Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Healthy, self-sustaining populations for all Atlantic coast fish species or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015

Benchmark Stock Assessments: Data and Assessment Workshop & Peer Review Process

January 2007

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Benchmark Stock Assessments: Data and Assessment Workshop & Peer Review Process

January 2007

(Revises and replaces June 2005 and September 2002 revisions, and October 1998 1st Printing)

A publication of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Award Nos. NA04NMF4740186 and NA05NMF4741025

ii

Acknowledgements The Commission would like to acknowledge the efforts of the two committees that has overseen the revisions and additions to this document: the Management and Science Committee and the Assessment Science Committee. In particular, the following individuals provided their expertise to lead these committees to consensus in updating this document to reflect improvements to the existing ASMFC process: Chris Bonzek (VIMS), John Carmichael (SEDAR), Doug Grout (New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game), and Linda Mercer (Maine Department of Marine Resources). The Commission would also like to thank John Carmichael for providing insights gained from the SEDAR process that were beneficial in developing the guidelines for the Commission Data and Assessment Workshops. The Commission would also like to acknowledge the following staff members, who worked with the Management and Science Committee and Stock Assessment Committee by providing editorial assistance in finalizing this document: Tina Berger (Public Affairs and Resource Specialist), Toni Kerns (Senior FMP Coordinator), Melissa Paine (Science Committee Coordinator), Laura Lee (Stock Assessment Biologist), Brad Spear (Senior FMP Coordinator) and Patrick Kilduff (Fisheries Research Specialist).

iii

Table of Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................................iii Background............................................................................................................................................... 1 ASMFC Benchmark Stock Assessment and Peer Review Policies.......................................................... 2 Benchmark Stock Assessments and the Data and Assessment Workshop Process.................................. 5

Data Workshop Process........................................................................................................................ 7 Assessment Workshop........................................................................................................................ 12 Workshop Roles & Responsibilities................................................................................................... 14 Assessment Delays ............................................................................................................................. 15

ASMFC Peer Review Process ................................................................................................................ 16 Requirements for the SAW/SARC ..................................................................................................... 18 Requirements for the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR)........................................ 19 Description of the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC)................................ 20 Requirements for the ASMFC External Peer Review ........................................................................ 21 Requirements for the ASMFC Peer Review Using an Existing Organization ................................... 23 Requirements for ASMFC Internal Stock Assessment Peer Review ................................................. 24

Appendix 1. General Checklist for ASMFC Tracking Progress of ASMFC Stock Assessments.......... 26 Pre-Assessment Meeting or Conference Call ..................................................................................... 26 Pre-Assessment Technical Committee Meeting................................................................................. 26 Data Workshop Preparation................................................................................................................ 27 Data Workshop ................................................................................................................................... 27 Assessment Workshop Preparation .................................................................................................... 28 Assessment Workshop........................................................................................................................ 28 Post-Assessment Workshop Follow-up.............................................................................................. 28 Technical Committee Review of Stock Assessment Report .............................................................. 28 Preparation for Peer Review............................................................................................................... 29

Appendix 2. Guidelines for ASMFC Data Workshops Working Papers & Preliminary Data Analysis 30 Appendix 3. Components of the Assessment Report ............................................................................. 33 Appendix 4. Generic Terms of Reference .............................................................................................. 36 Appendix 5. Example Data Availability Spreadsheets........................................................................... 39 Appendix 6. Standard Terms of Reference and Advisory Report .......................................................... 46

1

Background In 1996, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) was mandated to “implement a process for the peer review of fish population models upon which fishery management decisions are based.” At the time, a peer review process (Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee, or SAW/SARC) existed in the Northeast region for stock assessments of species managed by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, including species that are managed cooperatively by the Commission and Councils. The Commission approved a formal standard review process for Commission assessments in 1998. The first revisions to this document were made in September 2002 to reflect modifications of the original process, including clarification of procedures and protocols. In the southeastern U.S., the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process was initiated in 2002 to support the stock assessment peer review needs of the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and the South Atlantic, Gulf and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. In 2005, the Commission updated “Stock Assessment Peer Review Process” to incorporate major changes and additions to the previous editions, replacing the 2002 publication in full. The 2005 edition included the addition of the Commission’s guidelines for conducting benchmark stock assessments, its decisions regarding stakeholder involvement in Commission stock assessments and peer reviews, and the establishment of guidelines concerning rejected benchmark stock assessments and annually updated assessments. The current document has been revised to reflect recommendations that were made through a comprehensive external and internal review of the Commission’s stock assessment process conducted throughout 2005 and 2006. The term benchmark stock assessment refers to a stock assessment that goes through an external peer review. Benchmark assessments are prompted by new fishery management actions, a major change in stock assessment model or data, or a Commission or Fishery Management Council time-trigger. The Commission has employed a five-year trigger to prevent excessive time from elapsing between peer-review of each species assessment used by management. The definition of stock assessment utilized in this report includes data compilation and analysis, model development, and parameter estimation. The Commission has adopted the Data and Assessment Workshop structure utilized in the SEDAR process to standardize and improve the quality of its benchmark stock assessment process. The objectives of Data Workshops are to coordinate the collection and organization of data for species assessments and to conduct preliminary analyses to help determine the best approach(es) for assessing each stock. The objectives of the Assessment Workshop are to rigorously evaluate the methods & population models developed to assess fish stocks, ensure appropriate the use of the data in these models and to determine the status of the fishery examined. Data and Assessment Workshops are designed to improve stock assessments by broadening participation and expertise of fishery scientists and by defining the goals, products and participant responsibilities pertaining to the development of ASMFC stock assessments. The purpose of the Benchmark Stock Assessment & Peer Review Process is to: (1) validate the credibility of the scientific basis for management; (2) improve the quality of Commission stock assessments; (3) ensure that stock assessments for all species managed by the Commission periodically

2

undergo a formal peer review; and (4) improve public understanding of fisheries stock assessments. The basic structure of the various plan development, technical, and advisory committees within the Commission, as outlined in the Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) Charter will be maintained. The process should minimize costs, staff time and fishery management plan development time, as much as possible. Development of this process should include aspects to promote public awareness of technical findings. ASMFC Benchmark Stock Assessment and Peer Review Policies Prioritizing Benchmark Stock Assessments

The ISFMP Policy Board will semiannually prioritize the species for which assessments will be reviewed based on management board recommendations. The SAW/SARC (Northeast) and the SEDAR (Southeast) processes will be utilized as fully as

possible. The Commission will provide state and Commission membership to the Northeast

Coordinating Council (formerly the SAW Steering Committee) and the SEDAR Steering Committee.

Benchmark Stock Assessment Process

The Assessment Science Committee will provide oversight of the Data and Assessment Workshop process. This formal stock assessment and peer review process will be applied to all benchmark stock

assessments for species managed by the Commission. Data and Assessment Workshops will be held for all benchmark stock assessments. Data Workshop participants will include the species technical committee, the species stock

assessment subcommittee, ASMFC staff and other interested/invited parties. One to three stakeholders will also be invited to fully participate at the Data Workshops. Participants in the Assessment Workshop shall include the species stock assessment

subcommittee, species technical Chair and Vice-Chair, ASMFC staff and other invited parties. Stakeholders shall not be formally invited to participate in Assessment Workshops. Standard protocols, as outlined in this document, for the review of stock assessments for

species managed by the Commission (i.e., input data, assessment model, assumptions, and output) should be followed by all review panels under this process. Stock assessments for Commission species will be prepared following the guidelines in this

document. The Commission’s species stock assessment subcommittees will prepare the final assessment, which is to be approved by the species technical committee prior to peer review. For species managed cooperatively by the Commission and the regional Councils, a joint stock assessment report will be developed. All assessments, including those for internal review by an appropriate species committee, will be prepared in the standard format listed in Appendix 3.

Peer Reviews of Benchmark Stock Assessments

The Management and Science Committee will provide oversight and review of the stock assessment peer review process.

3

Stakeholders shall be invited to attend ASMFC External Peer Reviews, but not as panel members, and the External Peer Review Panel Chair will encourage public comment. The peer review will involve a review of the stock assessment only or a review of all the

science underlying the species management (e.g. life history information). Results of all external peer reviews conducted by the Commission will be reported in a Terms of Reference and Advisory Report following the standard report guidelines listed in Appendix 6. The Commission will compile and maintain a list of stock assessment scientists to participate in

external peer reviews. The management board shall make the final determination on status of stock and reference

points for Commission managed species.

Guidelines for Regularly Updated Stock Assessments

Annual updates are generally not needed for species that are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The timing of updates should be based on life history, management needs, assessment scientist

workload and stock status. Annual updates may be needed for short-lived species or if management specifications require them. Benchmark assessments should include recommendations for the timing of updates, a forward

projection of stock status at least until the recommended update when applicable, and the appropriate metrics to monitor during the interim years (e.g., landings, survey values). Assessment update frequency should be sufficient to ensure that potential biases in the stock

projection can be recognized in the updated assessment before substantial damage to the stock occurs.

Guidelines for Previously Rejected Stock Assessments

Assessments rejected at a peer-review should not be brought back to the peer review body until the deficiencies identified by the review are addressed or a different model is used that is appropriate for the existing data. This is intended to:

- Match the assessment technique to the available data, rather than management requirements

that exceed the available data - Ensure that the necessary research/work is done to improve data for a species before

conducting an assessment using a method that is appropriate with the available data

Species plan review teams and/or technical committees should review and evaluate whether or not the assessment deficiencies identified in previously rejected assessments have been addressed. When making recommendations for the benchmark assessment and peer review schedule, the

SAC will consider if those deficiencies have been addressed or not. The SAC can then alter the recommended assessment schedule accordingly:

If the deficiencies are identified as being met, then the assessment should go forward to peer review; if deficiencies remain, then the assessment should not be recommended for review until the

4

deficiencies have been met or the assessment method has been modified to handle the data deficiencies.

5

Benchmark Stock Assessments and the Data and Assessment Workshop Process Timely completion of high quality stock assessments is essential for effective fisheries management at the ASMFC. To achieve this goal, the ASMFC has adopted a process for conducting stock assessments. This process provides guidance to ASMFC technical committees, stock assessment subcommittees and staff on the following:

Establishing roles and responsibilities of participants Requesting, compiling and analyzing available data Developing milestones and realistic timelines for achieving them Tracking progress toward milestones Establishing effective communication among participants

The ASMFC’s stock assessment process is built around two workshops: Data Workshops and Assessment Workshops. The development of the workshop format should help ASMFC stock assessment subcommittees conduct thorough and scientifically defensible stock assessments on schedules agreed to by both species management boards and technical committees. Following this framework should increase the transparency of the stock assessment process while helping our scientists complete quality stock assessments. A generalized checklist of assessment related tasks – organized by each step in the assessment process – is found in Appendix 1 and closely follows the benchmark stock assessment process outlined in the body of this framework. The goals of the Data Workshop are to coordinate the collection and organization of data for stock assessments and to conduct preliminary analyses to help determine the best approach(es) for assessing each stock. The objectives of the Assessment Workshop are to rigorously evaluate the methods & population models developed to assess fish stocks, ensure appropriate the use of the data in these models and to determine the status of the fishery examined. The time required to complete a stock assessment varies depending on species biology, data availability and quality, past assessment history, and the collective experience of technical committees and stock assessment subcommittees. This document provides a guide for technical committees and stock assessment subcommittees to follow when conducting stock assessments and preparing for peer reviews. As a “rule of thumb”, the initial planning for an assessment should begin 24 months in advance of the expected peer review date. Species with established stock assessments that are updated regularly may require much less time to assess than species that have never been assessed. Technical committees need to modify the process and schedule to reflect the specific needs of each assessment. ASMFC stock assessment staff will function as regular members of the stock assessment subcommittees and will provide assistance, as needed, in order to ensure timely completion of the stock assessment. The ASMFC established the following participation guidelines for Data and Assessment Workshops:

Provide a notice on workshop invitation, agenda & other meeting materials that the meeting is for technical, not management, advice. All participants must work to achieve consensus toward objective scientific viewpoints; there

will be no tolerance of personal agendas.

6

Those who commit to participate are expected to attend the entire meeting. Results of the stock assessment may not be broadcast before the results have been vetted

through the proper channels. If participants do not adhere to the above guidelines, then they will not be asked to participate

in future workshops.

7

Data Workshop Process The purpose of a Data Workshop is to compile, organize and critically evaluate all available fishery dependent data, fishery independent data and life history information that will be used to conduct a benchmark stock assessment. Data Workshop products include a comprehensive database of data sets and a draft Data Report that contains the first five sections of the stock assessment report. All decisions and recommendations will be documented by ASMFC staff. This decision document will serve as a reference of all decisions made during the assessment process. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will discuss the possible approaches for conducting the assessment. All participants need to realize that the success of the meeting depends on work completed outside of the Data Workshop. ASMFC managed species display numerous life history strategies and have data sets that vary greatly in quantity and quality. To reflect this variability, specific time lines should be set by each species technical committee and management board to account for the specific requirements of each species assessment and planning should begin 24 months in advance of the expected peer review date. For species with no accepted benchmark stock assessment or that have not been assessed in several years, the assessment process might need to begin as early as 36 months in advance of a scheduled peer review. The extra time should account for the extra effort required to find and compile all available data and to explore available assessment models. Efforts should be made to ensure continuity between the Data and Assessment Workshops to prevent excessive time lapses. Maintaining accurate records of completed work, species data sets, and decisions made during stock assessments is a critical task. ASMFC staff, in cooperation with technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee Chairs, will maintain a decision document that records each consensus decision made during all phases of a stock assessment. ASMFC staff will maintain all stock assessment data files, final reports, working papers and additional materials on a secure server at the ASMFC. Pre-Assessment Meeting or Conference Call Several tasks need to be accomplished before the Data Workshop in order to have a successful meeting. Initial planning, background research summaries (e.g., past assessments, life history literature, fishery history and regulatory history) and data compilation efforts for the stock Assessment Workshops should begin well in advance of the Data Workshop. If a species does not have a stock assessment subcommittee, the species management board should request that the Assessment Science Committee and the species technical committee jointly appoint a stock assessment subcommittee of 4-6 individuals with appropriate expertise in stock assessment and fish population dynamics. The first action of the stock assessment subcommittee will be to select a Chair. A meeting or conference call with the technical committee Chair, stock assessment subcommittee Chair, and ASMFC staff will initiate assessment planning. A main objective of the meeting is to establish an effective line of communication link among these key people in the stock assessment process. At this meeting, the goals, objectives, roles and responsibilities will be discussed with respect to the current assessment. This group will develop a draft time line for subsequent assessment related meetings and milestones, as well as developing draft Terms of Reference for the assessment. Both the

8

draft time line and draft Terms of Reference will be presented to the species technical committee and then to the species management board for additional comments and approval. Generic Terms of Reference for SARC, SEDAR and ASMFC coordinated external peer reviews are provided in Appendix 2. Pre-Assessment Technical Committee Meeting This meeting serves as the set up meeting for the Data Workshop and should be held well in advance of the peer review; however, the amount of time should be determined on an assessment specific basis and reflect the amount time needed to acquire all available data sets. Species that are regularly assessed and have up to date and inclusive data sets may need less time, while first time assessments and species with data sets maintained by non-ASMFC member agencies or organizations should plan on additional time. The full technical committee reviews the goals and objectives of the stock assessment and peer review to ensure that the technical committee understands the process. The technical committee then evaluates the draft Terms of Reference and time line and then reaches consensus on both items. Staff will forward both to the species management board for their review and approval. Once the time line has been established, the next technical committee task is to identify and acquire fisheries data (in the requested format). The ASMFC has developed data availability spreadsheets (Appendix 5 and available from ASMFC staff) that allow data holders to provide detailed descriptions of their data (commercial, recreational, fishery independent, and other). The technical committee should review these spreadsheets, modify them to according to the needs of the assessment and set a due date for technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee members to submit these completed spreadsheets. To facilitate data transfer to the ASMFC, the technical committee will review, and modify as appropriate, a generic data submission spreadsheet. ASMFC staff will track all data availability spreadsheets returned and note the date returned. For each data set identified, ASFMC staff will distribute data submission spreadsheet to data holders. All data holders should follow the requested format in the data submission spreadsheet. This will facilitate data analysis and evaluation and save time. ASMFC staff will send the data submission spreadsheet to data holders that return the data availability spreadsheet. Additional data holders from beyond ASMFC partner agencies (e.g., inland/freshwater agencies, universities, consultants and utility authorities) should be identified and contacted to determine if they have data that should be considered for the assessment. ASMFC staff will contact the potential data holders requesting that they fill out the data availability spreadsheet and asking for its return by a due date recommended by the technical committee. The final step of this meeting is to assign tasks and due dates to prepare for the Data Workshop. ASMFC staff will develop and maintain a record of all assignments in a Stock Assessment Task Completion spreadsheet, which will allow ASMFC staff and the technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee Chairs to monitor progress. This will help to identify and address any possible problems that could affect the timely completion of the assessment. The preparation work for the Data Workshop requires a considerable time commitment before the actual workshop to prepare

9

data sets for submission, conduct preliminary analyses and draft Working Papers. Each task/working paper should be assigned to a person who will have the ultimate responsibility for completion of that task. Some Working Papers might require multiple authors. However, with so many people working on different pieces, keeping a detailed progress report on all working papers will permit early identification of potential “hang-ups” that could delay the assessment. It will also ensure that each step in the process is complete before moving forward. Staff will label each Working Paper submitted chronologically for each species assessment. For example, the seventh Working Paper submitted for the 2006 Bass assessment would be 2006 Bass Assessment Working Paper #7 – Title, Author(s). The closing task of the Pre-Assessment technical committee meeting is to finalize the dates and location for the Data Workshop. Working Papers Working Papers provide the elements that Data Workshop participants will use to draft the Data Report during the Data Workshop. Working Papers fall into two types. One type summarizes background information, and the other describes submitted data sets. A background Working Paper will be prepared for each of these topics: a review of previous stock assessments, a review of life history and habitat literature and a review of fishery history and regulations (see Appendix 2). A data Working Paper will be prepared for each submitted fishery dependent and independent data set and will contain a description of the data collection methods, preliminary analyses, metadata, as well as the data set. Journal articles and grey-literature (e.g., annual reports) may be submitted if they contain sufficient descriptions of the data and methods, as outlined in Appendix 2. Working papers are prepared prior to the Data Workshop, so participants have the text and data (figures and tables) that can be easily “cut & paste” with little modification into the Data Report during the workshop. This allows participants to spend the workshop evaluating the content of the Working Papers and each data set’s utility in the assessment. ASMFC staff and stock assessment subcommittee Chair will monitor and record the return of data availability spreadsheets, as well as the submission of Working Papers and data sets, with respect to assignment due dates. All Working Papers and data sets should be submitted to ASMFC staff at least two weeks before the Data Workshop. ASMFC staff will organize all Data Workshop materials and prepare CDs that will be sent the to technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee and the additional data holders. Staff will work with the technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee Chairs to set the agenda for the Data Workshop. Data Workshop At the Data Workshop, participants will produce a comprehensive database of all data sets and a draft Data Report that contains the first five sections of the stock assessment report. All Data Workshop participants are strongly encouraged to read all materials on the Data Workshop CD. The Data Workshop will begin with an overview of Data Workshop goals and objectives and the Terms of Reference. Next, brief presentations of background Working Papers followed by the data Working Papers will be

10

given before the participants break up into Working Groups. Each Working Group will be charged to complete a draft of one of the following chapters of the Data Report:

Introduction (includes Management Unit Definition, Regulatory History, and Assessment History) Life History (includes Stock Definition, Aging, Age & Growth, Fecundity & Maturity, Diet,

and Morality Rates) and Habitat Fishery Description (Historical and Current Status of Commercial and Recreational Fisheries) Data Sources (Each sub-category below may constitute a separate Working Group)

• Commercial • Recreational • Fishery Independent

Working Group members are assigned based on participant expertise. A leader for each group is responsible for ensuring that report sections are completed. Specific groups can be formed to address specific needs of the assessment. When possible, participants should be assigned to workgroups in advance, but assignments can be made at the Data Workshop. Working Groups draw upon the appropriate Working Papers and data sets to complete their reports. Their reports should follow the outline for the corresponding chapter of the Stock Assessment Report and should contain the Working Group’s concise recommendations on the utility of the available information and each data set. Working Groups present their report to the full Data Workshop contingent, which reviews the draft sections of the Data Report and accompanying recommendations. All decisions at the Data Workshop are made by the full technical committee and recorded by ASMFC staff. Stock assessment subcommittee members may present their initial ideas for stock assessment modeling approaches to get input from Data Workshop participants. Data Workshop participants then develop list of assignments – with due dates – needed to complete Data Workshop products. The stock assessment subcommittee should finalize the date and location of Assessment Workshop. The subcommittee should also identify, assign and set deadlines before the Assessment Workshop. Assignments for the Assessment Workshop include development of Working Papers on selected modeling approaches (Appendix 2 E-H) and additional data analyses. Data Workshop Products The final products of the Data Workshop include the Data Report, the consensus database containing complete data sets to be used in the stock assessment, the Working Papers and documentation of workshop decisions and assignments. ASMFC staff will store all Data Workshop products on the ASMFC’s secure server and send CDs containing all information to Data Workshop participants.

11

Late Data If relevant data are identified during or within two weeks of the Data Workshop, then the new data should be reviewed and approved by the species technical committee in order to be added to the consensus database. For these new data identified at or after the Data Workshop, ASMFC staff will collect the data, add it to the database and ensure that all other Data Workshop participants review and approve the new data. As a rule, data identified more than two weeks after the Data Workshop will not be considered, unless the stock assessment subcommittee ascertains that the addition of such data may have a serious impact on the assessment outcome. These data must meet the same quality standards as those provided on a timely basis. Late, missing or unavailable data – such as discards – that are identified should be discussed to determine the impact on the ability of the stock assessment subcommittee to conduct a comprehensive stock assessment. Data Confidentiality There has been concern regarding confidential data access at Data and Assessment Workshops. This requires that everyone involved in the Data and Assessment Workshops be responsible for matters where confidentiality is concerned. All participants with confidential data clearance should identify themselves, the confidential data clearance they have, and note the nature of the agreement. Each participant is responsible for abiding by the binding confidentiality agreement when handling confidential data. Data holders are responsible for identifying confidential data submitted to the ASMFC and confidential data should be handled and viewed by those with the required clearance. Data submitted to all workshop participants must be compiled so that confidentiality is maintained. Data and Assessment Workshop participants must abide under the constraints of existing confidentiality agreements. Data Workshop Participants Data Workshop participants will include the species technical committee, the species stock assessment subcommittee, species Advisory Panel Chair, ASMFC staff and other interested/invited parties. One to three stakeholders will also be invited to fully participate at the Data Workshops. The exact number will be flexible in order to represent fisheries at the Data Workshop and ASMFC Staff and Management Board Chair will aid in the selection of stakeholder representatives. All Data Workshop participants should bring a laptop computer equipped with software suitable for data manipulation/analysis and report writing. Additionally, all participants will receive a CD containing the compiled data sets, summaries and preliminary analyses, which they are expected to bring to the Data Workshop.

12

Assessment Workshop At Assessment Workshops, ASMFC stock assessment subcommittees conduct stock assessments in accordance to the Terms of Reference. Modeling approach(es) for each stock assessment is (are) determined based on the available data. ASMFC stock assessment staff will work with the stock assessment subcommittee to determine the best methodology to use based on species’ data availability. The ASMFC will provide a list of the models presently accepted for use in stock assessments and their data requirements, as well as models considered exploratory. It is recommended that other peer-reviewed models be explored in addition to the model(s) currently used in an assessment. The ASMFC encourages development of new models (ones that have not been peer-reviewed) as an exploratory exercise. These exploratory models can be run against peer-reviewed models using available data excluding the terminal year of data and submitted as part of the peer reviewed benchmark assessment. If the new model passes peer review, then it can be used as the primary model in future benchmark assessments. During the Assessment Workshop, workshop participants conduct and critically evaluate assessment model runs as defined in the Terms of Reference (Appendix 4) and produce the completed species Stock Assessment Report following the Commission’s standard format (Appendix 3); this includes the Data Report plus the remaining sections. Preliminary model runs should be performed before the workshop to ensure proper model function to minimize the time spent at workshops correcting computer glitches. Conducting and reviewing model runs are the focal points of the meeting. Assessment Workshop Preparation Preparation for the Assessment Workshop begins by completing follow-up tasks from the Data Workshop. ASMFC staff and the technical committee/stock assessment subcommittee Chairs will make final edits to the Data Report shortly after the Data Workshop. ASMFC staff will send the final Data Workshop CD to Data Workshop participants. In addition, the stock assessment subcommittee should complete and submit Assessment Workshop assignments to ASMFC staff by the agreed due date. ASMFC staff will track completion of assignments and prepare a CD with both the Assessment Workshop Working Papers and the Data Workshop final products. Assessment Workshop The Assessment Workshop will begin with a review of the goals and objectives of the meeting and the Terms or Reference for the assessment. The stock assessment subcommittee will then begin their evaluation of the Working Papers that deal with any additional data analyses and make a final decision on the value of each data set for use in assessment. All reasons for inclusion or exclusion of a data set will be recorded by staff in the decision document. Stock assessment subcommittee members will then present Working Papers on the stock assessment methods and models that they have developed. The Working Papers should contain sections describing data use, model formulation, results and recommended conclusions. Each analysis will be critically evaluated (i.e., note strengths and weaknesses) and the stock assessment subcommittee will select the best approach or approaches for assessing stock. ASMFC staff will record the evaluations and final

13

models and methods selected by the stock assessment subcommittee for the stock assessment report. ASMFC stock assessment staff will work with stock assessment subcommittees to ensure that the Stock Assessment Report includes a section describing the assumptions of each model used as well as any limitations of the model or the data (e.g., lack of confidence in age data). This section will facilitate review of the assessment by the technical committee and the peer review process. The stock assessment subcommittee and ASMFC stock assessment staff will ensure that all underlying assumptions and limitations are explicitly discussed before final model selection. The stock assessment subcommittee will conduct model runs, sensitivity analyses, estimate uncertainty or other tasks as needed to finalize modeling efforts. The stock assessment subcommittee will then develop its consensus recommendation on stock status in terms of the appropriate reference points and compose the final sections of the draft Stock Assessment Report. The stock assessment subcommittee will also revisit the research recommendations developed at the Data Workshop to make additions and prioritize the list. The stock assessment subcommittee will assign tasks with due dates needed to finalize the Stock Assessment Report. Post-Assessment Workshop Follow-up ASMFC staff will record the delivery of stock assessment subcommittee final tasks. Upon completion of these tasks, the stock assessment subcommittee Chair and ASMFC staff will make final edits to the full Stock Assessment Report. ASMFC staff will schedule a technical committee meeting to review and approve the Stock Assessment Report to send for peer review. ASMFC staff will send the final draft of the Stock Assessment Report to the technical committee two to four weeks before the technical committee meeting. Throughout the assessment, ASMFC staff will maintain an up to date record of all assessment materials on the ASMFC secure server (with back-up copies). Once the stock assessment subcommittee completes the final draft of Stock Assessment Report, ASMFC staff will update the file with the final versions of all working papers, data sets and other assessment materials. The technical committee review of the Stock Assessment Report final draft serves as the last opportunity to question the assessment work before peer review. The meeting begins with a presentation from ASMFC staff on the peer review process and objectives (ASMFC External or other review venue). The stock assessment subcommittee Chair then presents the Terms of Reference and final Stock Assessment Report to the technical committee and answers their questions. Other stock assessment subcommittee members in attendance may assist the Chair with answers as needed. The technical committee then develops a consensus recommendation to approve the Stock Assessment Report for peer review or returns it to the stock assessment subcommittee to address technical committee concerns. If the Stock Assessment Report is approved by the technical committee, it will be distributed to the appropriate peer review venue. If the Stock Assessment Report is not approved by the technical committee, then the technical committee will return the Report with comments to the stock assessment subcommittee. The stock assessment subcommittee will address the comments and re-submit the Report to the technical committee for its approval. ASMFC staff will forward the Stock Assessment Report and supporting materials submitted to Peer

14

Review Panel one month before review meeting and the stock assessment subcommittee Chair will prepare a final presentation of the stock assessment for the peer review panel. Assessment Workshop Participants Each participant should bring a laptop computer with software suitable for data manipulation, modeling, and report writing. Requests for specific software to be used at the meeting should be sent out at least two weeks before the Assessment Workshop.

