC’s fall 2011 Call for Bids to produce a status report. 

Objectives

The overall objective of this meeting is to peer-review information relevant to the COSEWIC status assessment for Atlantic Walrus in Canadian waters, considering data related to the status and trends of, and threats to this species inside and outside of Canadian waters, and the strengths and limitations of the information. This information will be available to COSEWIC, the authors of the status report, and the Chairs of the COSEWIC Species Specialist Subcommittee. Output from the peer-review (see below) will be posted on the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) website.

Specifically, DFO information relevant to the following will be reviewed to the extent possible:

1)  Life history characteristics

• Growth parameters: age at maturity and maximum age
• Total and natural mortality rates and recruitment rates (if data is available)
• Fecundity
• Generation time
• Early life history patterns
• Specialised niche or habitat requirements (see also critical habitat and residence)

2) Review of designatable units – See COSEWIC 2008 “Guidelines for Recognizing Designatable Units below the Species Level”.

Discussion on the species will consider available information on population differentiation, which could support a COSEWIC decision of which populations below the species’ level would be suitable for assessment and designation.

3) Review the COSEWIC criteria for the species in Canada as a whole, and for designatable units identified (if any) according to the information presented in Appendix 1.

4) Describe the characteristics or elements of the species habitat to the extent possible, and threats to that habitat

It is necessary to scope out the characteristics of a species’ critical habitat prior to the COSEWIC assessment, with full identification and quantification occurring at the stage that a recovery strategy is developed. Critical habitat is defined in SARA as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species”. Habitat is defined as “in respect of aquatic species, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced”.

The following guidelines are from the DFO Science Advisory Report  “Documenting Habitat Use of Species at Risk and Quantifying Habitat Quality”.

1. Describe the “functional properties” that a species’ aquatic habitat must have to allow successful completion of all life history stages.

   In the best cases, a functional property will include both features of the habitat occupied by the species and the mechanisms by which those habitat features play a role in the survivorship or reproduction of the species. However, in many cases the functional properties cannot be described beyond reporting patterns of distribution observed (or expected) in data sources, and general types of habitat feature known to be present in the area(s) of occurrence and suspected to have functional properties. Information will rarely be equally available for all life history stages of an aquatic species, and even distributional information may be missing for some stages. Science advice needs to be carefully worded in this regard to communicate uncertainties and knowledge gaps clearly.

2. Provide information on the spatial extent of the areas that are likely to have functional properties.

   Where geo-referenced data on habitat features identified are readily available, these data could be used to map and roughly quantify the locations and extent of the species’ habitat. Generally however, it should be sufficient to provide narrative information on what is known of the extent of occurrence of the types of habitats identified. Many information sources, including Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and experiential knowledge, may contribute to these efforts.

3. Identify the activities most likely to threaten the functional properties, and provide information on the extent and consequences of those activities.

   COSEWIC’s operational guidelines require consideration of both the imminence of each identified threat, and the strength of evidence that the threat actually does cause harm to the species or its habitat. The information from the Pre-COSEWIC assessment should provide whatever information is available on both of those points. In addition the information should include at least narrative discussion of the magnitude of impact caused by the threat when it does occur.

4. Recommend research or analysis activities that are necessary to satisfy the requirements for advice on habitat issues, if needed for the species

   Usually knowledge gaps are identified and any recommendations made and enacted at this stage in the overall process could result in much more information being available should a Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) or recovery planning be required for the species.

5)  Describe to the extent possible whether the species has a residence as defined by SARA

SARAs. 2(1) defines Residence as “a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating.

6)  Threats

A threat is any activity or process (both natural and anthropogenic) that has caused, is causing, or may cause harm, death, or behavioural changes to a species at risk or the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of its habitat to the extent that population-level effects occur.  Naturally limiting factors, such as aging, disease and/or predation that limit the distribution and/or abundance of a species are not normally considered threats unless they are altered by human activity or may pose a threat to a critically small or isolated population. Distinction should be made between general threats (e.g., shipping activity) and specific threats (e.g., ship strikes), which are caused by general activities.

List and describe threats to the species considering:

• Threats need to pose serious or irreversible damage to the species. It is important to determine the magnitude (severity), extent (spatial), frequency (temporal) and causal certainty of each threat.
• The causal certainty of each threat must be assessed and explicitly stated as threats identified may be based on hypothesis testing (lab or field), observation, expert opinion or speculation.

7) Other

Finally, as time allows, review status and trends in other indicators that would be relevant to evaluating the risk of extinction of the species. This includes the likelihood of imminent or continuing decline in the abundance or distribution of the species, or that would otherwise be of value in preparation of COSEWIC Status Reports.

Working Paper(s)

Any working paper(s) related to the status of the Atlantic Walrus being reviewed at the meeting will be made available to all participants by 14 February 2012.

Expected publications

The key conclusions/recommendations will address the basis for assessing status of the Atlantic Walrus to be considered by COSEWIC. The final version of the minutes of the meeting will be part of the CSAS Proceedings series.

Participation

Participation is expected from:

• Relevant DFO sectors and regions
• COSEWIC status report author(s)
• Members of COSEWIC (Co-Chairs and/or SSC experts)
• Aboriginal groups
• Other invited external experts as deemed necessary