Terms of Reference

Regional Workshop – Central and Arctic Region

Recovery potential assessment of Lake Sturgeon (Designatable Units 1-5) within the context of the Species at Risk Act (SARA)

Winnipeg, Manitoba
March 20-22, 2007

Background

In April 2006, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated the western populations of the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, (Western DUs 1 - 5), as "endangered". At that time, the status report was considered incomplete but following a revision and a subsequent review by COSEWIC in November 2006, the five western DUs were re-affirmed as "endangered" while those in DU 6 (Lake of the Woods – Rainy River) and DU 7 (Southern Hudson Bay) were considered "special concern". At that same meeting the new status of "threatened" was assigned to DU 8 (Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence River). The species, having been assessed by COSEWIC, now enters the consultation process prior to a listing decision. It is expected that this part of the process may take up to two years. It is important to begin recovery planning as soon as possible and initiate actions to protect the species because of the number of designatable units and their “endangered” assessment.

This workshop is being held to consider the scientific data available with which to assess the recovery potential of the species. A preliminary fact finding workshop was held in March 2006 to begin this effort. Much work remains and this workshop will advance the knowledge that has been gathered during the year. It is expected that the Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) will be generated during the three months following this scientific review. The RPA will provide guidance to management on the protections necessary and the harms that may be allowed for this species until such time as a Recovery Strategy is in place.

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is intended to protect species at risk of extinction in Canada, and promote their recovery. SARA includes prohibitions on killing, harming, harassing, capturing, or taking individuals of species listed as threatened or endangered on schedule 1. SARA prohibits sale or trade of individuals of such species (or their parts), damage or destruction of their residences or destruction of their critical habitat.

SARA specifies that a recovery strategy should be prepared for species that are listed as threatened or endangered. The recovery strategy will have to address all potential sources of harm, including harvesting activities, in a way that does not jeopardize the survival and recovery of the populations concerned.

In order to address recreational and subsistence fishing in a recovery strategy, scientific evaluation of the likelihood that recovery goals or targets will be achieved in biologically reasonable time frames should be included. The basis for the designation of recovery targets and times-to-recovery for species listed under SARA is informed by sound peer reviewed scientific advice. SARA provides for exemptions to the prohibition to harm under certain circumstances, including specific activities permitted in the recovery strategy. Therefore, it is important that, if recreational fisheries are to continue after designation, the recovery strategy includes levels of harvest, recovery assessment, recovery rate, level of confidence, etc.

Meeting Objectives in terms of SARA requirements

It is necessary to review information regarding Lake Sturgeon population productivity and mortality sources, and possible mortality resulting from human activities. This information will be the basis for estimating the likelihood of reaching recovery goals where various activities, such as specific fisheries, are allowed. The specific objectives will be as follows:

1. Establish the status and trajectory of each of the populations within the various DUs as closely as possible; probably in a relative sense (size, distribution, recent growth rate, etc.).
2. Determine whether or not recovery is feasible on a population by population basis, and, if so, what are realistic recovery targets and timeframes. Participants will discuss biological criteria/properties that would describe the state of recovered Lake Sturgeon populations under SARA requirements. This discussion should permit the development of interim descriptions of the biological properties of suitable recovery targets and recovery times that could be applied to individual populations. Minimum recovery targets can be identified on strictly biological and ecological grounds, however, the future Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team may set recovery targets at higher levels for social, cultural, or economic reasons.
3. Identify and quantify, to the extent possible, all potential sources of threat (human-induced mortality and other sources of mortality), including what we know of the likelihood of change in the level of mortality for each identified source.
4. How much scope exists for changing human activities and how will this change the risk that the population would fail to recover.

Work in progress and framework used by DFO to develop an RPA

To date, the main outcome of the workshop held in March 2006 provided qualitative assessments of the status and threats for known populations within each of the western five DUs. The framework used by DFO Science for developing an RPA is relatively new and will continue to evolve in the near future to take into account the experience gained in the context of species at risk. The consistent application of this framework for all RPAs will represent a significant element to be considered during this workshop. Currently, this framework is based mainly on the work conducted regarding two RPA components in particular, i.e. the evaluation of allowable harm ( Revised Framework for Evaluation of Scope for Harm under Section 73 of the Species at Risk Act) and the determination of recovery targets (A Framework for Developing Science Advice on Recovery Targets for Aquatic Species in the Context of the Species At Risk Act).

The main components of this framework are identified in Appendix 1.

Products

The main discussions and conclusions of this workshop will be documented in a Proceedings Document in the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat series of reports. The specific advice resulting from this meeting will be published as a Science Advisory Report. This report will assess the recovery potential for the known populations and help to formulate a Recovery Strategy for the species. In addition, the report will outline the knowledge gaps for this species and the science still needed to address them.

Expected Participation

Experts from DFO Central & Arctic and Quebec Regions, Alberta Sustainable Resources Development, Alberta Species at Risk, Saskatchewan Environment, Manitoba Water Stewardship, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Quebec Department of Natural Resources and Wildlife; power corporations, U.S. States and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Academia.

Appendix 1: Topics that should usually be covered in a recovery potential assessment.

The list below will reviewed by a national working group with the objective of improving the actual framework for the provision of recovery potential assessments. To the extent possible, future changes to this framework will be integrated in the context of this specific RPA for Lake Sturgeon.

The steps (from the national framework) to be taken in an assessment to be done for any species/designatable unit is as follows:

Phase I: Assess Current Species Status

1. Evaluate present species status for abundance and range
2. Evaluate recent species trajectory for abundance and range
3. Estimate amount of critical habitat currently available (using critical habitat descriptions defined in the pre-COSEWIC RAP (we don’t have this), and considering information in COSEWIC Status Report).
4. Evaluate expected population and distribution targets for recovery, according to DFO Guidelines
5. Evaluate expected general time frame for recovery to the target, assuming only natural mortality, and estimate how time to recovery targets would increase at various levels of human-induced mortality
6. Evaluate Residence Requirements, if any.

Phase II: Scope for Human – Induced Mortality

7. Evaluate maximum human-induced mortality which the species can sustain without jeopardizing survival or achievement of recovery targets for the species.
8. Quantify to the extent possible the magnitude of each major potential source of mortality/harm identified in the pre-COSEWIC RAP (don’t have), and considering information in COSEWIC Status Report.
9. Aggregate total mortality / harm attributable to all human causes and contrast with that determined in tasks 5 and 7.
10. Evaluate to the extent possible the likelihood that critical habitat currently is limiting the species’ abundance or range, or may become limiting before the recovery goals were reached.
11. Inventory to the extent possible the threats to critical habitat, and estimate their current levels of impact on habitat quantity and quality

Phase III: Scenarios for Mitigation and alternative to activities

To the extent possible with the information available:

12. Develop an inventory of all feasible measures to minimize the impacts of activities in task 8 and 11.
13. Develop an inventory of all reasonable alternatives to the activities in tasks 8 and 11, but with potential for less impact. (e.g. changing gear or regulations in fisheries which cause bycatch mortality, relocation of activities harming critical habitat)
14. Document the expected harm after implementing mitigation measures as described in 12 and determine whether survival or recovery is in jeopardy after considering cumulative sources of impacts
15. Document the expected harm after implementing alternatives to the activities as described in 13 and determine whether survival or recovery is in jeopardy after considering cumulative sources of impacts
16. 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.