C S A S S C C S

C S A S S C C S
CSAS
SCCS
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique
Proceedings Series 2007/018
Compte rendu 2007/018
Proceedings of the PSARC
Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting
Compte rendu de la réunion du Souscomité du CEESP sur les invertébrés
November 29-30, 2006
29-30 novembre 2006
Russell Mylchreest
Russell Mylchreest
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Pacific Biological Station
Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7
September 2007
Septembre 2007
Foreword
The purpose of these Proceedings is to document the activities and key discussions of the
meeting. The Proceedings include research recommendations, uncertainties, and the
rationale for decisions made by the meeting. Proceedings also document when data,
analyses or interpretations were reviewed and rejected on scientific grounds, including the
reason(s) for rejection. As such, interpretations and opinions presented in this report
individually may be factually incorrect or misleading, but are included to record as faithfully as
possible what was considered at the meeting. No statements are to be taken as reflecting the
conclusions of the meeting unless they are clearly identified as such. Moreover, further
review may result in a change of conclusions where additional information was identified as
relevant to the topics being considered, but not available in the timeframe of the meeting. In
the rare case when there are formal dissenting views, these are also archived as Annexes to
the Proceedings.
Avant-propos
Le présent compte rendu a pour but de documenter les principales activités et discussions
qui ont eu lieu au cours de la réunion. Il contient des recommandations sur les recherches à
effectuer, traite des incertitudes et expose les motifs ayant mené à la prise de décisions
pendant la réunion. En outre, il fait état de données, d’analyses ou d’interprétations passées
en revue et rejetées pour des raisons scientifiques, en donnant la raison du rejet. Bien que
les interprétations et les opinions contenus dans le présent rapport puissent être inexacts ou
propres à induire en erreur, ils sont quand même reproduits aussi fidèlement que possible
afin de refléter les échanges tenus au cours de la réunion. Ainsi, aucune partie de ce rapport
ne doit être considéré en tant que reflet des conclusions de la réunion, à moins d’indication
précise en ce sens. De plus, un examen ultérieur de la question pourrait entraîner des
changements aux conclusions, notamment si l’information supplémentaire pertinente, non
disponible au moment de la réunion, est fournie par la suite. Finalement, dans les rares cas
où des opinions divergentes sont exprimées officiellement, celles-ci sont également
consignées dans les annexes du compte rendu.
Proceedings of the PSARC
Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting
Compte rendu de la réunion du Souscomité du CEESP sur les invertébrés
November 29-30, 2006
29-30 novembre 2006
Russell Mylchreest
Russell Mylchreest
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Pacific Biological Station
Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7
September 2007
Septembre 2007
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2007
© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 2007
ISSN 1701-1272 (Printed / Imprimé)
Published and available free from:
Une publication gratuite de :
Fisheries and Oceans Canada / Pêches et Océans Canada
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat / Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique
200, rue Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/
[email protected]
Printed on recycled paper.
Imprimé sur papier recyclé.
Correct citation for this publication:
On doit citer cette publication comme suit :
DFO, 2007. Proceedings of the PSARC Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting, November 29-30, 2006. DFO Can.
Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2007/018.
PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC ADVICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (PSARC)
INVERTEBRATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ii
Working Paper I2006-03: Scientific advice for input to the Allowable Harm
Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana ................................. ii
Working Paper I2006-04: The development of ROV video survey and data
classification protocols for monitoring hard seabed substrates ........................ iii
SOMMAIRE ..................................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
DETAILED COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWS ............................................................. 1
Working Paper I2006-03: Scientific advice for input to the Allowable Harm
Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana ................................. 1
Working Paper I2006-04: The development of ROV video survey and data
classification protocols for monitoring hard seabed substrates ......................... 3
APPENDIX 1: Working Paper Summary ....................................................................... 6
APPENDIX 2: PSARC Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting Agenda .......................... 9
APPENDIX 3: List of Attendees & Reviewers ............................................................ 10
_______________________________________
SUMMARY
The Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) Invertebrate
Subcommittee met November 29-30, 2006 at the Pacific Biological Station in
Nanaimo, B.C. The Subcommittee reviewed two working papers.
Working Paper I2006-03: Scientific advice for input to the Allowable Harm
Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana
J. Lessard, A. Campbell, Z. Zhang, L. MacDougall, S. Hankewich
The paper reviewed literature and available research to examine factors affecting
recovery potential and to assess source mortality rates affecting permitting under
SARA. Recent surveys show northern abalone abundance is continuing to
decline and the analysis and modelling indicates that abalone mortality would
need to be reduced below 20% for recovery to occur.
The paper documented estimates of mortality rates and indicate that a primary
threat to recovery is illegal harvest.
Considerable discussion ensued on the interaction between SARA listed sea
otters and abalone. It was noted that sea otters and abalone co-existed before
otters were extirpated in BC, but there is high uncertainty over long-term impacts
both positive and negative, of sea otters on abalone. There is an opportunity to
conduct research, depending on available resources and priorities, to assess
factors affecting abalone mortality including the impacts from sea otter predation
(on abalone and on abalone predators, such as Dungeness crab, and /or
abalone competitors, such as sea urchins) in areas with and without sea otters.
Participants discussed First Nations interest in abalone Food, Social and
Ceremonial (FSC) fisheries in areas benefiting from local enhancement and
protection activities. The Subcommittee acknowledged that First Nations harvest
opportunities will need to be consistent with recovery goals. Science advice is
not yet available to set density levels that would support limited harvests for FSC
purposes, although the Subcommittee agreed with the paper’s recommendation
to commence these discussions.
Little is known about localized impacts of other human activities (e.g., finfish
aquaculture, log-dumps) on abalone habitat and abalone. The recommendation
was to use assessment protocols for habitat developments on, in and under the
water as recommended in the paper, including the collection of data.
ii
Working Paper I2006-04: The development of ROV video survey and data
classification protocols for monitoring hard seabed substrates
B. Emmett, P. Thuringer, S. Cook, and B. Burd
In British Columbia many finfish aquaculture operations are sited over hard
bottom substrates. Provincial regulations for operational monitoring of organic
waste impacts require video survey effort (quadrants stations and survey
transects) but lack standard protocols for the field survey, data interpretation and
analysis. The paper presented a review of video survey protocols in other
jurisdictions, an assessment of video imagery from Provincial Ministry of
Environment operational monitoring at 16 sites in BC and results of field studies
conducted in collaboration with DFO, MOE and Industry.
The Subcommittee agreed that there is a need to set minimum standards for
data collection and a need for a harmonized approach to collecting the
information from both BC MOE and DFO perspectives.
However, the
Subcommittee struggled with the paper’s specific recommendations as to the
protocols for the ROV surveys and the data collection, particularly the transect
methodology.
There are two key recommendations from the paper that were considered
important to the Subcommittee: to adopt a protocol for ROV video surveys
(Section 3.4) and to adopt a data collection and classification protocol (Section
4.3). Clear supporting documentation needs to be provided in support of each
recommendation.
iii
SOMMAIRE
Le Sous-comité du Comité d’examen des évaluations scientifiques du Pacifique
(CEESP) sur les invertébrés s’est réuni les 29 et 30 novembre 2006 à la Station
biologique du Pacifique, à Nanaimo (C.-B.). Le Sous-comité a examiné deux
documents de travail.
Document de travail I2006-03 : Avis scientifique pour l’évaluation des
dommages acceptables concernant l’ormeau nordique, Haliotis
kamtschatkana
J. Lessard, A. Campbell, Z. Zhang, L. MacDougall, S. Hankewich
Le document est le résultat d’une étude de la documentation et des recherches
existantes visant à examiner les facteurs susceptibles d’avoir une incidence sur
le potentiel de rétablissement et à évaluer les taux de mortalité à la source qui
ont des conséquences sur la délivrance d’autorisations en vertu de la LEP. De
récents relevés montrent que l’abondance de l’ormeau nordique continue à
diminuer; l’analyse et la modélisation montrent que la mortalité de l’ormeau
devrait être abaissée sous la barre des 20 % pour qu’il y ait rétablissement.
Les auteurs ont estimé le taux de mortalité et notent qu’une des principales
menaces qui se posent au rétablissement est la pêche illégale.
Suit une très longue discussion sur l’interaction entre la loutre et l’ormeau
nordique. On fait remarquer que les loutres de mer et l’ormeau coexistaient avant
que la loutre disparaisse de la C.-B., mais les effets à long terme, positifs et
négatifs, de la loutre sur l’ormeau sont empreints d’incertitude. Il y a là matière à
recherche, selon les ressources et les priorités, de manière à évaluer les facteurs
qui influent sur la mortalité de l’ormeau, y compris les effets de la prédation de la
loutre de mer (sur l’ormeau et sur les prédateurs de l’ormeau, tels que le crabe
dormeur ou les concurrents de l’ormeau comme les oursins) dans les zones où
vivent des loutres et dans les zones sans loutres.
Les participants ont examiné l’intérêt des Premières nations pour les pêches de
l’ormeau à des fins alimentaires, sociales et rituelles dans des zones qui
bénéficient d’activités locales de mise en valeur et de protection. Le Sous-comité
reconnaît que les possibilités de pêche par les Premières nations devront être en
accord avec les objectifs de rétablissement. Aucun avis scientifique n’est encore
disponible pour l’établissement de niveaux de densité propres à soutenir une
pêche limitée à des fins alimentaires, sociales et rituelles, bien que le Souscomité soit d’accord avec la recommandation du document de commencer les
discussions à cette fin.
On sait peu de chose à propos des effets localisés d’autres activités
anthropiques (p. ex. pisciculture, décharges à billots) sur l’ormeau et son habitat.
iv
La recommandation consiste à utiliser des protocoles d’évaluation pour les
projets de développement d’habitat sur l’eau, dans l’eau et sous l’eau, comme le
recommande le document, y compris la collecte de données.
Document de travail I2006-04 : Mise au point d’un relevé vidéo par véhicule
télécommandé et protocoles de classification des données pour la
surveillance des substrats durs du fond marin
B. Emmett, P. Thuringer, S. Cook et B. Burd
En Colombie-Britannique, de nombreuses activités piscicoles se déroulent
au-dessus de substrats durs. Les règlements provinciaux de surveillance
opérationnelle des effets des déchets organiques exigent l’utilisation de relevés
vidéo (quadrants et transects de relevé), mais ne proposent malheureusement
pas de protocoles standard pour les relevés sur le terrain, l’interprétation des
données et l’analyse. Le document présente un examen des protocoles de
relevé vidéo dans d’autres secteurs de compétence, une évaluation de l’imagerie
obtenue dans le cadre de la surveillance opérationnelle du ministère provincial
de l’Environnement à 16 emplacements de la C.-B. et les résultats d’études sur
le terrain réalisées conjointement par le MPO, le MdE et l’industrie.
Le Sous-comité convient qu’il faut fixer des normes minimales pour la collecte de
données et harmoniser les méthodes de collecte de l’information du point de vue
tant du MdE de la C.-B que du MPO. Toutefois, les recommandations précises
du document concernant les protocoles de relevé par véhicule télécommandé et
la collecte de données, en particulier la méthode par transects, lui ont posé
quelques difficultés.
Deux recommandations clés du document de travail ont été jugées importantes
par le Sous-comité : l’adoption d’un protocole pour les relevés vidéo par véhicule
télécommandé (section 3.4 du document de travail) et l’adoption d’un protocole
de collecte et de classification des données (section 4.3 du document de travail).
Il faut fournir une documentation claire à l’appui de chaque recommandation.
v
INTRODUCTION
The PSARC Invertebrate Subcommittee met November 29-30, 2006 at the
Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, British Columbia to review two working
papers, which are summarized in Appendix 1. External participants at the
meeting included representatives from aquaculture, Parks Canada, and
consulting. The Subcommittee Chair, R. Mylchreest opened the meeting by
welcoming the participants, reviewing the objectives and protocols of the
meeting, and reviewing the agenda.