Assessment Workshop participants shall include the species stock assessment subcommittee, species technical Chair and Vice-Chair, ASMFC staff and other invited parties. Stakeholders shall not be formally invited to participate in Assessment Workshops, but all ASMFC meetings are open to the public. All participants will be responsible for abiding by any confidentiality agreements for data used at the Assessment Workshop. The Data Workshop Chair should attend the Assessment Workshop.

Workshop Roles & Responsibilities

Stock Assessment Subcommittee Chair: Runs Data and Assessment Workshops and sets agendas, leads Workshop participants to consensus, ensures Terms of Reference are addressed and completion of Data and Assessment Workshop products. Works with ASMFC staff and technical committee Chair to monitor assessment progress relative to time line. Also responsible for presenting assessment to the Review Panel. Technical Committee Chair: Works with stock assessment subcommittee Chair to ensure completion of Data Report. Edits Data Report and Stock Assessment Report. Assists ASMFC staff recording decisions and assignments. Works with ASMFC staff and stock assessment subcommittee Chair to monitor assessment progress relative to time line. SASC: Core group of assessment analysts responsible for conducting model runs and preparing Working Papers on additional data analysis and assessment modeling efforts. Responsible for ensuring the data entered into the model code is correct and reflects Data and Assessment Workshop recommendations. Responsible for reviewing model code for errors when customized models are used. ASMFC staff: Serves as Data and Assessment Workshop rapporteur and records all decisions made by Workshop participants. Records assignments and due dates. Compiles Working Papers, data sets and Working Group reports and distributes to committee members. Works with technical committee Chair and stock assessment subcommittee Chair to monitor assessment progress relative to time line. Working Group Leaders: Responsible for development of Working Group report, leads individual Working Group discussions, presents recommendations to full Data Workshop contingent. Workgroup Rapporteurs: Records discussions and recommendations during Working Group, helps Working Group Leaders prepare Working Group report. Primary editor of Working Group report.

15

Assessment Delays

Should a species’ stock assessment subcommittee determine that an assessment is unable to meet its Stock Assessment time line (See Appendix 1), the stock assessment subcommittee Chair will present a revised time line and an explanation for the revised time line to the technical committee for review and possible approval. If the new time line is accepted by the technical committee then the technical committee Chair will go before the Board and explain the need for a new time line. The technical committee Chair, in consultation with the stock assessment subcommittee Chair, will explain to the Board the technical committee’s reasons for requesting a new time line. The Board will then vote to approve the new time line or continue with the established time line.

16

ASMFC Peer Review Process Appropriate Expectations of the Peer Review Process The peer review WILL:

Provide a judgment of the value and appropriateness of the science and scientific methods which produced the assessment Provide recommendations for future research and improvements of future assessments Evaluate all input parameters and biological characteristics incorporated into the model Evaluate the stock assessment methods Evaluate status of stocks relative to current fishery management plan goals

The peer review WILL NOT:

Resolve all issues Answer all questions Provide specific management recommendations Provide options to reach management targets

Definition of Peer Review: Peer review is the critical evaluation by independent experts of scientific and technical work products. In fisheries science, the periodic review of a species stock assessment evaluates the validity of the assessment model used, the input parameters and model results; and identifies research needs and alternative assessment methods. A peer review by independent assessment peers that have had no involvement, stake or input into the assessment provides a judgment on the quality and completeness of the science used in a stock assessment. Stock Assessment Peer Review Process Options for Conducting a Peer Review ASMFC stock assessment reviews will be conducted using one of the following methodologies. A. External Peer Review Processes 1. The SAW/SARC process. 2. The SEDAR process. 3. The TRAC process. 4. A Commission stock assessment review panel composed of 3-5 stock assessment scientists (state, federal, university, private). 5. A formal review using the structure of existing organizations (i.e. American Fisheries Society, International Council for Exploration of the Seas, National Academy of Sciences).

17

B. Internal Review 1. An internal review of the stock assessment through the Commission’s existing structure (i.e., technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee, plan review team). Periodic Review and Prioritization of Stock Assessments All formal stock assessments will be reviewed by an external peer review (Option 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 above) at least every five years, in order to examine the science that underlies the fishery management plan (FMP). This periodic peer review will provide a safety net for stock assessments that have not been evaluated through an external peer review in at least five years. A recommendation on the need for a peer review should be provided for each species by the respective species management board in the annual species plan review document. Species recommended for peer review will be prioritized by the ISFMP Policy Board every six months. For those species with no analytical stock assessment or FMP compliance criteria, the Plan Review Team should recommend a full benchmark assessment through the annual plan review process. Species management boards and the ISFMP Policy Board should prioritize peer reviews based on the following criteria:

Assessments for new fishery management plans (FMPs) should be reviewed using Option 1, 2, 3 or 4 listed above.

Assessments with a major change in the stock assessment model should be reviewed using

Option 1, 2, 3 or 4 listed above.

Assessments for existing FMPs undergoing amendments should be reviewed using Option 1 through 6 listed above, depending on the nature of the amendment.

Assessments updated annually with no major changes should be reviewed using Option 6 listed

above.

Assessment reviews for species that have not undergone an external review in at least five years should be reviewed using Option 1-5 listed above.

Assessment reviews recommended by an appropriate Commission group (plan

review/development teams, technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee) should be reviewed using Option 1 through 5 listed above, depending on the nature of the assessment.

A written charge from the ISFMP Policy Board to the Science Director will specify the scope of the review and the type of expertise necessary. The Science Director should be present during discussions to clarify uncertainties about scheduling or the peer review process.

18

Peer Review Standards and Processes All peer review panels, Commission staff, and Commission committees will follow the outlined standard protocols for the development of stock assessment documentation and review of stock assessments for all species managed by the Commission as documented earlier in this report. These standards are provided as guidance for documenting the core components (i.e., input data, assessment model, assumptions, output) used in Commission stock assessments, as well as guidance for meeting logistics, generation and distribution of peer review reports, and overall conduct of the peer review meeting. Planning and Conducting the Peer Review In general, peer reviews should be conducted within 6 to 8 weeks of the completion of the stock assessment report. Results of the peer review should be presented within 4 weeks of the completion of the peer review. The procedures and logistics for planning a stock assessment peer review are dependent on the type of review to be conducted. The following sections outline the process for the different types of peer reviews.

Requirements for the SAW/SARC Planning the Peer Review The Northeast Coordinating Council should be notified of the projected timeline for completion of the stock assessment in order to schedule the peer review through the SAW/SARC process. The Panel will be selected through the Center for Independent Experts employed to provide both independent and expert reviews of the science used in the management of marine fisheries under the purview of NMFS. Terms of reference for stock assessments reviewed through the SAW/SARC process are developed and approved by the Northeast Coordinating Council. For species managed cooperatively by the Commission and regional Councils, the Commission’s stock assessment subcommittee and technical committee should have input in the development of the terms of reference. The species management board should approve the terms of reference prior to final approval by the Northeast Coordinating Council. The Director of Research and Statistics will forward the approved stock assessment report for peer review and any supporting documentation to the SAW Chairman for distribution. Meeting specifics (e.g. determination of meeting dates and location, distribution of meeting materials to panel members, etc.) will be coordinated by the SAW Chairman and his/her staff.

19

Conducting the Peer Review The SAW/SARC will involve a multi-day meeting of the peer review panel to review stock assessments for multiple species. Meeting specifics will be coordinated by the SAW Chairman. The Panel is charged to accept or reject the stock assessment to be used for management advice according to the Terms of Reference provided to the SARC. Presentation of Peer Review Results (to be completed in 4 weeks from date of review) Each assessment will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the assessments in providing a scientific basis for management. The SARC Panel will be composed of 3 to 4 independent assessment scientists with one member serving as the Chair. Each member of the SARC panel will prepare a summary review of the proceedings with the SARC Chair providing an overall summary of the individual panel reports. Thus, there will be 3-4 reports produced from each SARC review. The SAW Chairman will present results from all SAW/SARC reviews to the species management board, technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee and advisory panel during a Public Review Workshop. Finalized SAW/SARC reports will be distributed to the appropriate committees at least one week prior to the Public Review Workshop.

