Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Terms of Reference

Fraser Spring 5-2 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Stock Assessment in 2024

Regional Peer Review - Pacific Region

April 29 – May 3, 2024

Nanaimo, BC

Chairpersons: John Holmes and Marcel Shepert

Context

The Fisheries Management sector of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has requested stock status advice for the following Pacific Salmon stock management unit:

The most recent published stock assessment information is: DFO (2016), COSEWIC (2018, 2020), Doutaz et al. (2021), and Weir et al. (2022).

Objectives

Provide advice and/or succinctly describe gaps in knowledge on:

  1. Stock status and trends, taking into account assumptions regarding stock structure and distribution. Include the historical and recent trajectory of both stock and fishing indicators.
    • Stock structure and distribution: Describe the component populations (including hatchery contribution), Conservation Units (CUs), and Designatable Units (DUs) as applicable and demographic features (e.g., age structure, body size, sex ratio, genetics, distribution, and any associated trends).
    • Stock status and trends: include the historical and recent trajectory of stock abundance (spawners and catch) with respect to the stock’s reference points (i.e., relative to established Precautionary Approach [PA] references or the candidate PA references).
      • Stock status considering both status as identified under the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) for each component CU and aggregate abundance-based approaches for the stock management unit (SMU) when evaluating the limit reference point (LRP, as applicable and/or required).
      • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)-assessed status of DU(s) if applicable.
  2. Ecosystem and climate change considerations affecting the stock. Describe how environmental and climate considerations were considered in the assessment (e.g., parameterizing stock-recruit models, simulations, outcome uncertainties, etc.).

    3. Evaluate or provide estimates of:

  3. Candidate reference points (e.g., Upper Stock Reference [USR], Target Reference Point [TRP], Removal Reference [RR]) for the stock, including the aggregate abundance component of the LRP for the SMU as requested.
    • The candidate reference points should be relevant to the assessment and management framework (i.e., are consistent with the scale and type of information that is collected and how the assessment is used to support decision making).
  4. The impact of candidate harvest and/or other management options on the stock. Work with clients to collaboratively identify specific scenarios to evaluate (e.g., “status quo”, “no fishing”, etc.). Provide advice on the potential impact of the scenarios on the SMU and CU(s) through quantitative or qualitative scenario evaluations. For example:
    • Evaluate the effect of management actions relative to PA reference points (e.g., on probabilities of dropping below LRP; exceeding RR; meeting USR and TRP).
    • Evaluate the effect of management actions on other objectives/values of interest (e.g., potential catch, catch stability, abundance that allows for unrestricted food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) fisheries, spawner distribution, proportion natural index (PNI) values, demographic values, etc.).
  5. If the SMU is below the LRP:
    • Review CU components contributing to SMU status below the LRP.
    • Review factors driving (or limiting) production across the species life history and evaluate the potential future impact of climate on those factors and/or succinctly describe gaps in knowledge.
    • If applicable, associate limiting factors with anthropogenic threats and provide general recommendations for prioritizing potential mitigation actions and/or succinctly describe gaps in knowledge.
    • If possible, evaluate the effect of management actions on probabilities of reaching candidate rebuilding targets (e.g., how does increasing/decreasing exploitation rate affect the probability of the SMU reaching the candidate rebuilding target (e.g., some specified % above the aggregate abundance component of the LRP) in three generations and/or the projected timeframe needed to reach the target).
  6. Describe any exceptional circumstances or assessment triggers for the stock.
  7. Specific objectives for this SMU, in addition to general objectives #1–6 above include:
    • Develop the aggregate abundance reference point component of LRP, USR and RR if possible, taking into account habitat-based approaches and coverage of existing spawner escapement programs.

Expected Publications

Expected Participation

References

Notice

Participation to CSAS peer review meetings is by invitation only.

Date modified: