Questionnaire Report for Canary rockfish
(MERA version 5.4.3)
Brett van Poorten (brett.vanpoorten@gmail.com)
2019-11-26
About this document
This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.
Introduction
Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. The fishery began in BC in 1945, however significant catch were taken by the Washington fleet before this. “Catch summaries in the previous assessment (Stanley et al. 2005) began with the 1967 calendar year. While landings by Canadian vessels were assumed to be negligible for earlier years, we were aware of significant landings by Washington State vessels, but did not attempt to estimate these catches. Prior to 1967, rockfish were not identified to species in Washington landings; they were grouped as “Pacific ocean perch” or “other rockfish” (ORF). Canary rockfish were a significant but unknown proportion of the latter group. Furthermore, early Washington State data did not always distinguish whether fish caught in Area 3C originated from the northern Washington State or B.C. portion of this area. Recently, Methot and Stewart (2005) and Stewart (2007) reconstructed canary rockfish catches from U.S. waters back to 1932 for Washington-California. For Washington landings, they used the Washington trawl ORF landings from 1930-1966 and the observed proportions of canary rockfish in 1967-1970 landings to reconstruct the 1930-1966 landings to Washington State." (Stanley et al. 2009) The fishery consists of a hook and line/trap (HL) and a trawl fishery. The fishery exists all along the west coast except in the Sailish Sea. This is a targeted fishery, though are also caught in halibut, lingcod and rockfish fisheries; there is now 100% retention, 100% dockside monitoring and at sea observers.
Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. “Canary rockfish typically inhabits rocky bottoms at depth of 70-270 metres, from the western Gulf of Alaska south to northern California.” (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/canary-rockfish-sebaste-canari-eng.html) “Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans. Juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish.” (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/canary-rockfish) “In California studies, larvae and pelagic juvenile canary rockfish are reported to occupy the top 100 m for up to 3-4 months after parturition, and then settle to benthic habitats gradually moving deeper as they grow and age (Love et al. 2002). However, little is actually known about the spatial distribution of larval and juvenile stages in B.C. waters.”; “Pelagic juveniles feed on an array of planktonic items. Adults and subadults primarily eat krill and small fishes. Significant predators probably include lingcod. Like all rockfish, they have closed swim bladders and usually die if released after routine capture. Work in Oregon has shown that movements by adults that exceed 100 km are possible (DeMott 1983).” (CSAS 2009)
Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. NOAA stock assessment for SE Alaska: Olson et al. 2017 The status of canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) in the California Current in 2015: Thorson and Wetzel 2016 DFO stock assessment: Stanley et al. 2009
Fishery Characteristics
Longevity
| Answered |
|---|
| Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7) |
| Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10) |
| Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20) |
| Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40) |
| Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80) |
| Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Different models give different predictions of relative depletion. see figures J.26, J.27, J.30, J.31 (Stanley et al. 2009) |
Stock depletion
| Answered |
|---|
| Crashed (D < 0.05) |
| Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1) |
| Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15) |
| Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3) |
| Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5) |
| Underexploited (0.5 < D) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Different models give different predictions of relative depletion. see figures J.26, J.27, J.30, J.31 (Stanley et al. 2009) |
Resilence
| Answered |
|---|
| Not resilient (steepness < 0.3) |
| Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5) |
| Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7) |
| Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9) |
| Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Steepness is fixed at 0.55 or 0.7. Given that steepness is not estimated and this is one-way trip data, it is fair to assume that chosen steepness is uncertain. |
Historical effort pattern
| Answered |
|---|
| Stable |
| Two-phase |
| Boom-bust |
| Gradual increases |
| Stable, recent increases |
| Stable, recent declines |
| Justification |
|---|
| See exploitation estimates in Figure J.5, J.9, J.13 (Stanley 2009). These all indicate an early increase in fishing mortality in the 1940s, which was relatively stable until the 1980s, and then increased steadily thereafter. |
Inter-annual variability in historical effort
| Answered |
|---|
| Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC)) |
| Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%) |
| Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Based on Figures J.5, J.9 and J.13 (Stanley 2009), there was an intermediate variability from year to year in exploitation rate. |
Historical fishing efficiency changes
| Answered |
|---|
| Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years) |
| Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years) |
| Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years) |
| Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years) |
| Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Efficiency changes unknown, however, with changes in technology and communication, it is reasonable to assume that it is stable to increasing. |
Future fishing efficiency changes
| Answered |
|---|
| Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years) |
| Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years) |
| Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years) |
| Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years) |
| Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No information could be found. It is reasonable that efficiency could increase with increases in technology; conversely, efficiency could decline as non-targeted fleets use technology to avoid bycatch |
Length at maturity
| Answered |
|---|
| Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5) |
| Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6) |
| Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7) |
| Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8) |
| Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9) |
| Justification |
|---|
|
“Some female canary rockfish in B.C. waters are mature at 8 y but 50% and 100% maturity occurs at about 13 y and 20 y, respectively (Fig. 9).” (COSEWIC 2007) See: Canary rockfish maturity.png (from COSEWIC 2007); Canary rockfish maturity from assessment.png; Canary rockfish growth.png (both from Stanley et al. 2009) |
Selectivity of small fish
| Answered |
|---|
| Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2) |
| Small (0.2 < S < 0.4) |
| Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6) |
| Large (0.6 < S < 0.8) |
| Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Selectivity is estimated in the assessment model. see Canary rockfish selectivity.png |
Selectivity of large fish
| Answered |
|---|
| Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1) |
| Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1) |
| Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75) |
| Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Selectivity appears to be asymptotic. (see Canary rockfish selectivity.png) |
Discard rate
| Answered |
|---|
| Low (DR < 1%) |
| Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < DR < 30%) |
| Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%) |
| High (50% < DR < 70%) |
| Justification |
|---|
|
“We used observations of canary rockfish catch relative to halibut catch in the IPHC halibut survey for 2003-2005 to estimate a bycatch ratio of 0.006 (0.6%). We then estimate the incidental catch (discarded and retained) by applying this ratio to total halibut landings from B.C.” “Discard estimates are not available prior to 1996 and the establishment of the independent observer program.” “Discards for this species are minor, with generally less than 10 t per year recorded since 1996–97 for all areas (Table H.1).” (all quotes from Stanley et al. 2009. See also Table.H.1.png) (referring to the hook and line fishery): “These fleets now operate under a regulation of 100% retention of rockfish, with electronic review of discarding to confirm that discarding is negligible.” (Stanley et al. 2009) |
Post-release mortality rate
| Answered |
|---|
| Low (PRM < 5%) |
| Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%) |
| Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%) |
| Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%) |
| High (75% < PRM < 95%) |
| Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Catches are hauled up from very deep habitat; captured fish are usually dead or with distented eyes and stomach due to expanded swim bladder. Discards are treated as 100% mortality in the assessment model. |
Recruitment variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (less than 20% inter-annual changes (IAC)) |
| Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%) |
| Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%) |
| High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%) |
| Very high (max IAC greater than 180%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Estimate of recruitment standard deviation not shown; projections assume recruitment standard deviation is 0.6. |
Size of an existing MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| None |
| Small (A < 5%) |
| Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < A < 20%) |
| Large (20% < A < 30%) |
| Very large (30% < A < 40%) |
| Huge (40% < A < 50%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Canary rockfish are found somewhat offshore and outside the various rockfish conservation areas (RCAs). Historical catch locations do not fall within the RCAs and there is no mention of RCAs affecting catches in the assessment report. |
Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (P < 1%) |
| Low (1% < P < 5%) |
| Moderate (5% < P < 10%) |
| High (10% < P < 20%) |
| Fully mixed |
| Justification |
|---|
|
“A tagging study conducted in Oregon (DeMott 1983) indicated that individual canary rockfish can move significant distances (>100 km).” (Stanley et al. 2009) “Yelloweye rockfish remain near the bottom and have small home ranges, while some canary rockfish and bocaccio have larger home ranges, move long distances, and spend time suspended in the water column (Love et al. 2002). Adults of each species are most commonly found between 131 feet to 820 feet (40 to 250 m) (Love et a1. 2002; Orr et al. 2000).” (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/Documents/RangewideSOS/NMFS/Rangewide%20Status%20of%20Rockfish.pdf) |
Size of a future potential MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| None |