Requirements for the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR)

Planning the Peer Review The species to be assessed and cycle timing will be set by the SEDAR Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is composed of the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Science Center Director; NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator; Executive Directors of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; Chairs of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; and the Executive Directors of the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. The SEDAR Coordinator will be responsible for workshop coordination. The SEDAR Coordinator will Chair the Data and Assessment Workshops and support the review workshops. The scheduling of SEDAR workshops, developing attendee lists, and making arrangements for workshops will be done collaboratively by SEDAR staff and the SEDAR Steering Committee. The Peer Review Panel will be formed of 3-4 independent stock assessment experts from the Center for Independent Experts. The Panel will evaluate stock assessments using the SEDAR Assessment Review Terms of Reference (see Appendix 4).

Conducting the Peer Review Assessment Review Workshops occur over a period of several days and will typically review only 1-2 species per SEDAR cycle (a single series of Data, Assessment and Review Workshops).

20

Representatives from the Assessment Workshop and the analytical team will present the assessment to the Review Panel and, to the extent practicable and in accordance with the Terms of Reference and workshop instructions, conduct any additional analyses or corrections requested by the Review Panel. The Review Panel will produce a Consensus Stock Assessment Report that summarizes the Review Panel’s evaluation of stock assessments according to the Terms of Reference. The Assessment Workshop analytical team will prepare an Assessment Summary Report to summarize stock status and forecasts. The Review Panel Chair is responsible for compiling and editing the Consensus Stock Assessment Report and submitting it to the SEDAR Coordinator by a deadline specified by the SEDAR Steering Committee. The Chair and SEDAR Coordinator may appoint a Review Panel Leader for each review from among the panelists to assist in drafting the report and documenting panel decisions. The Review Panel is instructed not to provide specific management advice. Such advice will be provided following completion of the review and through existing Council and ASMFC Committees, such as the Science and Statistic Committee and species technical committees.

Presenting the Results of the Peer Review For ASMFC managed species, the species stock assessment subcommittee Chair will present the results of the SEDAR Assessment Review Workshop to the species technical committee and the species management board.

Description of the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) Since 1998, the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) reviews stock assessments for the shared resources across the USA-Canada boundary. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) appoint one person each to act as TRAC co-Chairs who administer the TRAC review process, the publication of product documents, and schedule TRAC review meetings. The TRAC co-Chairs designate co-experts, one from NMFS and one from DFO, for each management unit (stock) reviewed at TRAC. The co-experts function similarly to ASMFC Data and Assessment Workshop Chairs and are responsible for coordinating data preparation, leading the conduct of analyses, facilitating the preparation of working papers for TRAC and their presentation at TRAC. TRAC may also invite and review assessment analyses conducted by others, including non-NMFS and non-DFO staff. The peer review panel that evaluates benchmark assessment frameworks at the TRAC includes technical experts from local and the international community to bring particular knowledge and experience to the table for specific fisheries. One important difference of the TRAC from the other external peer review options for ASMFC assessments is that stakeholders with particular insights into interpretation of the data being considered are required. The mandate of a benchmark review meeting is to reach consensus on a framework to be applied for determination of stock status, to fully document that framework in the proceedings of the TRAC and a benchmark assessment framework will not be

21

re-evaluated until progress on the science warrants a new review. The TRAC co-Chairs (or their designees) are responsible for presentation of the TRAC results, (e.g. highlights of proceedings, summaries of new analyses, etc.) to the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC). TRAC co-Chairs and stock co-experts may be called upon by the TMGC to make presentations at public consultations. The above information on this process was obtained from the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee home page and for more information on the TRAC process, please visit http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/TRAC/TRAC.html.

Requirements for the ASMFC External Peer Review Planning the Peer Review Concurrent with the development of the stock assessment report, the Science Director should initiate selection of the peer review panel. Criteria for selection of peer review panel members include:

Knowledge of the life history and population biology of the species under review; Proficiency in utilizing quantitative population dynamics and stock assessment models; Knowledge of broader scientific issues as outlined in the terms of reference, and; Professional objectivity and credibility.

Panel members involved with the Commission’s external peer review must not have been involved with the ASMFC stock assessment and management process for the species under review. In addition, at least one panel member should be from outside the range of the species. Stakeholders shall be invited to attend ASMFC External Peer Reviews, but not as panel members and the External Peer Review Panel Chair will encourage public comment. Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in all levels of the stock assessment and at the ASMFC External Peer Review process. Terms of reference for the peer review should be developed by the technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee at the initiation of the assessment. The terms of reference shall be approved by the species management board. The terms of reference should include those used in the development of the stock assessment, as well as any additional relevant questions approved by the management board. Terms of reference may focus on specific issues concerning the stock assessment data and model, uncertainties in the assessment, conclusions of stock status, research needs, broad scientific issues or other issues relevant to assessment of the species under review. The terms of reference should not focus on development of specific management options. The approved stock assessment report for peer review and any supporting documentation should be distributed by the Science Director to the peer review panel approximately four (4) weeks prior to the peer review. The Commission staff will coordinate all meeting logistics in coordination with panel members and the Chairman of the species management board. Meeting information will be distributed by the Science Director. Conducting the Peer Review

22

The ASMFC external peer review involves a multi-day meeting of the peer review panel to review the stock assessment for a single species. ASMFC external peer reviews will be coordinated by the Science Director. For external panel reviews being conducted by the Commission, the full stock assessment subcommittee, Chair and Vice-Chair of the technical committee, Chair and Vice-Chair of the management board, and Chair and Vice-Chair of the advisory committee should be invited to attend the review. Panel members should select one member of the panel to serve as Chairman of the peer review panel. Duties of the panel Chairman include focusing discussion on the issues of the peer review, developing consensus within the peer review panel, taking a leading role in the development of the Terms of Reference and Advisory Report, and presenting the finalized Terms of Reference and Advisory Report to appropriate Commission committees. The stock assessment subcommittee should choose one member to present the stock assessment report to the peer review panel. Presentation of the stock assessment report will occur on the first day of the meeting. Panel members may request specific presentations of other issues, including minority opinions. Requests for presentations should be made to the Science Director prior to the meeting to allow the presenter ample preparation time. The peer review meeting will include a period for the presentation of the stock assessment report and any additional presentations, a period of open discussion for all attendees, a period for the peer review panel to ask specific questions of the assessment and additional reports, and a closed door session for the development of the Terms of Reference and Advisory Report. The peer review panel will develop a Terms of Reference and Advisory Report during the peer review meeting, or shortly thereafter. The report should address each term of reference individually as well as those issues outlined in Appendix 6. The advice included in this report should be a consensus opinion of all peer review panel members. Development of the Terms of Reference and Advisory Report will be coordinated by the Science Director or a designee. In general, the peer review meeting will be open to the public; however, the last portion of the meeting will be a closed-door session, during which the peer review panel will begin developing the Terms of Reference and Advisory Report. Presentation of Peer Review Results The Terms of Reference and Advisory Report should be distributed to all relevant species committees (management board, technical committee, stock assessment subcommittee, advisory committee) upon completion and approximately two weeks prior to presentation of the results. The process for reconciling the differences between the external peer review panel and the technical

23

committee is outlined below.

The results of the peer review will be presented by the Chair of the external peer review panel to a joint meeting of the species management board, technical committee, advisory committee and stock assessment subcommittee.

↓

The management board should refer the peer review results to the technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee for review and action.

↓ The technical committee and stock assessment subcommittee should revise the stock assessment based upon the peer review advice.

↓ If the stock assessment subcommittee and technical committee do not agree with the peer review advice, they should provide justification for not incorporating the advice along with alternate analyses.

↓

The final assessment, including the peer review and post-review actions, should be presented to the management board by the technical committee.

↓ The management board will make the final determination on status of stock and reference points.

Requirements for the ASMFC Peer Review Using an Existing Organization

Planning the Peer Review Concurrent with the development of the stock assessment report, Commission staff will contact an existing professional fisheries organization to solicit recommendations for a peer review panel. Selection of the panel members will be based on the criteria outlined in the “Requirements for the ASMFC External Peer Review” section above. Terms of reference should be developed and approved by the species management board as described in the “Requirements for the ASMFC External Peer Review” section above. The approved stock assessment report for peer review and any supporting documentation should be

24

distributed by the Science Director to the peer review panel. Commission staff will coordinate all peer review logistics in coordination with panel members and the Chairman of the species management board. Peer review information will be distributed by the Science Director. Conducting the Peer Review Peer reviews using existing organizations will involve written evaluations of a species stock assessment by the peer review panel members. Evaluation will be based on the stock assessment report and additional approved reports. Each panel member will be required to submit a written evaluation of the stock assessment report. If there are wide discrepancies among the evaluations, individual reports will be distributed to all panel members for review, and a conference call will be held to develop consensus on the points of contention. Presentation of Peer Review Results (to be completed in 4 weeks from date of review) The individual evaluations of the panel members will be presented to the species management board as written reports, along with any additional documents that identify subsequent consensus on issues the panel members disagreed on in their initial evaluation reports.

Requirements for ASMFC Internal Stock Assessment Peer Review Planning the Peer Review Internal stock assessment peer reviews will be coordinated by the Director of the ISFMP and the appropriate species management plan coordinator. Terms of reference for an internal peer review should be the same as those used in the development of the stock assessment report. Review will occur through established Commission meeting protocols and structure. Conducting the Peer Review For internal stock assessment reviews, the species stock assessment subcommittee will be tasked with reviewing and/or updating the stock assessment. Additional data may be included, and minor adjustments made to the stock assessment. Significant changes to the stock assessment, such as changing the assessment model used, will require that the revised stock assessment undergo an external peer review using one of Options 1 through 4 listed above. The stock assessment subcommittee will present the updated report to the species technical committee for approval.

