Resource Ecology & Fisheries Management (REFM) Division

Resource Ecology & Ecosystem Modeling Program

Development of the Species Assessment of Concern for the BSAI and GOA FMP

In December 2001, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) requested that AFSC and NPFMC staff meet to discuss management issues associated with non-target species. An ad hoc group was formed to 1) discuss whether alternative management measures were necessary to enhance protection of non-target species, 2) begin looking at possible ways to evaluate alternative management measures, and 3) determine which species would best be served by alternative management measures. In 2004, the NPFMC formed the Non-Target Species Committee which included one member from the AFSC. The committee concluded that it should first define the level of concern for each non-target species or species complex.

In May 2005, AFSC scientists met to assist the Non-Target Species Committee in developing an assessment that included criteria for evaluating the level of concern for non-target species. A series of meetings subsequently followed that led to the identification of criteria based on a variety of information for each candidate species. AFSC scientists further expanded these criteria and incorporated them in the form of a worksheet called the Species Assessment of Concern (SAC). The creation of the SAC was also prompted by ongoing work on rockfish and the need to evaluate whether revising management measures were necessary to enhance the protection of non-target rockfish species. The SAC provides an objective method for identifying nontarget species that may be of immediate concern.

The goal in the development of the SAC was to identify which species or complex may be in most need of management action. The SAC does not provide recommendations for the mitigation of those species most impacted by fishing, nor does it provide research priorities for those species whose life histories are poorly known. Each SAC, however, does provide critical information that might aid in future decision-making processes. Further information can be found in each species or species complex respective stock assessments.

The criteria in the SAC are based on sets of key information that best illustrate a species or species complex level of concern: Productivity, Fishery Interactions, Abundance Trend, and Catch Trend. The first step of the SAC determines the productivity of the species or species complex based on key life history parameters. The second step determines the fishery impact level of concern (FILC). In this part of the SAC, the level of fishery interactions, and fishery and survey data are used to assess whether a species or species complex interaction with any fishing activities is at a level of concern. Species that are found to be at a high level of concern due to fishing impacts are those whose exploitation rate (catch/biomass) is higher than the maximum allowable Tier 5 ABC (acceptable biological catch) fishing mortality rate (0.75 x natural mortality rate (M)) and whose data quality is ranked as “good”.

Each section, except Fishery Interactions, is qualified with a data quality section. For Abundance Trend, the data quality is based on the AFSC’s RACE Division survey coefficient of variation (CV); catch trend data quality is determined by data reliability (which is based on how the catch data were obtained); and Productivity data quality is based on whether the life history parameters are from the same species for the appropriate area within Alaska or from the same or similar species in another area outside of Alaska.

Other information to determine species assessment of concern that is not discussed in the SAC worksheet are: the role of the species in the ecosystem, habitat restrictions, and recommendations for mitigating those species found to be most impacted by fishing effort. The SAC will be presented to the NPFMC SSC during the October 2005 meetings.

By Rebecca Reuter and Todd TenBrink


>>>continued

AFSC Quarterly
Research Reports July-Sept 2005