Data Workshop Terms of Reference SEDAR 63 Benchmark Assessment: Gulf Menhaden Terms of Reference Terminal Year: 2017 1) Review stock structure and unit stock definitions and consider whether changes are required. 2) Review, discuss, and tabulate available life history information. a) Evaluate age, growth, natural mortality, and reproductive characteristics. b) Provide appropriate models to describe growth, maturation, and fecundity by age, sex, or length as applicable. c) Evaluate the adequacy of available life-history information for conducting stock assessments and recommend life history information for use in population modeling. d) Evaluate, discuss, and characterize the sources of uncertainty, and data limitations (such as 3) Provide measures of population abundance that are appropriate for stock assessment. a) Consider and discuss all available and relevant fishery-independent data sources including: i) State long term monitoring programs and ii) SEAMAP surveys (plankton, trawl, and other). b) Document all programs evaluated; address program objectives, methods, coverage, sampling intensity, and other relevant characteristics. c) Develop fishery and survey CPUE indices by appropriate strata (e.g., age, size, area, and fishery) and include measures of precision and accuracy. d) Discuss the degree to which available indices adequately represent population conditions. e) Recommend which data sources adequately and reliably represent population abundance for use in assessment modeling. f) Evaluate, discuss, and characterize the sources of uncertainty, and data limitations (such as 4) Evaluate and discuss all available fishery-dependent catch statistics and data sources including: a) Reconstructed early landings b) Reduction Landings to present c) Bait Landings to present d) Recreational Landings to present e) Nominal Effort Data to present f) Catch at age matrix g) Evaluate, discuss, and characterize the sources of uncertainty, and data limitations (such as
5) Provide recommendations for future research in areas such as life history, fishery monitoring, and survey sampling. 6) Prepare the Data Workshop report providing complete documentation of workshop actions and decisions in accordance with project schedule deadlines (Section II. of the SEDAR assessment report).
Assessment Workshop Terms of Reference 1) Review any changes in data following the data workshop and any analyses suggested by the data workshop. Summarize data as used in each assessment model. Provide justification for any deviations from Data Workshop recommendations. 2) Use population assessment models consistent with the available data. Consider the modeling recommendations from the last benchmark assessment review, and discuss how they were addressed in this assessment. Recommend models and configurations considered most reliable or useful for providing advice. Document all input data, assumptions, and equations for each model prepared. 3) Evaluate models used to estimate population parameters and provide estimates of the population parameters (e.g., F, biomass, abundance, selectivity, and other parameters as appropriate) and biological reference points. a) Did the model have difficulty finding a stable solution? b) Were sensitivity analyses for any priors performed? Were other model diagnostics performed? c) Have the model strengths and limitations been clearly and thoroughly explained? d) Have the models been used in other peer reviewed assessments? If not, has new model code been verified with simulated data? e) Compare and discuss differences among alternative models. f) Provide appropriate measures of model performance, reliability, and goodness of fit 4) Characterize uncertainty in the assessment and estimated values. a) Consider uncertainty in input data, modeling approach, and model configuration. b) Provide measures of uncertainty for relevant model output. 5) Perform retrospective analyses, assess magnitude and direction of retrospective patterns if detected, and discuss implications of any observed retrospective pattern for uncertainty in population parameters (e.g., F, SSB), reference points, and management measures. 6) Provide evaluations of yield and productivity a) Include yield-per-recruit, spawner-per-recruit, and stock-recruitment evaluations. 7) Provide estimates of population benchmarks or management criteria consistent with the available data and applicable FMP. Evaluate existing management criteria as specified in the management summary. Recommend proxy values when necessary. 8) Provide declarations of stock status relative to the management benchmarks or, if necessary, alternative data-poor approaches. 9) Provide an analysis describing the uncertainty of the proposed stock status relative to the reference points. 10) Develop detailed short and long-term prioritized lists of recommendations for future research, data collection, and assessment methodology. Highlight improvements to be made by next benchmark
review. 11) Complete the Assessment Workshop Report for Review.
Review Workshop Terms of Reference 1) Evaluate the data used in the assessment, addressing the following: a) Are data decisions made by the Data and Assessment Workshop sound and robust? b) Are data uncertainties acknowledged, reported, and within normal or expected levels? c) Are data applied properly within the assessment model? d) Are input data series reliable and sufficient to support the assessment approach and findings? 2) Evaluate the methods used to assess the stock, taking into account the available data. a) Are methods scientifically sound and robust? b) Are assessment models configured properly and used consistent with standard practices? c) Are the methods appropriate for the available data? 3) Evaluate the assessment findings with respect to the following: a) Are abundance, exploitation, and biomass estimates reliable, consistent with input data and population biological characteristics, and useful to support status inferences? b) Is the stock overfished? What information helps you reach this conclusion? c) Is the stock undergoing overfishing? What information helps you reach this conclusion? d) Is there an informative stock recruitment relationship? Is the stock recruitment curve reliable and useful for evaluation of productivity and future stock conditions? e) Are the quantitative estimates of the status determination criteria for this stock appropriate for management use? If not, are there other indicators that may be used to inform managers about stock trends and conditions? 4) Consider how uncertainties in the assessment, and their potential consequences, are addressed. a) Comment on the degree to which methods used to evaluate uncertainty reflect and capture the significant sources of uncertainty in the population, data sources, and assessment methods b) Ensure that the implications of uncertainty in technical conclusions are clearly stated. 5) Consider the research recommendations provided by the Data and Assessment workshop and make any additional recommendations or prioritizations warranted. a) Clearly denote research and monitoring that could improve the reliability of, and information provided by, future assessments. b) Provide recommendations on possible ways to improve the SEDAR process. 6) Provide guidance on key improvements in data or modeling approaches which should be considered when scheduling the next assessment. 7) Prepare a Peer Review Summary summarizing the Panel s evaluation of the stock assessment and addressing each Term of Reference. Develop a list of tasks to be completed following the workshop. Complete and submit the Peer Review Summary Report in accordance with the project guidelines. The panel shall ensure that corrected estimates are provided by addenda to the assessment report 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.