| Small (A < 5%) |
| Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < A < 20%) |
| Large (20% < A < 30%) |
| Very large (30% < A < 40%) |
| Huge (40% < A < 50%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No future spatial closures are being considered |
Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (P < 1%) |
| Low (1% < P < 5%) |
| Moderate (5% < P < 10%) |
| High (10% < P < 20%) |
| Fully mixed |
| Justification |
|---|
| No justification was provided |
Initial stock depletion
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15) |
| Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3) |
| Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5) |
| High (0.5 < D1) |
| Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Initial exploitation is very low (see Figures J.5, J.9, J.13; Stanley et al. 2009). |
Management Characteristics
Types of fishery management that are possible
| Answered |
|---|
| TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit |
| TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit |
| Size limit |
| Time-area closures (a marine reserve) |
| Justification |
|---|
|
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort. “The current overall TAC is 1193 t (Table 2) with 87.70% of the canary rockfish quota allocated to trawl (T license), 11.77% to outer coast HL rockfish harvesters (ZN-outside license), and 0.53% to Pacific halibut harvesters (L license). Catches in the trawl fleet are constrained by an annual quota and vessel-specific quotas. Hook and line catches were constrained by annual quotas and trip limits. Since 2006, there has been virtually 100% monitoring in all remaining groundfish sectors, with the exception of a small trawl fishery in the Strait of Georgia. The HL harvesters are also now constrained by sector and vessel quotas. Groundfish catches in the recreational fishery are constrained by a bag limit (for “all rockfish” combined) which varies by area." (Stanley et al. 2009) 2. Describe historical management measures, if any. “There is also a drop in exploitation rate in the mid-1990s which coincides with significant management changes which were implemented in the trawl fishery in the mid-1990s. Additional management changes have since been implemented in the hook and line fishery in the mid- 2000s, which should also lead to reductions in exploitation on this species.”; “(referring to the commercial trawl fishery) We argue that catch rate data prior to April 1996 are not comparable over time, owing largely to the significant and varying degrees of mis-reporting. As noted before, our concerns about this period are based on the reporting of a large number of landing events, known to the senior author and others, for which the fishing logs and sales slips were obviously falsified. Furthermore, the trip limits were varied over time; thus the directions of the biases would vary from one year to the next, or over groups of years. The dysfunction in the catch reporting system and the resulting inability to manage to quotas was the primary reason that the Department imposed 100% observer coverage on the trawl fishery in 1996.” (Stanley et al. 2009) 3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity. At-sea observer coverage approaches 100%; dockside monitoring is 100%. I see no weaknesses with monitoring. 4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement. |
TAC offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Underages (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Overages (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| See table 2 (from Stanley et al. 2009) |
TAC implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| See Table 2 in Stanley et al. 2009 |
TAE offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Underages (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Overages (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| See Table 2 in Stanley et al. 2009 |
TAE implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Hook and line fishery is regulated by trip limits, but there is no indication of what those limits are or how they are regulated. Given the high oversight, I would presume there are no overages and likely only mild underages. |
Size limit offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Much smaller (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Smaller (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slightly smaller (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slightly larger (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Larger (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Much larger (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No size limits |
Size limit implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No justification was provided |
Data Characteristics
Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Historical annual catches (from unfished) |
| Recent annual catches (at least 5 recent years) |
| Historical relative abundance index (from unfished) |
| Recent relative abundance index (at least 5 recent years) |
| Fishing effort |
| Size composition (length samples) |
| Age composition (age samples) |
| Growth (growth parameters) |
| Absolute biomass survey |
| Justification |
|---|
|