25

Presentation of Peer Review Results (to be completed in four (4) weeks from date of

review) The approved updated stock assessment report will be presented to the species management board by the Chair of the species technical committee.

26

Appendix 1. General Checklist for ASMFC Tracking Progress of ASMFC Stock Assessments

Pre-Assessment Meeting or Conference Call Who: ASMFC species coordinator, TC Chair and SASC Chair, and ASMFC stock assessment staff When: A minimum of one to two years before scheduled peer review Check-list:

Review and discuss stock assessment goals and objectives as outlined in the ASMFC’s “Framework for Benchmark Stock Assessments and Peer Review”. All should have read the document before meeting.

Review and discuss the roles and responsibilities for the participants of the Data and Assessment Workshops.

Using this document as guide, develop draft timeline with milestones (Data and Assessment Workshops, related technical committee meetings, the peer review and report to management boards). The timeline will be presented to the species technical committee and to the species management board for approval.

Develop draft Terms of Reference, which will be vetted by the full TC during Pre-Assessment technical committee meeting and then forwarded to the species management board for final approval.

After the call or meeting, ASMFC staff will distribute the “Framework for Benchmark Stock Assessments and Peer Review”, previous stock assessments, draft Terms of Reference, and draft timeline to the TC and SASC..

Pre-Assessment Technical Committee Meeting

Who: ASMFC species coordinator, species TC and SASC, and ASMFC stock assessment staff When: Determined during Pre-Assessment Meeting, several months in advance of Data Workshop Checklist:

ASMFC staff presentation on goals and objectives of benchmark stock assessments and peer reviews.

Review draft Terms of Reference, edit, and forward to species management board. Review draft time line, edit, and forward to species management board. Review data availability spreadsheets and distribute to the TC and SASC members. Set

deadline for TC and SASC members to return data availability spreadsheets. Determine additional data sources (other state and federal agencies, universities, consulting

agencies, utilities, etc.) to contact, as needed. Develop assignments and due dates for TC and SASC members and ASMFC staff for the Data

Workshop. Each task should be assigned to a specific person with the date assigned and date due noted. Some specific tasks include:

o The data set(s) and a description of the methods, preliminary analyses, metadata should be prepared as a working paper and a short presentation for identified fisheries dependent and independent data sets (see Appendix 2 for outline).

o Prepare a review of previous stock assessments as a working paper and a short presentation (see Appendix 2 for outline).

o Conduct a literature review (life history/habitat and other relevant work) and prepare a working paper and a short presentation (see Appendix 2 for outline).

o Prepare review of fishery regulations as a working paper and a short presentation (see Appendix 2 for outline).

27

o Prepare review of fishery history as a working paper and a short presentation (see Appendix 2 for outline).

Finalize date and location for Data Workshop.

Data Workshop Preparation When: Between pre-assessment technical committee meeting and Data Workshop

ASMFC staff sends data availability spreadsheets and Data Workshop to newly identified data holders. Staff also requests that these data holders submit data, working paper and presentations prior to Data Workshop. ASMFC staff will provide data submission spreadsheets to additional data holders that respond to initial inquiry.

ASMFC staff compiles data availability spreadsheets submitted by TC and SASC members, as well as other identified data holders.

ASMFC staff data submission spreadsheets to all data holders. ASMFC staff forwards draft assessment time line and Terms of Reference to species

management board. ASMFC staff and SASC Chair track data submission and assignment progress. ASMFC staff and SASC Chair compile data sets and working papers from TC, SASC, and

additional date holders that will be stored on the ASMFC’s secure server and distributed via the Data Workshop CD.

Set Data Workshop Agenda Send Preliminary Data Workshop CD to TC and SASC; additional CDs will be available at

Data Workshop for other participants

Data Workshop Who: ASMFC species coordinator, species TC and SASC, ASMFC stock assessment staff, invited data holders and interested stakeholders. When: Determined during Pre-Assessment Meeting, at least 3 to 6 months after TC meeting. Check-list:

Presentation on the goals and objectives of Data Workshop and Terms or Reference. Review summary of previous stock assessments. Review summary of literature review (life history/habitat and other relevant work). Review summary of fishery regulations. Review summary of fishery history. Review all data sets and working papers. Breakout groups to draft Data Report sections.

o Introduction (Management Unit, Regulatory History, Assessment History) & Fishery Description (Brief Overview of Fisheries, Current Status)

o Life History (Age, Growth, Reproduction, Stock Definitions, Genetic Information, Natural Mortality) & Habitat

o Data Sources ◊ Commercial ◊ Recreational ◊ Fishery Independent

Review products of breakout groups. Develop list of assignments and due dates to finalize Data Workshop products for Final Data

Workshop CD.

28

Finalize date and location of Assessment Workshop. Determine additional data analyses to conduct and possible approaches for assessing stock(s) –

determine SASC assignments and due dates for Assessment Workshop (additional data analyses, modeling approaches).

Assessment Workshop Preparation

ASMFC staff, TC Chair and SASC Chair edit Data Report. ASMFC staff sends Data Workshop (including all data and additional materials) to TC and

SASC. ASMFC staff sends Data Report CD (without comprehensive data sets) to all participants. ASMFC staff sends assignments and due dates to SASC.

Assessment Workshop

Who: ASMFC species coordinator, species SASC, ASMFC stock assessment staff. When: Determined during Pre-Assessment Workshop Meeting Check-list:

Presentation on the goals and objectives of Assessment Workshop and Terms of Reference. Review working papers of additional data analyses, evaluate each data set for use in assessment

and list reasons data sets were included or not. Review working papers on assessment modeling and methods. Determine best approach or approaches for assessing stock. Conduct model runs, sensitivity analyses, estimate uncertainty, as appropriate. Develop consensus recommendation of stock status. Compose final sections of draft Stock Assessment Report. Develop prioritized research recommendations.

Post-Assessment Workshop Follow-up

SASC members complete final assignments for Stock Assessment Report. SASC Chair and ASMFC staff make final edits to full SASC report; SASC submit outstanding

tasks. ASMFC staff plans full TC meeting to review and approve Stock Assessment Report. ASMFC staff sends Stock Assessment Report to TC two to four weeks prior to meeting. ASMFC staff files final draft of Stock Assessment Report, all working papers, all data sets and

other stock assessment materials on secure server.

Technical Committee Review of Stock Assessment Report ASMFC staff gives a brief presentation on the peer review process. SASC Chair presents Terms of Reference and final Stock Assessment Report TC reviews assessment and either approves the Stock Assessment Report for peer review or

returns it to the SAS to address TC concerns. If the Stock Assessment Report is approved by the technical committee, it will be distributed to

the appropriate Peer Review venue. If the Stock Assessment Report is not approved by the technical committee, then the technical

committee will return the Report with comments to the stock assessment subcommittee. The stock assessment subcommittee will address the comments and re-submit the Report to the technical committee for its approval.

29

Preparation for Peer Review

Stock Assessment Report and supporting materials submitted to Peer Review Panel one month before review meeting.

SASC Chair and other SASC members prepare presentations for Peer Review

30

Appendix 2. Guidelines for ASMFC Data Workshops Working Papers & Preliminary Data Analysis Suggested Outlines for Working Papers

A. Review of Past Stock Assessments a. Types of peer reviews for previous assessments b. Identify data sets utilized in previous assessments c. Summary of past and current reference points d. Plot abundance and mortality rates vs. reference points for previous assessments e. Summary of models

i. Model description ii. Model assumptions and limitations

iii. Data time series and data limitations f. Review other models available for assessment g. Results of the assessment h. Peer review comments (both criticisms and praise) i. Review strengths and weaknesses of past assessment efforts j. Identify past research recommendations

B. Literature Review

a. Stock definitions b. Aging c. Age and growth d. Fecundity and maturity e. Migration f. Diet g. Mortality Rates (e.g., natural mortality and discard mortality estimates) h. Brief review of habitat requirements i. Report other relevant life history information

C. Regulatory History

a. Management unit definition b. Regulatory history

i. State ii. Interstate

iii. National c. Successes and failures

D. History of Fishery a. Historical fisheries

i. Description of commercial fisheries ii. Description of recreational fisheries

b. Current status i. Description of commercial fisheries

ii. Description of recreational fisheries

31

c. Plot Commercial and Recreational (and For-Hire, if applicable) landings combined i. Coast wide by year

ii. By state by year

E. Fishery Independent Data (Supply data and description of data collection methods for each set) a. Catch and b. Abundance Indices (arithmetic and geometric means)

i. Number ii. Biomass

c. Catch-at-age (Numbers and Weight) d. Biological sampling (e.g., length, weight, age and diet)

F. Commercial Data (Supply data and description of data collection methods for each set)

a. Catch & Landings Data b. Discards and Bycatch Data c. Effort and CPUE Data d. Aging methods e. Biological Sampling (e.g., length, weight and age) f. Catch-at-age (Numbers and Weight)

G. Recreational Data (Supply data and description of data collection methods for each set)

a. Catch & Harvest Data b. Discards and Bycatch Data c. Effort and CPUE Data d. Aging methods e. Biological Sampling (e.g., length, weight and age) f. Catch-at-age (Numbers and Weight)

Suggested Preliminary Data/Graphical Analyses to Accompany Corresponding Data Reports

E. Fishery Independent Survey Data a. Histograms of distribution of catch per tow

i. By state or survey, all years combined ii. By state or survey, by year

b. Geometric/arithmetic mean catch per tow 1. By state or survey, and year

c. Histograms of length-frequency data i. By state for each year

d. Length-weight relationships i. Scatter plots by survey

ii. Regression analyses by survey e. Length-at-age relationships

i. By state or survey, all years combined ii. By state or survey, by year

iii. Growth models f. Weight-at-age

32

i. By state or survey, all years combined ii. By state or survey, by year

iii. Growth models

F. Commercial Data

a. Plot of commercial landings i. Coast-wide by year

ii. By state and year b. Composition of the commercial landings

i. Histogram of length-frequency distribution of catch c. Discards (provide citations)

i. Rates ii. Discard Mortality (can be covered in literature review)

d. Estimates of non-compliance with regulations e. Effort data

G. Recreational & For-Hire

a. Plot of recreational landings

i. Coast-wide by year ii. By state and year

b. Composition of the recreational landings i. Histogram of length-frequency distribution of catch (if available)

c. Discards (provide citations) i. Rates

ii. Discard Mortality (can be covered in literature review) d. Estimates of non-compliance with regulations e. Effort data f. Participation g. Recreational - MRFSS Wave specific

i. Trips ii. Landings

iii. Participation

H. Combined Fishery Dependent and Independent Data a. Plots of commercial landings and state (or survey) indices combined

i. By state (bar-line graph with two y-axes) ii. Relative exploitation rates (landings/survey CPUE)

33

Appendix 3. Components of the Assessment Report Terms of Reference (written and approved by species technical committee and species management board) 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Management Unit Definition 1.2 Regulatory History 1.3 Assessment History 2.0 Life History 2.1 Age 2.2 Growth 2.3 Reproduction 2.4 Stock Definitions 2.5 Genetic Information 2.6 Natural Mortality 3.0 Fishery Description

3.1 Brief Overview of Fisheries 3.2 Current Status 4.0 Habitat Description (If relevant to assessment results) 4.1 Brief Overview of Habitat Requirements 5.0 Data Sources 5.1 Commercial

5.1.1 Data Collection Methods (to include, but not limited to the following) 5.1.1.1 Survey Methods 5.1.1.2 Sampling Intensity 5.1.1.3 Biases 5.1.1.4 Biological Sampling 5.1.1.5 Ageing methods 5.1.1.6 Development of Estimates (e.g. Length/Catch-at-Age)

5.1.2 Commercial Landings 5.1.3 Commercial Discards/Bycatch 5.1.4 Commercial Catch Rates (CPUE) 5.1.5 Commercial Catch-at-Age

5.2 Recreational (For-Hire included)

5.2.1 Data Collection Methods (to include, but not limited to the following) 5.2.1.1 Survey Methods 5.2.1.2 Sampling Intensity 5.2.1.3 Biases 5.2.1.4 Biological Sampling 5.2.1.5 Ageing methods

34

5.2.1.6 Development of Estimates (e.g. Length/Catch-at-Age) 5.2.2 Recreational Landings 5.2.3 Recreational Discards/Bycatch 5.2.4 Recreational Catch Rates (CPUE) 5.2.5 Recreational Catch-at-Age

5.3 Fishery-Independent Survey Data

5.3.1 Data Collection Methods (to include, but not limited to the following)

5.3.1.1 Survey Methods 5.3.1.2 Sampling Intensity 5.3.1.3 Biases 5.3.1.4 Biological Sampling 5.3.1.5 Ageing methods 5.3.1.6 Development of Estimates (e.g. Length/Catch-at-Age)

5.3.2 Catch Rates (Numbers) 5.3.3 Length/Weight/Catch-at-Age 5.3.4 Abundance Indices (numbers-per-unit effort) 5.3.5 Biomass Indices (numbers-per-unit effort)

5.4 Uncertainty and Measures of Precision 6.0 Methods 6.1 Models 6.2 Model Calibration 6.2.1 Tuning Indices 6.2.2 Input Parameter and Specification 7.0 Output/Results 7.1 Goodness of Fit of Model Used 7.2 Parameter Estimates 7.2.1 Exploitation Rates 7.2.2 Abundance Estimates 7.2.3 Precision of Parameter Estimates 7.3 Projection Estimates 7.4 Sensitivity Analysis 7.4.1 Sensitivity to Model Configuration 7.4.2 Sensitivity for Input Data

7.5 Retrospective Analysis 7.6 Selectivity

8.0 Biological Reference Points 8.1 Overfishing Definition 8.2 Stock Recruitment Analysis 8.3 Yield and SSB per Recruit

8.4 Stock Production Model

35

8.5 Results 8.5.1 Overfishing Definition 8.5.2 Overfished Definition 8.5.3 Control Rule

9.0 Recommendations and Findings 9.1 Evaluation of current status based on biological reference points 9.2 Research Recommendation 10.0 Minority Opinions 10.1 Description of opinions 10.2 Justification on why not adopted 11.0 Literature Cited 12.0 Tables - suggested tables include the following: Landings (numbers and weights) by sector, all years Catch-at-Age by sector, all years Lengths/Weights-at-Age Fecundity/Maturation Schedule Natural Mortality Schedule Age-Length Keys Survey or Index Values Model Configuration and Inputs Model Outputs, Parameter Estimates and Precision Results (e.g. Abundance, Biomass, SSB, and Fishing Mortality) 13.0 Figures - suggested tables include the following: Landings by Year, all states Landings by Year, by state Length/Weight-at-Age Observed Survey Values by year Observed and Predicted Survey Values by year Residuals Results (Abundance, Biomass, SSB) by year Stock Abundance and Catch by year Sensitivity Plots Retrospective Plots

36

Appendix 4. Generic Terms of Reference Generic ASMFC Terms of Reference for External Peer Review

1. Evaluate adequacy, appropriateness and uncertainty of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data used in the assessment (i.e. was the best available data used in the assessment)

2. Evaluate adequacy, appropriateness, application and uncertainty of models used to assess the species and to estimate population benchmarks

3. Evaluate adequacy and appropriateness of biological reference points 4. Estimate and evaluate stock status (biomass) and fishery status (fishing mortality rate) – Is the

stock overfished; is overfishing occurring? 5. Other broad scientific issues 6. Develop recommendations for future research for improving data collection and the

assessment Generic SARC Terms of Reference (UPDATE)

1. Characterize the commercial and recreational catch including landings and discards. 2. Estimate fishing mortality, spawning stock biomass, and total stock biomass for the current

year and characterize the uncertainty of those estimates. 3. Evaluate and either update of re-estimate biological reference points as appropriate. 4. Where appropriate, estimate and TAC and/or TAL based on stock status and target mortality

rate for the year following the terminal assessment year. 5. If stock projections are possible: 6. Provide short term projections (2-3 years) of stock status under various TAC/F strategies and 7. Evaluate current and projected stock status against existing rebuilding or recovery schedules, as

appropriate. SEDAR Terms of Reference General Data Workshop Terms of Reference

1. Characterize stock structure and develop a unit stock definition.

2. Tabulate available life history information (e.g., age, growth, natural mortality, reproductive characteristics); provide appropriate models to describe growth, maturation and fecundity by age, sex or length as applicable. Evaluate the adequacy of life-history information for conducting stock assessments and recommend life history information for use in population modeling.

3. Provide measures of population abundance that are appropriate for stock assessment. Document all programs used to develop indices, addressing program objectives, methods, coverage, sampling intensity and other relevant characteristics. Consider fishery dependent and independent data sources; develop values by appropriate strata (e.g., age, size, area, and fishery); provide measures of precision. Provide analyses evaluating the degree to which available indices adequately represent fishery and population conditions.

4. Characterize commercial and recreational catch, including both landings and discard removals,

37

in weight and number. Evaluate the adequacy of available data for accurately characterizing harvest and discard by species and fishery sector. Provide length and age distributions if feasible.

5. Evaluate the adequacy of available data for estimating the impacts of past and current management actions.

6. Recommend assessment methods and models that are appropriate given the quality and scope of the data sets reviewed and management requirements.

7. Provide recommendations for future research in areas such as sampling, fishery monitoring and stock assessment. Include specific guidance on sampling intensity and coverage where possible.

8. Prepare complete documentation of workshop actions and decisions (Section II. of the SEDAR assessment report).

General Assessment Workshop Terms of Reference 1. Select several modeling approaches based on available data sources, parameters and values

required to manage the stock, and recommendations of the data workshop. 2. Provide justification for the chosen data sources and for any deviations from data workshop

recommendations. 3. Provide estimates of stock parameters (fishing mortality, abundance, biomass, selectivity,

stock-recruitment relationship, etc); include appropriate and representative measures of precision for parameter estimates and measures of model ‘goodness of fit’.

4. Characterize uncertainty in the assessment, considering components such as input data, modeling approach and model configuration.

5. Provide yield-per-recruit, spawner-per-recruit, and stock-recruitment analyses. 6. Provide complete SFA criteria. This may include evaluating existing SFA benchmarks or

estimating alternative SFA benchmarks (SFA benchmarks include MSY, Fmsy, Bmsy, MSST, and MFMT); recommend proxy values where necessary; provide stock control rules.

7. Provide declarations of stock status relative to SFA benchmarks: MSY, Fmsy, Bmsy, MSST, MFMT.

8. Estimate an Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) range. 9. Project future stock conditions (biomass, abundance, and exploitation) and develop rebuilding

schedules if warranted; include estimated generation time. Stock projections shall be developed in accordance with the following:

A) If stock is overfished: F=0, F=current, F=Fmsy, Ftarget (OY),

F=Frebuild (max that rebuild in allowed time)

B) If stock is overfishing

F=Fcurrent, F=Fmsy, F= Ftarget (OY)

C) If stock is neither overfished nor overfishing

F=Fcurrent, F=Fmsy, F=Ftarget (OY)

10. Evaluate the results of past management actions and probable impacts of current management actions with emphasis on determining progress toward stated management goals.

38

11. Provide recommendations for future research and data collection (field and assessment); be as specific as practicable in describing sampling design and sampling intensity.

12. Provide the Assessment Workshop Report (Section III of the SEDAR Stock Assessment Report); include tables of estimated values

General Review Workshop Terms of Reference

1. Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the assessment. 2. Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of methods used to assess the stocks. 3. Recommend appropriate estimates of stock abundance, biomass, and exploitation*. 4. Evaluate the methods used to estimate population benchmarks and management parameters

(e.g., MSY, Fmsy, Bmsy, MSST, MFMT, or their proxies); provide estimated values for management benchmarks, a range of ABC, and declarations of stock status*.

5. Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of the methods used to project future population status; recommend appropriate estimates of future stock condition* (e.g., exploitation, abundance, biomass).

6. Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of methods used to characterize uncertainty in estimated parameters. Provide measures of uncertainty for estimated parameters*. Ensure the implications of uncertainty in technical conclusions are clearly stated.

7. Ensure that stock assessment results are clearly and accurately presented in the Stock Assessment Report and that reported results are consistent with Review Panel recommendations. (In the event corrections are made in the assessment, alternative model configurations are recommended, or additional analyses are prepared as a result of review panel findings regarding the TORs above, ensure that corrected estimates are provided by addenda to the assessment report)

8. Evaluate the performance of the Data and Assessment Workshops with regard to their respective Terms of Reference; state whether or not the Terms of Reference for those previous workshops were met and are adequately addressed in the Stock Assessment Report.

9. Review research recommendations provided by the Data and Assessment workshops and make any additional recommendations warranted. Clearly indicate the research and monitoring needs that may appreciably improve the reliability of future assessments.

10. Prepare a Peer Review Consensus Summary summarizing the Panel’s evaluation of the stock assessment and addressing each Term of Reference. Prepare an Advisory Report summarizing key assessment results. (Reports to be drafted by the Panel during the review workshop with a final report due two weeks after the workshop ends.)

39

Appendix 5. Example Data Availability Spreadsheets Introduction

Fields

Overview

*

The purpose of this request is to develop a catalog of the types of fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent data available. An evaluation of the available data will serve as a starting point for the development of stock assessment methods. Prior to the Data Workshop specie’s Stock Assessment Sub-committee will put forth a request for the necessary data, including the preferred format for data submission

Directions

For each source of data available from your state/jurisdiction (including historical data sets), please fill-in the appropriate survey form sheet as described below.

*

The forms on the following sheets are intended to assist with the survey process. The data sources (SOURCE) described in the 'Fields' sheet represent the types of information typically collected by the states/jurisdictions. Brief descriptions of the terms used in the survey form and instructions for filling in the forms are given in the 'Fields' sheet. The 'Sample' sheet gives an example of a completed form.

*Note that the survey forms use EXCEL's outline view option for collapsing/expanding the Data and Contact Info sections; click on the '+' next to the section label on the left hand of the screen to collapse/expand a section.

*If more survey form sheets are required, make a copy the source sheet that applies to the additional data source by selecting the sheet to be copied, go to Edit-->Move or Copy Sheet-->select Create a copy and click OK

Additional Information

*Please review the 'Additional Info' sheet and provide responses where appropriate. For each item, please provide the appropriate contact information.

40

Additional Information

Field Label DescriptionSOURCE Commercial Fishery, Recreational Fishery, Fishery-Independent Survey, or Other (including historical data sets)

TYPELandings, Discards, Released Alive (Recreational Fishery only), Total Catch (Landings + Discards), or Catch(Survey observations)

INFO Frequency, Length Composition, or Age CompositionYEARS

AVAILABLE Please identify the time series for which data are available - start year (‘From’) and the most recent year (‘To’)

TIME FRAMESelect (X) the time frame(s) for which data are available using the following time frame notation – month/year, season/year, or only available on an annual basis

GEAR TYPE Select (X) to indicate that the Source/Type/Info can be summarized by individual gear type(s)

UNITS EFFORTSelect (X) to indicate that the units of effort for the Source/Type/Info are available (e.g. check if the # of towsfor fishery-independent survey are available)

DATASelect (X) ‘Number’, ‘Weight’, and/or ‘CPUE’ if available for the Source/Type/Info; Select (X) ‘Sex’ if information on sex for the Source/Type/Info were collected; Select (X) ‘Sample Size’ if available; Select (X)‘Variance’ if calculated estimates of variability are available for the Source/Type/Info

FORMAT Describe format-type available for data (e.g. ASCII, Excel, SAS, etc…)

Note:time period than listed for the Source/Type/Info, identify the year representing the first year this information isavailable instead of X

Field Label DescriptionAGENCY Identify agency responsible for data

CONTACT Identify contact person for requesting dataADDRESS Fill-in contact address

PHONE Fill-in contact phone numberFAX Fill-in Contact fax number

E-MAIL Fill-in Contact e-mail addressNOTES (Optional) Comments / additional information

41

1.

DataSOURCE:TYPE:INFO:

Contact InfoAGENCY

CONTACT

ADDRESS

PHONEFAX

E-MAIL

NOTES

2.

Data

Contact Info

3.

Data

Contact Info

4.

Data

Contact Info

Are you aware of any historical publications and/or data (special monographs or federal studies) that would be useful to the stock assessment?

Are there additional sources of information from your state that would be useful for stock assessment?

Are individual fish lengths-weights available for any data sources from your state?

If age data are available for one or more of your state's data sources, are the age-length keys used to generate those data available?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

42

Commercial Data

TYPE From To

mon

th /

year

seas

on /

year

annu

al

Num

ber

Wei

ght

CPU

E

Sex

Sam

ple

Size

Var

ianc

e

Landings

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Discards

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Contact InfoAGENCY

CONTACT

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

E-MAIL

NOTES

FORMAT

Length

Commercial FisherySource:

INFO

YEARS AVAILABLE DATA

GE

AR

TY

PE

UN

ITS

EFF

OR

T

TIME FRAME

Age

Frequency

Frequency

Length

Age

Frequency

Length

Age

Total Catch

43

Recreational Data

TYPE From To

mon

th /

year

seas

on /

year

annu

al

Num

ber

Wei

ght

CPU

E

Sex

Sam

ple

Size

Var

ianc

e

Landings

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Discards

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Contact InfoAGENCY

CONTACT

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

E-MAIL

NOTES

Length

Age

Released Alive

Age

Frequency

Length

Age

Frequency

GE

AR

TY

PE

UN

ITS

EFF

OR

T

TIME FRAME

Age

Frequency

Total Catch

Frequency

Length

FORMAT

Length

RecreationalSource:

INFO

YEARS AVAILABLE DATA

44

Fishery Independent Surveys

TYPE From To

mon

th /

year

seas

on /

year

annu

al

Num

ber

Wei

ght

CPU

E

Sex

Sam

ple

Size

Var

ianc

e

Catch

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Contact InfoAGENCY

CONTACT

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

E-MAIL

NOTES

Frequency

Length

Age

FORMAT

Fishery-Independent SurveySource:

INFO

YEARS AVAILABLE DATA

GE

AR

TY

PE

UN

ITS

EFF

OR

T

TIME FRAME

45

Other Data

TYPE From To

mon

th /

year

seas

on /

year

annu

al

Num

ber

Wei

ght

CPU

E

Sex

Sam

ple

Size

Var

ianc

e

Catch

Fork LengthStandard LengthTotal Length

OtolithsScales

Contact InfoAGENCY

CONTACT

ADDRESS

PHONE

FAX

E-MAIL

NOTES

FORMAT

ENTER LABEL HERESource:

INFO

YEARS AVAILABLE DATA

GE

AR

TY

PE

UN

ITS

EFF

OR

T

TIME FRAME

Frequency

Length

Age

46

Appendix 6. Standard Terms of Reference and Advisory Report The Terms of Reference and Advisory Report should be developed by the Peer Review Panel, with assistance from Commission staff. This report should provide advice on each term of reference and include a standard Advisory Report. The advice included in this report should be a consensus opinion of all peer review panel members. Standard Contents (“information not available” should be indicated where appropriate) Introduction Terms of Reference: Specific advice from the peer review panel should be included on each term of reference. Status of Stocks: Current and projected, where applicable Stock Identification and Distribution Management Unit Landings Data and Assessment Biological Reference Points Fishing Mortality Recruitment Spawning Stock Biomass Bycatch Other Comments Sources of Information Tables Figures