The meeting agenda appears in Appendix 2, while a list of meeting participants
and reviewers is included as Appendix 3.
DETAILED COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWS
Working Paper I2006-03: Scientific advice for input to the Allowable Harm
Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana
J. Lessard, A. Campbell, Z. Zhang, L. MacDougall, S. Hankewich
There was only one review available for this paper which was generally positive
and provided suggestions for improvement, particularly with the technical aspects
of the paper. It was noted by the reviewer that more detail is needed describing
how the recovery targets presented in the paper were derived and it was pointed
out that these targets differ from the abalone recovery strategy. The reviewer
also noted the need for the abalone and sea otter recovery teams to collaborate
on a precautionary approach to allow for the recovery of both species. It was
noted that both species have co-existed in the past, but little is known about
interactions between the two species and a long term planning approach will be
needed.
Subcommittee Discussion
Subcommittee discussion began with the determination that this paper meets the
requirements of a Recovery Potential Assessment, and that the title should be
changed to reflect this. This paper is the first Recovery Potential Assessment to
be done in the Pacific Region.
There was a discussion about how information from this paper would feed into
the Abalone Recovery Strategy and determined that information from this paper
may be added (i.e., updated) to the recovery strategy due to be adopted under
SARA in June 2007.
The Subcommittee had a lengthy discussion about the impacts of sea otters on
the recovery potential of abalone. It was noted by several participants and the
reviewer that otters and abalone have evolved together and co-existed up until
humans hunted otters to extinction on the BC coast. After lengthy discussion,
1
the Subcommittee agreed that more research on the ecology of otter/abalone
interactions is required to understand the impact on the life history parameters of
abalone from sea otters. It was also noted that model predictions and density
target levels have been determined from otter free areas and it can be expected
that these targets may not be applicable in otter inhabited areas.
Technical issues of the abalone population model described in Appendix 1 were
discussed. The estimation of parameters within the model was questioned,
particularly the growth equations used and recruitment relationships used. It was
determined that it may be possible to improve the model performance using
different methods to deal with the uncertainty in parameter estimates, and it was
suggested that the authors re-run some scenarios to determine what effects
portions of the uncertainty have on the results. Given the limited amount of data
available for this analysis, the authors believe that the model as presented
provides a reasonable representation of population parameters; however it could
be improved with more data. There was some question raised by the reviewer on
compensation versus depensation. The modelling has shown that there is some
depensation at low population abundance; an improved explanation could be
added to the paper.
Considerable time was spent dealing with the wording of the recommendations
presented in this paper. It was determined that the paper needs the addition of a
Conclusions section to support the recommendations presented. In addition,
some recommendations (i.e., targets) as presented need more supporting
explanation in the paper and some sections of the paper will need to be
elaborated.
The Subcommittee concluded that the wording of the
recommendations in the paper needs to focus on the supported scientific
consequences and not on management and policy decisions.
Subcommittee Conclusions
•
The Subcommittee concluded that this paper is acceptable, with revisions.
Revisions to the paper should include an emphasis on re-wording
recommendations and adding a conclusion section.
•
Comments received by the authors from the aquaculture industry should
be considered in the final document.
•
The considerations to examine abalone population parameters in the
context of sea otters and the technical suggestions from the reviewer
should also be considered in the final revisions.
•
A Science Advisory Report is to be written based on the revised paper. It
will be circulated to the Subcommittee prior to finalization.
2
Subcommittee Recommendations
1. The Subcommittee strongly encouraged abalone and sea otter science staff
to collaborate to examine the interactions of sea otters and the affect on the
abalone population.
2. The Subcommittee supported the recommendation in the paper for the use
of the assessment protocols as presented in Appendix 2, including the
requirement for the proponent to collect data.