1. Provide the time series (specify years, if possible) that exist for catch, effort, and CPUE/abundance indices. Catch has been reconstructed for 1930 to present. Recent catches are reported from hand and line, trap and trawl fisheries through dockside reporting and on-board observer program Relative abundance comes from shrimp trawl surveys in WCVI, Queen Charlotte Sound, GB Reed, as well as the Queen Charlotte Synoptic trawl survey, and the Canary Rockfish CPUE survey Fiishing effort is available though it seems it is used only for calculation of CPUE “Most of the age composition samples are from port samples taken at dockside during unloading, although there have been an increase in the number of samples taken by the ASOP in recent years (Figure 4). The latter sampling seems to have been more heavily weighted towards the WCVI than to QCSd (Figure 4). In spite of numerous samples, there is no obvious progression of specific cohorts, particularly in more recent years (Figure 5).” (Shepard et al. 2009) Growth parameters are directly estimated in the stock assessment document. 2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers). “Biological sample data were extracted from the GFBio database at the Pacific Biological Station. The extraction did not include “surface-read” ages from the 1970’s. Samples sources include port samples taken from commercial landings, and at-sea observer (ASOP) samples taken during commercial fishing operations, and research samples taken during surveys.“(Shephard et al. 2009) 3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality. The details of the sampling methodology are unknown. CPUE were reconstructed from historical time series from various sources; data from 1930-1940s comes from US landings. 4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports. ”Basic life history research may help to resolve assessment uncertainties regarding appropriate values for natural mortality and steepness, and how to best account for the apparent loss of older females in the population." (Canary Rockfish STAR panel 2005) “Steepness is a parameter which is poorly estimated in these models and highly uncertain” (Shephard et al. 2009) “There is uncertainty due to high variability in the various index series (characteristic of trawl surveys) and the unknown degree to which abundance trends in the southern part of the Canadian range reflect abundance trends throughout the species’ range in Canadian waters”; “There are several sources of uncertainty in interpreting population status. Uncertainty about recent trend in the most reliable index is discussed above. There is also uncertainty with respect to applying population trend indices from one part of the distribution (southwest, off the west coast of Vancouver Island) to the whole distribution. There is uncertainty about trends in biological characteristics (particularly age and length) since biological sampling has generally been at a low level, pattern has varied over time, and changes in fishing patterns could have influenced the data. Overall there is considerable variability in the information. However, the strong decline in two relatively reliable indices is considered to provide a relatively clear signal of population trend.” (COSEWIC 2008) |
Catch reporting bias
| Answered |
|---|
| Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%) |
| Under-reporting (10% - 30%) |
| Slight under-reporting (0% - 10%) |
| Reported accurately (+/- 5%) |
| Slight over-reporting (less than 10%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| “Even with good catch data in the period 1996+, CPUE can be expected to be “hyper-stable” within the context of an individual vessel quota (IVQ) fishery (IVQs were introduced in 1997). As canary rockfish abundance varies, fishers in an IVQ fishery are likely to alternate between targeting and avoiding this species in response to changes in abundance, thus making CPUE appear to be stable. However, we assume this tendency towards hyper-stability would be overwhelmed by large-scale changes in abundance, particularly for declines because, at some point, IVQs will not be caught if abundance declines significantly. This should be manifest in the CPUE as well. Therefore, these analyses were conducted to examine whether there was evidence of a decline large enough to overcome the tendency for hyper-stability." (COSEWIC 2007) |
Hyperstability in indices
| Answered |
|---|
| Strong hyperdepletion (2 < Beta < 3) |
| Hyperdepletion (1.25 < Beta < 2) |
| Proportional (0.8 < Beta < 1.25) |
| Hyperstability (0.5 < Beta < 0.8) |
| Strong hyperstability (0.33 < Beta < 0.5) |
| Justification |
|---|
| “Even with good catch data in the period 1996+, CPUE can be expected to be “hyper-stable” within the context of an individual vessel quota (IVQ) fishery (IVQs were introduced in 1997). As canary rockfish abundance varies, fishers in an IVQ fishery are likely to alternate between targeting and avoiding this species in response to changes in abundance, thus making CPUE appear to be stable. However, we assume this tendency towards hyper-stability would be overwhelmed by large-scale changes in abundance, particularly for declines because, at some point, IVQs will not be caught if abundance declines significantly. This should be manifest in the CPUE as well. Therefore, these analyses were conducted to examine whether there was evidence of a decline large enough to overcome the tendency for hyper-stability." (COSEWIC 2007) |
Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Perfect |
| Good (accurate and precise) |
| Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Catches appear accurate, though samples “There is uncertainty about trends in biological characteristics (particularly age and length) since biological sampling has generally been at a low level, pattern has varied over time, and changes in fishing patterns could have influenced the data.” (COSEWIC 2007) |
Version Notes
The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to t.carruthers@oceans.ubc.ca so that it can be fixed!
tcar_-2019-11-26-10:25:40
Open Source, GPL-2 2019