SSC/GFSC statements about quillback review process

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

This year we will need to address GFSC recommendations from the last (2021) stock assessment. This will not be straightforward. The 2021 review process was convoluted (see discussion #9), and some subcommittee recommendations from 2021 were incorporated into later versions of the 2021 assessment.

This issue outlines various recommendations by the SSC/GFSC during 2021

From the June 2021 SSC statement there are a number of general statements on pg 7 about the data-moderate reviews, yet none are specific to an individual STAT.

The topics include treatment of when to estimate recruitment, use of fishery-dependent indices, how data moderates are to be reviewed, listing of potential data sources, ensemble modeling, and then a general statement on how to managed nearshore species (which I now see being addressed through Phase 2 actions).

We can simply state that many specific requests were later addressed, and these general ones apply mostly to the data-moderate review process.

From the September 2021 SSC statement (pg 5; bold font added by me)

The sensitivity analysis conducted to evaluate the use of a lower catch scenario addressing outliers and methods used to fill gaps resulted in a more pessimistic stock status and a lower biomass estimate. Concerns remain regarding potential outliers in the catch history and methods used to inform periods when direct estimates are unavailable. Nearshore rockfish catch history reconstructions in California should be improved.

This document also contained summaries of requests made and addressed for the August 17 second review (starting on pg 20). All of these were addressed in the 2021 assessment, with perhaps the exception of request 1 (though sensitivities were explored)

Request 1: Reevaluate the catch history taking into account input from the CDFW Report 1 and Report 2 as well as input from the California STAT member to address apparent outlier estimates and methods for filling blanks between 1990 and 1992 for the MRFSS era.

Request 2: Add the length data from the historical onboard CPFV surveys from the 1980s and 1990s northern California survey conducted by CDFW noted in Table 2 of the SSC Report.

Request 3: Age otoliths and use corresponding lengths from samples collected in California and compare results to the growth curve from samples collected in Oregon and Washington. Otoliths should be provided as requested in the NMFS Report 1.

Request 4: Further evaluate the ability of the model to estimate growth. In particular, run one model while estimating L-infinity and another while estimating both L-infinity and k.

Request 5: Evaluate alternative selectivity time blocking based on the timing of depth restrictions from 2001-present north of Pigeon Point, California where they are commonly encountered. In particular, add a time block (allowing for dome-shaped selectivity) starting in 2001 and consider additional time blocks.

From the November 2021 SSC statement (pg 4 and not entirely a recommendation relevant to future STATs)

The SSC recommends deferring decisions regarding the type of future assessments pending a more robust evaluation of these potential sources of information and what data are needed to inform the composition of the stock in closed areas not reflected in the assessment, in addition to growth considerations.