Working Paper I2006-04: The development of ROV video survey and data
classification protocols for monitoring hard seabed substrates
B. Emmett, P. Thurlinger, S. Cook, and B. Burd
This report was prepared for the British Columbia Aquaculture and Research and
Development Committee (BCARDC). The purpose of the study was to develop
and field test ROV video survey protocols and video classification standards for
monitoring finfish aquaculture sites located over hard seabeds. It concluded that
ROV video transects should be used to conduct operational monitoring of hard
seabed finfish aquaculture sites. Survey design and technical performance
levels for transect surveys are recommended.
Subcommittee Discussion
One review felt that the objectives of the paper were not clear (there was no
request for working paper), that the paper was lacking in rigorous
experimentation or survey design and statistical analysis, and that the paper was
lacking management objectives or trigger points for management that would
better allow the monitoring “parameters” to be determined.
The second review found the document to be very important and timely as it will
provide information regarding the collection of data associated with potentially
impacted hard-bottom substrates. This review noted that the information
provided in the recommending of standards for video methods used to monitor
the benthic environment surrounding fish farms is needed.
Whether the format of the paper was appropriate for PSARC was questioned and
whether it would be more appropriate for the paper to go forth for review and
discussion with industry instead.
The Subcommittee acknowledged that although there is a need to know what is
required to trigger management options, and that any monitoring program needs
to allow for those decisions to be made, there is currently insufficient baseline
info on which to define these thresholds.
The Subcommittee noted that there is strength in having a request for working
paper. While this paper is unorthodox in this regard, there was discussion that
this paper is timely as there are currently no defined decision rules or standards
3
and, while the recommendations are not based on scientific assessment, they
are needed. While it would be easier to have developed thresholds or
management triggers first, these thresholds can not be set without the
standardized collection format presented in the paper. The Subcommittee
acknowledged that a cohesive methodology is needed, as is harmonization with
BC MOE and DFO for the collection of this data. They also acknowledged that a
central database for collecting, classifying and storing data needs to be made
available for analyses.
While this was not written as a PSARC paper and does not follow that structure,
it could be restructured as two separate entities, a literature review and
documentation of a standardized database.
In consideration for revisions, the Subcommittee felt the paper needed to include
rationale as to when to use transects over quadrats, and also when to use both.
It needs to strengthen the argument on the most appropriate methodology.
There are situations where quadrats may be preferred, as they can be
standardized and can provide for comparisons. The decision to use one method
over the other will be based on what needs to be achieved over the long term for
management purposes. The paper should better reflect the situations where
each, or both, methods may be used. The paper’s strength, however, was seen
in the development of standardized methodology. The classification protocol
should allow the leeway to adopt either the use of transects or quadrats.
Both reviewers and the Subcommittee felt that the paper needed to include
additional background information, including to clarify this as a Phase II
document within a broader process and to include a summary of the Phase I
report outcomes. Additional suggestions to improve the protocols and technical
edits were provided in both reviews for the author’s consideration.
Subcommittee Conclusions
•
There is a need to set minimum standards for data collection. The
Subcommittee struggled with the paper’s specific recommendations
regarding the protocols for the ROV surveys and the data collection.
•
There was no basis in the paper for adopting the transect methodology
over quadrats as the management objectives are not yet defined, the
current state of knowledge is weak and there is little scientific justification
available in the paper.
•
There is a need for a harmonized approach to collecting the information
from both BC MOE and DFO perspectives.
•
While a better format for vetting review and scientific support outside
PSARC is needed for a technical paper such as this, the Subcommittee
nonetheless recognized that there is a need to move recommendations
4
forward.
The Subcommittee concluded that the paper could be
reformatted into the 2 main sections as discussed above and be modified
to fit with a request for working paper (to be developed in collaboration
between DFO Aquaculture Managers and Science) that would define
management objectives for the paper.
Subcommittee Recommendations
1. Adopt a protocol for ROV video surveys and adopt a data collection and
classification protocol. These protocols would set the current standard, but
these would be minimal standards that may need to be reviewed as
management objectives and/or triggers are better defined or as new survey
technologies become available. This information needs to be put in to a
centralized database.
2. The Subcommittee requested major revisions as outlined in the
Subcommittee discussion and conclusions, particularly to include
justifications for the protocols that are recommended in Section 3.4 and 4.3
of the Working Paper and to highlight the needs for further work (i.e., as
included in Section 5.2). Chair to distribute revisions prior to final
acceptance.
5
APPENDIX 1: WORKING PAPER SUMMARY
Working Paper I2006-03: Scientific advice for input to the Allowable Harm
Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana
J. Lessard, A. Campbell, Z. Zhang, L. MacDougall, S. Hankewich
This paper discusses allowable harms assessment and suggested mitigation of
factors affecting populations of the SARA “threatened” northern abalone in British
Columbia (BC). Recent surveys indicated northern abalone abundance is
continuing to decline. Time series analyses of abalone survey data from sea
otter free areas of south east Queen Charlotte Islands and Central Coast during
1978-2002 provided stock-recruitment relationships, recruitment trends and
mortality estimates of > 0.20. Simulations indicate that abalone populations will
continue to decline if current mortality rates remain >0.20. Mortality rates of <
0.20 are required for abalone populations to recover.
Several human activities were considered that could potentially harm and cause
direct mortality to abalone populations. In order of importance, these activities
were: 1) Directed fishing; 2) habitat alterations, including finfish aquaculture, log
booms and log dumps, and dredging; 3) abalone aquaculture; 4) fisheries on
food supplies (i.e. kelp harvest); 5) scientific research; and 6) rebuilding activities,
including larvae or juveniles outplanting and adult aggregations. In general,
allowable harms that can be given permits under SARA have little aggregated
mortality relative to poaching or sea otter predation. No allowable direct mortality
is recommended.
With the intention of fostering stewardship, consultations should be initiated to
look at a protocol under which small enhancement projects are carried out over
specific sites by local First Nation community followed by a small conditional
harvest of abalone with strict controls. The harvest would only take place if
enhancement activities have been carried out and the abalone densities are
above a set threshold. Considering a “precautionary approach” to northern
abalone species survival, we suggest the following: (1) Poaching by humans
should continue to be actively discouraged with enforcement; (2) Sea otters
(currently protected by SARA) be placed on the AHA category, and population
management should be considered (i.e., identify and maintain/enforce sea otter
free zones) because: (a) sea otter populations abundances have been influenced
by humans for more than a century, (b) their populations continue to grow and
spread throughout BC, and (c) they threaten to accelerate the decline and may
significantly contribute (in combination with other mortality factors) to the demise
of northern abalone populations in BC.
Abalone are most threatened by poaching in areas without sea otters present.
Adding mortality caused by sea otter predation in many areas will accelerate
6
abalone population declines and possibly induce declines to unrecoverable
densities in as little as 26 years.
Working Paper I2006-04: The development of ROV video survey and data
classification for monitoring hard seabed substrates
B. Emmett, P. Thurlinger, S. Cook, and B. Burd
In British Columbia many finfish aquaculture operations are sited over hard
seabed substrates with moderate to high currents and little accumulation of
natural seabed sediments. The British Columbia regulations for operational
monitoring of organic waste impacts at these sites define video survey effort
(quadrat stations and survey transects) but lack standard protocols for the field
survey, data interpretation and analysis. As most hard seabed aquaculture
operations are sited in water deeper than 30m, most video surveys are currently
conducted using remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). A previous review study
(Emmett et al. 2005) concluded that video surveys are the preferred tool for
operational monitoring of hard seabed aquaculture sites. The objective of the
present study was to develop and field test ROV video survey protocols and
video classification standards for monitoring finfish aquaculture sites located over
hard seabeds.
To address this objective a review of video survey protocols in other jurisdictions
(Canadian east coast, Scotland, Tasmania, Norway) was conducted. Video
imagery from current operational monitoring at 16 hard seabed aquaculture sites
in British Columbia was reviewed to define hard seabed habitats, impact
scenarios, potential indicators of organic waste impacts and to develop pilot
video classification standards for field testing. Directed field studies were
conducted to assess best methods for conducting an ROV transect survey as
well as to assess the efficacy of video transect and quadrat methods in
describing organic waste impacts to hard seabed benthic communities.
Rock cliff and bedrock outcrop/boulder fields were the most common seabed
habitats at the 16 review sites, with coarse gravel and sand/fine gravel flats being
less common. Gradients (net pen edge to edge of tenure) in the occurrence of
key indicators of organic waste impacts such as Beggiatoa, fish feed and feces,
and sensitive megafauna (Hexactinellid sponges) were evident in the video
surveys. Comparison of video imagery data collected by ROV transect and
quadrat methods indicated that the transect method provides the appropriate
level of information to conduct a gradient analysis of the key indicators of organic
waste impacts, although each method has advantages and constraints for
specific classification attributes. Results of the ROV field trials suggest that cost
effective methods of ROV seabed positioning remains an important survey
protocol issue, and a number of methods for verification of transect end point
position are suggested.
7
It is concluded that video transects not quadrats should be used to conduct
operational monitoring of hard seabed aquaculture sites. A survey design and
technical performance levels for transect surveys are recommended. A gradient
approach to video imagery classification, based on video time segments, is
proposed and video classification protocols for this transect segment method
have been developed. A video classification database and a video imagery
reference base have been developed in Microsoft Access to support the
recommended classification protocols.
8
APPENDIX 2: PSARC
MEETING AGENDA
INVERTEBRATE
SUBCOMMITTEE
PSARC Invertebrate Subcommittee Agenda
November 29-30, 2006
Seminar Room
Pacific Biological Station
Nanaimo, BC
Wednesday, November 29:
1:00 Introduction and Overview of the agenda
Review of working paper, -Development of ROV video survey and data
1:15 classification protocols for monitoring hard seabed finfish aquaculture
sites
2:30 Formulation of Subcommittee conclusions and recommendations.
3:30 Review of future PSARC requests
4:00 Adjournment
Thursday, November 30:
9:00 Introduction and Overview of the agenda
Review of working paper, – Scientific advice for input to the Allowable
9:15
Harm Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana
12:00 Lunch
Continued Review of working paper, – Scientific advice for input to the
1:00 Allowable Harm Assessment for northern abalone, Haliotis
kamtschatkana
2:30 Formulation of Subcommittee conclusions and recommendations.
4:00 Adjournment
9
APPENDIX 3: LIST OF ATTENDEES & REVIEWERS
Subcommittee Chair:
PSARC Chair:
R. Mylchreest
Al Cass
DFO Participants
Boutillier, Jim
Boutillier, Palmira
Bureau, Dominique
Campbell, Alan
Carolsfeld, Wolfgang
Cass, Alan (PSARC Chair)
Clark, Dan
Convey, Laurie
Dunham, Jason
Ennevor, Bridget
Ford, John
Gillespie, Graham
Hajas, Wayne
Hand, Claudia
Hankewich, Sandie
Harbo, Rick
Jepps, Shelley
Jorgensen, Georg
Joyce, Marilyn
Klaver, March
Lauzier, Ray
Lessard, Joanne
Leus, Dan
Lochead, Janet
Mylchreest, Russell (Subcommittee Chair)
Nichol, Linda
Parker, Guy
Pegg, James
Rogers, Juanita
Rusch, Bryan
Rutherford, Dennis
Yamanaka, Lynne
West, Kim
Zhang, Zane
External Participants:
Emmett, Brian
Thuringer, Pam
Cook, Sarah
Haggarty, Dana
Nov 29
Nov 30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nov 29
Nov 30
X
X
X
X
10
External Participants:
Heath, Bill
Holmes, Heather
Norgard, Tammy
Richards, John
Taekema, Bernie
Tomascik, Tomas
Watson, Jane
Whyte, Guy
Lucas, Barbara
Nov 29
Nov 30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reviewers for the PSARC papers presented at this meeting are listed below.
Their assistance is invaluable in making the PSARC process work.
Sutherland, Terri
Wood, Chris
Yamanaka, Lynne
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
11
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement