MSC Public Certification Report for US and Canada Pacific Hake Mid-Water Trawl Fishery MSC 2Nd Re-Assessment

MSC Public Certification Report for US and Canada Pacific Hake Mid-water Trawl Fishery

MSC 2nd Re-Assessment

MRAG Americas, Inc.

Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Stocker, and Susan Hanna

November 21, 2019

CLIENT DETAILS: Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (PWCC) American Seafoods Company Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue, #900 Seattle, WA 98121

Oregon Trawl Commission 16289 Hwy 101 S, Suite C Brookings, OR 97415, USA

Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen (APHF) 2295 Commissioner St Vancouver BC V5L 1A4 Canada

MSC reference standards: MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) Version 2.0 MSC Guidance to the Fisheries Certification Requirements (GFCR) Version 2.0

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 1 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Tables ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 4 Glossary of Abbreviations ...... 5 1 Executive Summary ...... 6 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 7 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 7 2.2 Peer Reviewer ...... 10 3 Changes since Initial Assessment ...... 11 3.1 Overview ...... 11 3.2 Unit of Assessment ...... 11 3.3 Criteria for reduced re-assessment ...... 12 3.4 Harmonization ...... 12 3.5 TAC and Catch Data ...... 12 3.6 Specific Changes since Initial Assessment ...... 13 3.6.1 Overall ...... 13 3.6.2 Principle 1 ...... 13 3.6.3 Principle 2 ...... 24 3.6.4 Principle 3 ...... 37 3.7 Previous assessments ...... 42 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 45 4.1 Assessment Methodologies ...... 45 4.2 Evaluation Processes & Techniques ...... 45 4.2.1 Site Visits and consultations ...... 45 4.2.2 Consultations ...... 47 4.2.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 47 5 Traceability ...... 49 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 49 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 49 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 52 6 Evaluation Results ...... 54 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 54 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 54 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 56 6.4 Recommendations ...... 56 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 56 References ...... 57

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 2 Appendices ...... 68 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 68 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 68 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 149 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 150 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports...... 152 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions ...... 157 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 159 Appendix 5. Objections Process ...... 160

List of Tables

Table 1. TAC and Catch Data for US Canada Pacific Hake Fishery ...... 12

Table 2. .Recent commercial fishery catch (t). Tribal catches are included in the sector totals. Research catch includes landed catch associated with certain research-related activities. Catch associated with surveys and discarded bycatch in fisheries not targeting hake are not currently included in the model (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 14

Table 3. . Recent trends in estimated beginning of the year female spawning biomass (thousand t) and spawning biomass level relative to estimated unfished equilibrium equilibrium (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 17

Table 4. Estimates of recent recruitment (millions of age-0) and recruitment deviations, where deviations below (above) zero indicate recruitment below (above) that estimated from the stock-recruit relationship (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 18

Table 5. Recent estimates of fishing intensity, (1-SPR)/(1-SPR40%), and exploitation fraction (catch divided by age 2+ biomass) (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 19

Table 6. Summary of median and 95% credibility intervals of equilibrium reference points for the Pacific Hake base assessment model. Equilibrium reference points were computed using 1966–2017 averages for mean size-at-age and selectivity-at-age (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 20

Table 7. Probabilities related to spawning biomass, fishing intensity, and 2019 default harvest policy catch for alternative 2018 catch options (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 21

Table 8. 2012-2016 catches in the US at-sea Pacific hake fishery (in metric tons) by species. Included are all species/groups comprising at least 0.01% of the average catch. Target species is highlighted green, primary spp yellow and secondary spp orange. Source At-sea hake observer program...... 25

Table 9. 2013-2017 catches in the Canadian offshore Pacific hake fishery (in metric tons) by species. Included are all species/groups comprising at least 0.01% of the average catch over this period. Target species is highlighted green, primary spp yellow, secondary spp orange and ETP species in pink...... 26

Table 10. Bycatch of Chinook salmon (#) by year for the whiting fisheries in relation to the 11,000Chinook threshold for the whiting sector (from PFMC 2018b)...... 27

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 3 Table 11. Incidental catch of salmonids in the offshore Canadian Pacific hake fishery in 2012 and 2014-2017...... 29

Table 12. SARA logbook data for seabird interactions with the Canadian midwater trawl fleet since 2013 (Source: DFO SARA logbook database, 2019)...... 33

Table 13. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions ...... 42

Table 14. Year 4 surveillance and re-assessment participants in site visits and teleconferences...... 45

Table 15. Consultation Meetings during the 4th Surveillance and re-assessment of the Pacific Hake US-Canada Pacific Hake Fishery...... 46

Table 16. Scoring elements...... 48

Table 17. Traceability Factors within the Fishery: ...... 50

Table 18. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores for the US and Canadian hake UoAs...... 55

Table 19. Summary of Conditions ...... 56

List of Figures

Figure 1. Total Pacific Hake catch used in the assessment by sector, 1966–2017. U.S. tribal catches are included in the sectors where they are represented (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 14

Figure 2. Median of the posterior distribution for beginning of the year female spawning biomass through 2018 (solid line) with 95% posterior credibility intervals (shaded area). The solid circle with a 95% posterior credibility interval is the estimated unfished equilibrium biomass (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 17

Figure 3. Trend in median relative fishing intensity (relative to SPR management target) through 2017 with 95% posterior credibility intervals (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 19

Figure 4. Estimated historical path followed by medians of relative fishing intensity and relative spawning biomass for Pacific Hake with labels on the start and end years (and 1999(. Grey bars span the 95% credibility intervals for 2017 relative fishing intensity (vertical) and relative spawning biomass (horizontal) (Edwards et al., 2018)...... 20

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 4 Glossary of Abbreviations AP Advisory Panel APHF Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen CCE California Current Ecosystem CI Credibility Interval DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada EAM Ecosystem Approach to Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan FMP Fishery Management Plan GTAC Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IFMP Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish IFQ Individual Fishing Quota ITS Incidental Take Statement IVQ Individual Vessel Quota IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis JMC Joint Management Committee JTC Joint Technical Committee LOA Length Overall LRP Limit Reference Points MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield mt Metric tons nm Nautical miles NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NRC National Research Council OTC Oregon Trawl Commission PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council PRI Point where Recruitment would be Impaired PSARC Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee PWCC Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative RCA Rockfish Conservation Areas SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation SFD Sustainable Fisheries Division SFF Sustainable Fisheries Framework SPR Spawning Potential Ratio SRG Scientific Review Group SS Stock Synthesis STAL Short-tailed Albatross TAC Total Allowable Catch WCGOP West Coast Groundfish Observer Program WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 5 1 Executive Summary

This Public Certification Report sets out the results of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) 2nd re-assessment of the Pacific hake mid-water trawl fishery against the MSC Fisheries Standard for sustainability.

MRAG Americas was contracted in 2018, by the Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (PWCC), the Oregon Trawl Commission (OTC) and the Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen (APHF) to undertake the 2nd MSC reassessment of the Pacific hake mid water trawl fishery. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC FCR v2.0 for a reduced re-assessment as permitted by the MSC following an accepted variation (available here: https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=HOWgF7LP Q8iyr9WR0q09I2KgBIijyPtywmKFmg2LUgx7Fkte5fxdj87PIXwsXznT) and using the MSC GFCR v2.0, which sets out the assessment and certification process. As a result, to date, the following steps have been undertaken: • Announcement of the assessment • Appointment of the assessment team • Notification on the use of the assessment tree • Notification and undertaking of the site visit • Production of the client draft report that describes the background to the fishery, the fishery management operation and the evaluation procedure and results as required by the reduced re-assessment process and reporting template. • Production of the Peer Review Report • Response to Peer Review comments, and report revisions where necessary • Production of the Public Comment Draft Report • Response to stakeholder comments on the Public Comment Draft Report • Review by MRAG Americas’ qualified nominated Reviewer and Decision Maker • Consultation on the Final Report and Determination • Production of the Public Certification Report

The assessment of the fishery was performed by Max Stocker (Principle 1 Team Member), Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Principle 2 Team Member and Team Leader), and Susan Hanna (Principle 3 Team Member).

A site visit was conducted in Seattle, WA; Nanaimo; BC; and via teleconference on December 6, 7 and 10, 2018. During that time the assessment team met with scientists, fishery managers, stakeholders and industry representatives. Scott Wallace from the David Suzuki Foundation requested a meeting with the team, which was held during the site visit via teleconference and is summarized in Appendix 3. No written submissions were received ahead of the site visit by other stakeholders.

The following strengths and weakness were identified with respect to each Principle:

Principle 1 Strengths: Under the U.S.-Canada hake treaty the scientific basis and the collection of relevant information for the sustainable target stock is very strong. The target stock is at a level well above the B40% target reference point. A harvest control rule (HCR) is in place that ensures that exploitation is reduced when the stock declines towards the point where recruitment would be impaired.

Weakness: Some improvement to reduce sources of uncertainty in the stock assessment and management can be achieved through a better understanding of the spatial distribution

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 6 of hake biomass, improving acoustic survey estimates of age and abundance, and completing the management strategy evaluation (MSE).

Principle 2 Strengths: Information availability and management of non-hake species in both the US and Canadian groundfish Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) is excellent. In addition, both countries are advanced in their investigations and management of ecosystem impacts of this and other fisheries.

Weaknesses: In Canada, there is as-yet no completed management response to stock assessment status of SARA-listed rougheye rockfish types I and II. In addition, whereas some endangered stocks of Pacific salmon are recognized as such in the US with commensurate management required by groundfish fisheries, they are not listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act and thus treated as primary species requiring bycatch minimization efforts for the hake fleet.

Principle 3 Strengths: The Pacific Whiting Treaty provides a strong legal system of binding procedures governing international cooperation between the U.S. and Canada. The treaty’s advisory committee structure is robust. The internal federal management systems of both the U.S. and Canada are effective and have been responsive to court decisions. Dispute resolution processes are stable.

The U.S. and Canada have legal mechanisms in place to protect treaty rights of coastal Indian tribes and First Nations. The management systems of both the U.S. and Canada clearly identify participants and conduct active consultations. Stakeholder participation is encouraged. Clear objectives are specified in management plans and the use of the precautionary approach is explicit. Comprehensive monitoring and control systems exist to enforce regulations. Both fishery management systems are regularly reviewed.

Weakness: An interruption in reporting of U.S. fishery-specific enforcement data leaves some uncertainty as to the U.S. level of compliance with regulations.

Based on the information available to date, the Pacific hake mid-water trawl fishery achieved overall scores of 93.3 for Principle 1 (both UoAs), 97.7 for the US and 93.3 for Canada for Principle 2 and 100 for the US UoA and 100 for the Canadian UoA for Principle 3. As such, the fishery is recommended for recertification against the MSC Standard, as no indicator scored less than 60, and all average principle scores were above 80.

One condition was raised with respect to Performance Indicator (PI) 2.3.2 (Rougheye rockfish) for Canada. In addition, one recommendation was offered relative to the resolution of enforcement data in the US offshore whiting fishery and one in relation to seabird data collection in the Canadian fishery.

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1 Assessment Team

The assessment team consists of Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Dr. Max Stocker, and Dr. Susan Hanna. Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot serves as assessment team leader. A discussion between team members regarding conflict of interest and biases was held, and none were identified.

Qualifications of the team are:

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 7 Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot. She is an M.Sc graduate of the University of Bremen, Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT) in marine ecology and fisheries biology. Ms. Stern-Pirlot joined MRAG Americas in mid-June 2014 as MSC Certification Manager (now Director of the Fishery Certification Division) and is currently serving on several different assessment teams. She has worked together with other scientists, conservationists, fisheries managers and producer groups on international fisheries sustainability issues for over 15 years. With the Institute for Marine Research (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, she led a work package on simple indicators for sustainable within the EU-funded international cooperation project INCOFISH, followed by five years within the Standards Department at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in London, developing standards, policies and assessment methods informed by best practices in fisheries management around the globe. Most recently she has worked with the Alaska pollock industry as a resources analyst, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process, focusing on bycatch and ecosystem- based management issues, and managing the day-to-day operations of the offshore pollock cooperative. She has co-authored a dozen publications on fisheries sustainability in the developing world and the functioning of the MSC as an instrument for transforming fisheries to a sustainable basis. She has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries;

• She has passed the MSC team leader training; • She has passed the MSC Traceability training module; • She has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2; • She has undertaken two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years, and • She has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders. • In addition, she has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 2 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC table PC3. • MRAG Americas confirms that Ms. Stern-Pirlot has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Dr. Max Stocker. Dr. Stocker is a scientist with over 38 years of extensive experience in fisheries science. He is currently proprietor of Stocker & Associates Consultants conducting Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification projects. Since 2009 he has worked as a team member for both principles 1 and 3 on a number of tuna and groundfish MSC assessments in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Dr. Stocker has conducted many surveillance audits, several MSC peer reviews, and has also been involved in the development and evaluation of new MSC Principle 1 assessment methodology. He is an MSC certified Fishery Team Member.

Dr. Stocker acted as marine fisheries consultant under contract with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to provide scientific advice on highly migratory species in the Pacific Ocean. He was the lead Canadian scientist for highly migratory species for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). He served as co-chair of the Stock Assessment Working Group of the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC and chaired the ISC Albacore Working Group.

From 1978-2006 Dr. Stocker held the position of research scientist with DFO at the Pacific biological Station conducting population dynamic studies, conducting peer reviewed stock assessments of many marine species, and communicating results to fisheries managers and stakeholders. He authored and co-authored over 90 scientific papers and reports, and made over 50 presentations in national and international scientific meetings.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 8 Dr. Stocker chaired the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) for many years and edited and published over 30 advisory documents on the stock status of marine species and the implications of harvest management on these stocks. Additionally, Dr. Stocker served as in-house stock assessment consultant to the New Zealand Fishing Industry Board in the early 1990s conducting peer reviewed stock assessments, participating in the peer review process, and advising the Board on inshore and deep-water fisheries.

MRAG Americas confirms that Dr. Stocker meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows:

• He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries, • He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored.

In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Dr. Susan Hanna. Susan Hanna is professor emeritus of marine economics at Oregon State University. Her research and publications are in the area of marine economics and policy, with an emphasis on fishery management, ecosystem- based fishery management, property rights and institutional design. Dr. Hanna has served as a scientific advisor to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Minerals Management Service, Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council. She served on the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council (NRC), National Academy of Sciences, and several NRC Committees, including the Committee to Review Individual Quotas in Fisheries and the Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids. She has served as a Principle 3 assessor and peer reviewer on a number of MSC assessments, including Oregon and Washington pink shrimp and US West Coast Groundfish.

MRAG Americas confirms that Dr. Hanna meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows:

• She has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries, • She has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years • She is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored.

In addition, she has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 3 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms she has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

The whole assessment team collectively meets the requirements as described in FCR Annex PC table PC3.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 9 2.2 Peer Reviewer There was one peer reviewer selected for this reduced re-assessment from the short list published by the Peer Reviewer College here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pacific- hake-mid-water-trawl/@@assessment- documentsets?documentset_name=Proposed+peer+reviewers&phase_name=Client+and+p eer+review&start_date=2018-11-06&title=Re-Assessment.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 10 3 Changes since Initial Assessment 3.1 Overview

The MRAG Americas assessment team determined that the fishery is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (FCR 7.4 of the MSC FCR v2.0):

• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal; The fishery does not use poisons or explosives; • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years; • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery; • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.3. • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.4.

3.2 Unit of Assessment

There are no changes to the Unit of Assessment (UoA) or Unit of Certification (UoC) since the initial assessment. The UoC consists of:

Species North Pacific Hake (Merluccius productus) Geographical US federal EEZ waters off Washington, Oregon and California, and range of fishing Canadian EEZ waters off the British Columbia coast, not including the operations Gulf of Georgia. Method of Mid-water Trawl capture Unit(s) of Mid-water Trawl fishing in US Pacific EEZ waters of Washington, Assessment Oregon and California, and Canadian Pacific EEZ waters (UoA) Stock Offshore stock of Pacific hake/whiting Management Management of the coastal Pacific hake fishery is shared among the Joint Management Committee (or JMC, as established by the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Pacific Hake/Whiting), who recommends the annual TAC, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the US and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in Canada. NMFS and DFO are responsible for domestic management of their country’s fisheries. The Agreement specifies a default harvest rate of F40% and fixed allocation percentages of 73.88% and 26.12% of the annual TAC, for the US and Canada, respectively. In the US, NMFS receives recommendations from the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and its advisory bodies on specific management and enforcement measures. In Canada, DFO meets regularly with the Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee (GTAC), comprised of representatives of Licence Holders, First Nations, Processors, Coastal Community Reps, Union Reps and the Province of BC to review the fishery and garner information and advice on in season management actions, including catch data, stock movement and any potential Joint Venture opportunities to be allowed. Four Washington coastal tribes have a treaty right to up to 50% of the

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 11 harvestable surplus within the boundaries of their Usual and Accustomed (U and A) fishing areas. At present the right is exercised only by the Makah Tribe, through a negotiated annual allocation of 17.5% of the US allocation (50 CFR 660.50 2018). The Makah Tribe has been a full participant in the hake fishery since 1996. Client group Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (PWCC), Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen ((APHF), and Oregon Trawl Commission (OTC). Other eligible This unit of certification represents the range of Pacific hake/whiting, fishers and includes all eligible fishers of the US and Canada with authorization from respective governments to fish for Pacific Hake. There is a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Oregon Trawl Commission and the PWCC that enables incidentally harvested MSC-certified species taken in their respective fisheries to be marketed as eligible to carry the MSC logo subject to MSC chain of custody requirements.

3.3 Criteria for reduced re-assessment This fishery meets the criteria for reduced re-assessment as set out in FCR 7.24.6 on the basis that: • The fishery was covered under a previous certification (certificate codes: US EEZ Waters; MRAG-F-011 and Canadian EEZ waters; MRAG-F-012). • While there were two conditions open for Canada until the 4th surveillance audit, MSC accepted a variation request to allow the reduced reassessment reporting format and single peer reviewer provided that the open conditions were closed during the 4th surveillance (they were). The variation request and response can be found here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pacific-hake-mid-water- trawl/@@assessments. • All standard-related stakeholder comments were addressed by the 3rd surveillance audit.

3.4 Harmonization Although not technically overlapping, there is a degree of harmonization that has taken place in relation to the US west coast groundfish trawl fishery, and British Columbia Pacific halibut fishery insofar as there are commonalities between this and those fisheries, particularly in areas of Principle 2 species encountered and policy context in Principle 3. This has been described throughout the report where relevant, and there are no material score discrepancies among these overlapping components.

3.5 TAC and Catch Data Table 1. TAC and Catch Data for US Canada Pacific Hake Fishery

TAC Year 2017 Amount 597,500 t1 US UoC share of TAC Year 2017 Amount 441,433 t1 73.88% Canada UoC share of TAC Year 2017 Amount 156,067 t1 26.12% Total green weight catch by Year 2017 Amount 354,231 t2 80.33% US UoC Total green weight catch by Year 2017 Amount 86,713 t2 19.67% Canada UoC Total green weight catch by Year (most 2017 Amount 440,944 t2 UoC recent) Year (second 2016 Amount 332,330 t2 most recent) 1JMC (2017) 2Edwards et al. (2018: Table e)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 12 3.6 Specific Changes since Initial Assessment

3.6.1 Overall

Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) is the most productive and economically important commercial fish species off the North American Pacific, south of Alaska. For a recent detailed review of hake biology, fisheries, assessment and management see Hamel et al. (2015). A detailed description of hake life history; see PFMC (2016b).

Overall, the fishery has remained as it was when it was first assessed in 2009 (Devitt et al., 2009). Changes and updates specific to the scoring of PIs are detailed for Principles 1 to 3 below.

Management operation: There have been no major changes to legislation or to the management system since the last surveillance audit, and the management operates under the “Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting” signed in Seattle, Washington on November 21, 2003 (Devitt et al., 2009).

Species types: No change; Fishing practices: No change; Legal / administrative status: No changes; Involvement of other entities: No changes; Harmonisation: No changes.

3.6.2 Principle 1 The Assessment Team describes changes in the fishery pertaining to Principle 1 since the re-assessment in 2014 (Peterson et al., 2014). For Principle 1 the MSC assessment for the US and Canada Pacific hake mid-water trawl fishery was based on the 2013 stock assessment (JTC, 2013). Since then the Joint Technical Committee under the Pacific hake/whiting treaty has produced annual stock assessments (JTC, 2014; Taylor et al., 2015; Grandin et al., 2016; Berger et al., 2017; and Edwards et al., 2018). Incremental changes for each stock assessment are described and a summary of the 2018 stock assessment is provided.

The Assessment Team noted that the joint U.S. and Canadian integrated acoustic and trawl survey has been the primary fishery-independent tool used to assess the distribution, abundance and biology of coastal Pacific Hake along the west coasts of the United States and Canada.

Catch

The coast-wide landings of the Pacific Hake fishery averaged 230,250 t for the period 1966 - 2017, with a low of 89,930 t in 1980 and a high of 440,944 t in 2017 (Figure 1). The 440,944 t coastwide catch in 2017 was the largest on record (Table 2). Prior to 1966, total removals were very small compared to the modern fishery. Over the early period, 1966–1990, most removals were from foreign or joint-venture fisheries. Over all years, the fishery in U.S. waters averaged 174,349 t, or 75.7% of the average total landings. In comparison catch from Canadian waters averaged 55,901 t or 24.3%. Over the last 10 years, 2008–2017 (Table 2), the average coast-wide catch was 276,288 t with U.S. and Canadian catches averaging 220,094 t and 56,194 t, respectively (Edwards et al., 2018).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 13

Figure 1. Total Pacific Hake catch used in the assessment by sector, 1966–2017. U.S. tribal catches are included in the sectors where they are represented (Edwards et al., 2018).

Table 2. Recent commercial fishery catch (t). Tribal catches are included in the sector totals. Research catch includes landed catch associated with certain research-related activities. Catch associated with surveys and discarded bycatch in fisheries not targeting hake are not currently included in the model (Edwards et al., 2018).

2014 Stock Assessment

New data included in the 2014 stock assessment (JTC, 2014) were the 2013 acoustic survey biomass estimate as well as the 2013 fishery and acoustic survey age compositions. Some histological analyses of hake ovaries were also undertaken, contributing to a preliminary re-examination of the Dorn and Saunders (1997) maturity estimates that were based on visual maturity determinations by observers during 1990–1992. In 2014, the JTC changed the structural form of the base assessment model to include time-varying fishery selectivity.

Stock status: No change

2015 Stock Assessment

The 2015 stock assessment (Taylor et al., 2015) was similar in structure to the 2014 model with minor refinements to data including catch estimates from earlier years.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 14

Stock status: No change.

2016 Stock Assessment

The stock assessment model for 2016 (Grandin et al., 2016) is similar in structure to the 2015 model with the addition of fishery age compositions from 2015, new acoustic survey biomass and age composition estimates for 2015, re-analyzed acoustic survey biomass and age compositions from 1998–2013, and minor refinements to data including catch estimates from earlier years. The acoustic survey completed in 2015 covered U.S. and Canadian waters from the U.S./Mexico border to north of Haida Gwaii (Grandin et al., 2016). This was the first year that the Southern California Bight was covered by this survey.

Stock status: No change.

2017 Stock Assessment

The stock assessment model for 2017 (Berger et al., 2017) is similar in structure to the 2016 model. Updates to the data included the addition of fishery catch and age compositions from 2016, reanalyzed acoustic survey biomass and age compositions for 1995 (completing the reanalyzed acoustic survey time series initiated in the 2016 model), and other minor refinements such as catch estimates from earlier years. The 2017 stock assessment included a minor revision to the 1998 survey biomass estimate which resulted in a 2% biomass increase (Berger et al., 2017).

Stock status: No change

2018 Stock Assessment

The following brief stock assessment summary was adopted from the 2018 Stock Assessment of Pacific Hake in U.S. and Canadian Waters prepared by the International Joint Technical Committee for Pacific hake (Edwards et al., 2018). The 2018 assessment is the seventh annual stock assessment conducted under the Joint US-Canada Agreement for Pacific hake. The 2018 base model is an updated version of the 2017 stock assessment base model (Berger et al., 2017). The model was fit to the acoustic survey abundance index, annual commercial catch data, and survey and commercial fisheries age-composition data. Data was updated to include the biomass estimate and age-composition from the 2017 acoustic survey (http://pacificwhiting.org/images/msc_audit_8/P1_1_2017_survey_whiting_biomass_estimat e.pdf) catch and age-composition data from the commercial 2017 fisheries, and weight, and 2017 weight-at-age data. In 2018 Stock Synthesis (SS) (Methot and Wetzel, 2013) version 3.30 was used for the first time. SS version 3.30 (Methot et al., 2018) is a significant update to the software used in previous hake assessments (Edwards et al., 2018)

The hake stock assessment uses Bayesian methods to incorporate prior information on natural mortality (M), steepness of the stock-recruit relationship (h), and several other parameters with likelihoods for acoustic survey biomass indices and age-composition, as well as fishery age composition data. The assessment provides results that can be probabilistically interpreted. The exploration of uncertainty is not limited to parameter uncertainty as structural uncertainty is investigated through sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analyses are used to identify alternative structural models that may also be consistent with the data. Past assessments have used closed-loop simulations to provide an assessment of how alternative combinations of survey frequency, assessment model selectivity assumptions, and HCRs affect expected management outcomes. The results of past closed-

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 15 loop simulations influenced the decisions made for the 2018 assessment (Edwards et al., 2018).

The stock assessment model for 2018 retains the structural form of the base assessment model from 2017 as well as many of the previous elements configured in Stock Synthesis. The 2018 JTC assessment depends primarily on the fishery landings (1966–2017), acoustic survey biomass estimates, and age-compositions (1998–2017), as well as fishery age- compositions (1975–2017). While the 2011 survey index value was the lowest in the time series, the index increased steadily over the four surveys conducted in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015, and then declined in 2017. Age-composition data from the aggregated fisheries and the acoustic survey contribute to the assessment model’s ability to resolve strong and weak cohorts. A new age-based maturity ogive was developed for the 2018 assessment. This new ogive replaced the previous ogive that was based on estimates of maturity-at- length from 1997 and weight at length from 2011. The fecundity relationship was also updated. The 2018 assessment incorporated new approaches for weighting composition data and for parameterizing time-varying selectivity. The Dirichlet-Multinomial (D-M) likelihood approach (Thorson, et al., 2014) was used to estimate weights associated with age-composition data. Simulations performed by Kuriyama et al. (2016) showed that, in general, using empirical weight-at-age when many observations are available resulted in more accurate estimates of spawning biomass (Edwards et al., 2018).

Results of the base case stock assessment model indicates that since the 1960s, Pacific Hake female spawning biomass has ranged from well below to near (and above) unfished equilibrium (Figure 2). The model estimated that the female spawning biomass was below the unfished equilibrium in the 1960s and 1970s (due to low recruitment). The stock was estimated to have increased rapidly after two or more large recruitments in the early 1980s to near unfished equilibrium, and then declined steadily after a peak in the mid- to late-1980s to a low in 2000. This long period of decline was followed by a brief increase to a peak in 2003 as the very large 1999 year- class matured. The 1999 year-class largely supported the fishery for several years due to relatively small recruitments between 2000 and 2007 entering the fishery to replace catches being removed during this period. With the aging 1999 year-class, median female spawning biomass declined throughout the late 2000s, reaching a time-series low of 0.568 million t in 2010. The assessment model estimated that spawning biomass then peaked again in 2013 and 2014 due to a very large 2010 year-class and an above average 2008 year-class. The 2018 median posterior spawning biomass was estimated to be 66.7% of the unfished equilibrium level (B0) (with 95% posterior credibility intervals ranging from 32.7% to 136.1%. The median estimate of the 2018 female spawning biomass (Table 3) was 1.357 million t (with a 95% posterior credibility interval from 0.610 to 3.161 million t) (Edwards et al., 2018).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 16

Table 3. Recent trends in estimated beginning of the year female spawning biomass (thousand t) and spawning biomass level relative to estimated unfished equilibrium (Edwards et al., 2018).

New data available for the 2018 assessment did not significantly change the estimated patterns of recruitment previously estimated. Pacific Hake by and large exhibit low average recruitment with occasional large year-classes. Very large year classes in 1980, 1984, and 1999 supported much of the commercial catch from the 1980s to the mid-2000s. From 2000 to 2007 estimated recruitment was at some of the lowest values in the time series, but this was followed by a relatively large 2008 year-class. The 2018 assessment estimates a very

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 17 strong 2010 year-class comprising 71% of the coast-wide commercial catch in 2013, 65% of the 2014 catch, and 71% of the 2015 catch and 33% of the 2016 catch. The model estimated smaller than average 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 year-classes. The 2014 year- class was estimated to be likely larger than average). The 2014 year-class is likely larger than average (Table 4) (Edwards et al., 2018).

Median fishing intensity on the stock is estimated to have been below the target (F40%) except for the years 2008 and 2010 when spawning biomass was low (Table 5). Exploitation fraction (catch divided by biomass of fish of age 2 and above) peaked in 1999 (Figure 3 and Table 5). Median fishing intensity is estimated to have declined from 94.3% in 2010 to 86.2% in 2017, while the exploitation fraction has decreased from 0.13 in 2010 to 0.14 in 2017. There is a considerable amount of uncertainty around these recent estimates, with the 95% posterior credibility interval reaching above the SRP management target for 2017 (Edwards et al., 2018).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 18 Table 5. Recent estimates of fishing intensity, (1-SPR)/(1-SPR40%), and exploitation fraction (catch divided by age 2+ biomass) (Edwards et al., 2018).

Figure 3. Trend in median relative fishing intensity (relative to SPR management target) through 2017 with 95% posterior credibility intervals (Edwards et al., 2018).

The joint exploitation history of the median estimates of relative spawning biomass and relative fishing intensity shows that the median relative fishing intensity has never been above the target of 1.0 when the female spawning biomass is below the reference point of B40% (Figure 4). Between 2007 and 2011, median relative fishing intensity ranged from 80% to 97% and median relative spawning biomass between 0.28 and 0.36. Biomass has risen from the 2010 low with the 2008, 2010 and 2014 recruitments, and median relative spawning biomass has been above the reference point of 40% since 2012. The model

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 19 estimated a 5.7% joint probability of being both above the target relative fishing intensity in 2017 and below the B40% relative spawning biomass level at the start of 2018 (Edwards et al., 2018).

Figure 4. Estimated historical path followed by medians of relative fishing intensity and relative spawning biomass for Pacific Hake with labels on the start and end years (and 1999). Grey bars span the 95% credibility intervals for 2017 relative fishing intensity (vertical) and relative spawning biomass (horizontal) (Edwards et al., 2018).

As in the 2017 assessment, the 2018 assessment estimated reference points for Pacific hake using the base-case model (Table 6). The estimates are slightly different than those in the 2017 assessment, with slightly smaller sustainable yields and reference biomasses estimated in the 2018 assessment. The estimated unfished equilibrium spawning biomass estimate was 2,032,000 t (95% posterior credibility interval ranges from 1,641,000 to 2,608,000 t). The spawning biomass that is 40% of the unfished equilibrium spawning biomass (SB40%) was estimated to be 813,000 t (with 95% posterior credibility interval ranges from 657,000 t to 1,043,000 t). This is slightly larger than the equilibrium spawning biomass implied by the F40% default harvest rate target which is 730,000 t or 36% of SB0 (Edwards et al., 2018).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 20

A set of management metrics was identified as important to the Joint Management Committee (JMC), and Advisory Panel (AP). These metrics summarize the probability of various outcomes from the base case model given each potential management action (Table 7).

Table 7. Probabilities related to spawning biomass, fishing intensity, and 2019 default harvest policy catch for alternative 2018 catch options (Edwards et al., 2018).

The median catch for 2018 based on the default harvest policy (F40% – 40:10) is 725,984 t, but has a wide range of uncertainty. The 95% posterior credibility interval (CI) ranges from

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 21 270,948 t to 1,881,590 t. The probability of the spawning biomass decreasing from 2018 to 2019 is less than 50% for only the 0 t catch level (Table 7). The highest probability of decrease is 77%, which is for the default harvest policy (row g in Table 7). The predicted probability of the spawning biomass dropping below B10% at the start of 2019 is less than 1% and the maximum probability of dropping below B40% is 24% for all catches explored. The model estimated below-average recruitment for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 cohorts, but above-average 2014 and 2016 cohorts that may result in increases to the spawning biomass as they mature and increase in weight (Edwards et al., 2018).

In 2018 during the stock assessment review, the SRG requested an additional model run, which included changes related to fecundity (SRG, 2018). It was noted that the model results and corresponding estimates of stock status (e.g., relative spawning biomass) were strongly affected by the choice of weights-at-age applied over all years used for estimating fecundity (annual matrix vs average vector). the alternative model estimates that stock status is lower and much closer to the reference point (B40) than the base-case model. The SRG was unable to resolve the issue of which model is more plausible and requested the JTC to conduct additional work in the coming year (SRG, 2018).

Stock status: The base-case model estimated median female spawning biomass at the beginning of 2018 to be 1.357 million t (95% CI 0.610-3.161 million t). This estimate translates to a relative spawning biomass of 66.7% B0 (95% CI 32.7%-136.1%). The joint probability that the stock at the beginning of 2018 would be below B40% and that fishing intensity would be above F40% was estimated to be 5.7% (Edwards et al., 2018).

The alternative model estimated median female spawning biomass at the beginning of 2018 to be 1.210 million t (95% CI 0.548 -2.774 million t). This estimate translates to a relative spawning biomass of 40.5% B0 (95% interval from 19.5% to 80.2%). The corresponding joint probability that the stock at the beginning of 2018 would be below B40% and that fishing intensity would be above F40% was estimated to be 16.4% (Edwards et al., 2018; Appendix A2).

Scientific Review Group

The 2018 SRG meeting was held at the Lynnwood Convention Center in Lynnwood, WA from February 26–March 2. The SRG considered the 2018 Pacific hake assessment report and appendices to present the best available scientific information. Many recommendations were made by the SRG and are summarized in their 2018 report (SRG, 2018). However, during the 2018 SRG meeting, the SRG requested the JTC to conduct an additional model run to examine sensitivity to fecundity. The alternative run estimated the probability that 2018 spawning biomass is below the B40 reference point at 48%, whereas the base-case predicted the probability that the 2018 spawning biomass is below B40 to be only 7%. The SRG was unable to resolve the issue of which model is more plausible and requested the JTC to conduct additional work in the coming year (SRG, 2018).

2018 Harvest Recommendations

The sixth annual Joint Management Committee meeting was held in Lynnwood Washington on March 5-6, 2018, to consider the stock assessment provided by the JTC (Edwards et al., 2018) and the findings and recommendations of the SRG. Following consideration of the presented information and recommendations from the Advisory Panel, the Joint Management Committee (JMC, 2018) approved the following recommendation for the coast- wide Pacific hake total allowable catch.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 22 Consistent with Article II 3.(e) of the Agreement, and after reviewing the advice of the JTC, the SRG, and the Advisory Panel (AP, 2018), the JMC recommends a coast-wide TAC of 517,775 t for the 2018 season. Based on Article III 2 of the Agreement, the Canadian share of the coast-wide TAC is 26.12 percent, or 135,243 t, and the U.S. share is 73.88 percent, or 382,532 t. Consistent with Article II 5.(b) of the Agreement, an adjustment (carryover from 2017) of 20,824 t is added to the Canadian share, for an adjusted Canadian TAC of 156,067 t. In the same manner, an adjustment of 58,901 t is added to the United States share, for an adjusted United States TAC of 441,433 t. This results in a coast-wide adjusted TAC of 597,500 t for 2018 (JMC, 2018).

The JMC (2018) had extensive discussion about how to advance development of the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE).

The JMC recommendation was transmitted via letter to the Parties on March 7, 2018. Subsequently NMFS and DFO formally implemented the JMC’s recommended 2018 TAC.

MSE

In 2014 progress was made in the MSE. The MSE provided some insight to evaluate and interpret the current HCR and survey frequency. Survey frequency: JTC noted that the added information value of an annual survey, as estimated by the current MSE, was relatively low; however, this result is based on a limited set of operating model scenarios that preclude making a formal recommendation on survey frequency at this point. HCR: The MSE indicated that strict adherence to the treaty’s F40% - 40:10 HCR would result in a substantial long-term (but not short-term) probability that the stock would decline below the B40 reference point. This finding demonstrated the usefulness of the MSE in evaluating long- term consequences of HCRs. In 2015 the MSE results were summarized in a book chapter (Hicks et al., 2015). The chapter’s key conclusion is that the simulations indicated that limiting TACs to levels below those suggested by the F40%-40:10 rule benefitted both long- term fishery yield and spawning biomass conservation. In 2016 progress was made on the Pacific hake MSE. Preliminary management strategy evaluation (MSE) work on alternative HCRs showed that performance of the default F40% HCR, judged on a combination of conservation and harvest metrics, was poorer than similar HCRs with upper limits of 375,000 t or 500,000 t on annual harvest. It is noted that these results could be altering the F40%- 40:10 HCR in the future.

In 2017 the Scientific Review Group provided guidance to JMC on the MSE process as it was stalled. Recently NOAA Fisheries has provided renewed support to move the MSE process forward. The MSE work is supported through an MSE Coordinator position at the NWFSC and a scientist to develop a spatially explicit operating model and conduct the Pacific hake MSE (SRG, 2018). A draft Pacific whiting MSE Work Plan (Marshall, 2018) was presented to the SRG in 2018. The work plan describes thirteen steps that are expected to provide results that will inform discussion on management choices by December 2019. The SRG (2018) noted that the draft MSE work plan seems to address the major points of guidance provided in 2017 (SRG, 2017).

With regard to Pacific hake MSE the SRG (2018) recommended:

• That the performance of assessment models be tested against the more complex reality of the MSE operating model (OM) scenarios to evaluate assessment accuracy and the confidence that can be placed in the annual tactical advice (e.g., TAC) arising from stock assessment • That operating model scenarios representing a world experiencing climate change be developed to test the robustness of current and future management procedures.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 23 Research update

Since the 1st re-assessment (Pedersen et al., 2014) two acoustic surveys have been conducted in 2015 and 2017. The 2017 survey estimated age 2+ biomass at 1.418 million t, a 34% decrease from the 2015 survey biomass estimate of 2.156 million t (SRG, 2018).

Scientists of the NWFSC conducted a detailed review of the Pacific hake integrated acoustic and trawl survey methods in 2017 9 (Chu et al., 2017).

The NOAA acoustic survey team conducted a winter research cruise on the NOAA Research Vessel Bell M. Shimada in 2016 and 2017 (Parker-Stetter, 2018). Sampling was aimed at characterizing the distribution of adult hake during the spawning season, understanding between-year variability in distribution, and collecting biological information during the winter. A large amount of valuable information was collected in 2016, resulting in several new insights into winter-season hake distribution and catch composition (SRG, 2017).

During the 4th surveillance audit the Assessment team learned that NOAA Fisheries was conducting acoustic survey experiments using sail drones for the purpose of estimating hake biomass.

Reference Points and HCR

No change.

3.6.3 Principle 2 There are no relevant changes to report relative to the US or Canadian fisheries pertaining to habitat impacts. Regarding primary and secondary species, there are no changes to report in the US fishery (there are still no main primary or secondary species and as such there is no need to consider cumulative impacts with other MSC fisheries). Regarding primary and secondary species in the Canadian fishery, there are some changes in that conditions initially on retained species PIs have now been closed. These updates can be found in the 4th surveillance report (Stern-Pirlot et al., 2019) or in the table below describing previous conditions and their resolution. Regarding Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, there is a growing concern about some stocks of Pacific salmon and this is addressed in this section. In Canada, there is an additional need to ensure that SARA-listed rockfishes are properly considered under ETP rather than primary or secondary species as they had been in the previous assessment. This change is also reflected below and in the scoring tables. Pertinent updates are given in the sections below, with information specific to previous assessment years available in previous surveillance reports.

Primary and Secondary Species The previous assessment of this fishery was done under v1.3 of the MSC Certification Requirements, wherein Principle 2 species were divided into “retained” and “bycatch” According to the current MSC requirements, these categories are now “primary” and “secondary” and the definitions of each differ from the previous “retained” and “bycatch” definitions.

Primary species in Principle 2 are those that meet the following criteria: • Species in the catch that are not covered under Principle 1 because they are not included in the UoA; • Species that are within scope of the MSC program as defined in FCR 7.4.1.1; and

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 24 • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.

Secondary species are classified as follows: • They are not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; or • They are out of scope of the program, but are not ETP species.

We designate “main” primary and secondary species as those which comprise at least 5% of the total catch, or at least 2% of the total catch for “more vulnerable” species, whose life history characteristics may make them more prone to overexploitation.

United States

Detailed information on the nature and amount of primary and secondary species in the mid- water hake fisheries under recertification (as well as ETP and non-ETP marine mammals and seabirds), is collected by the At-Sea Hake Observer Program (A-SHOP) and the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) operated by the NMFS. There is 100% observer coverage. A-SHOP sectors include the at sea catcher-processor and mothership catcher-vessels, while WCGOP covers the shoreside trawlers. No tribal fishing in the at-sea hake fishery occurred in 2017 or 2018. The total non-hake catch by all sectors is less than 0.7 percent of the weight of hake catch in the fishery, most (61-94%) of which were retained (see Table 8).

Average Species 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average % of catch Pacific Hake 93,865 130,563 165,305 96,148 173,821 131,940 99.3% Squid Unidentified 94 234 159 110 176 155 0.12% Spiny Dogfish Shark 178 97 60 97 194 125 0.09% Jack Mackerel 14 90 71 92 238 101 0.08% Yellowtail Rockfish 43 269 42 86 62 101 0.08% Widow Rockfish 79 31 56 35 187 78 0.06% Brown Cat Shark 14 41 35 51 57 40 0.03% Ragfish 17 7 29 65 48 33 0.03% Rougheye/Blackspotted 54 18 6 22 30 26 0.02% Rockfish Splitnose Rockfish 20 26 20 15 43 25 0.02% Arrowtooth Flounder 5 15 11 66 10 21 0.02% Pacific Mackerel 3 0 39 39 18 20 0.01% Sablefish 5 13 16 12 28 15 0.01% Shortspine Thornyhead 2 22 20 11 11 13 0.01% American Shad 3 12 18 4 7 9 0.01% Grenadier Unidentified 0 0 1 0 40 8 0.01% Salmon Shark 2 5 8 7 17 8 0.01% Medusafish 0 0 3 18 15 7 0.01%

Canada

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 25 The Canadian Coastal hake fishery is also a targeted mid-water trawl fishery that generally has a very low catch rate of non-hake species (average of 3.5% over the period from 2013- 2017. The highest single non-hake species caught during this period was yellowtail rockfish, at 546 t, or just under 1% by weight. The catch composition including all species for which there was at least a 0.01% contribution to the catch is given in Table 2. No species meet the criteria for main primary or secondary species. Specific updates pertaining to recently closed conditions on rougheye rockfish, redstripe rockfish, and walleye pollock are given in the conditions summary section of this report and in the most recent surveillance report (Stern- Pirlot et al., 2019). A detailed report of SARA-listed rockfish is given in the ETP section below.

Average Species 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average % of catch 46,78 35,07 37,58 69,52 87,09 PACIFIC HAKE 55,214 96.55% 4 6 8 5 8 YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH 625.8 308.6 476.2 624.1 696.0 546.1 0.95% 392. WALLEYE POLLOCK 341.8 86.5 542.9 75.0 915.0 0.69% 2 PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH 299.2 232.5 111.0 357.6 408.0 281.7 0.49% WIDOW ROCKFISH 185.4 89.0 127.5 112.2 155.0 133.8 0.23% REDSTRIPE ROCKFISH 150.7 41.4 103.0 110.2 194.0 119.9 0.21% NORTH PACIFIC SPINY 62.4 19.3 210.3 129.7 86.0 101.6 0.18% DOGFISH YELLOWMOUTH ROCKFISH 55.3 25.4 185.1 116.2 116.0 99.6 0.17% SPLITNOSE ROCKFISH 25.1 111.3 61.8 32.3 66.0 59.3 0.10% ROUGHEYE/BLACKSPOTTE 106.4 58.2 44.9 10.7 28.0 49.6 0.09% D ROCKFISH COMPLEX PACIFIC HERRING 1.2 102.6 53.5 3.7 15.0 35.2 0.06% SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 76.2 8.2 7.9 13.2 50.0 31.1 0.05% CANARY ROCKFISH 18.3 47.9 4.0 9.9 59.0 27.8 0.05% ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER 30.5 15.5 16.2 9.4 7.0 15.7 0.03% SABLEFISH 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 62.0 13.1 0.02% BOCACCIO 28.7 1.9 4.1 7.8 9.0 10.3 0.02% AMERICAN SHAD 2.5 5.5 0.3 1.1 29.0 7.7 0.01% CHINOOK SALMON 8.7 4.6 12.7 2.4 6.0 6.9 0.01% DARKBLOTCHED ROCKFISH 4.0 2.8 5.1 4.0 13.0 5.8 0.01% LINGCOD 13.9 0.9 3.5 4.4 3.0 5.2 0.01% JACK MACKEREL 1.6 1.2 12.7 2.0 3.0 4.1 0.01% SQUIDS 1.2 5.1 5.3 3.7 5.0 4.1 0.01%

ETP Species

With v2.0 of the MSC Fishery Standard, the definition of ETP species has changed to include those protected by national or international legislation, and names a number of international lists/agreements where, if a species is listed, it must be considered as ETP regardless of other national protection. For this assessment, the Agreement on the

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 26 Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP) is relevant because both the US and Canadian fisheries interact with listed albatrosses. This is the only significant change in the scope of the ETP component since 2014 reassessment for this fishery.

United States

Pacific Salmon

Table 10 shows the bycatch of Chinook salmon by year for the US whiting fishery by sector (PFMC 2018b) since 2002. The fishery as a whole has remained below the 11,000 Chinook salmon threshold in all but 2005 and 2014, and in all years remained below the threshold plus reserve amount (total of 14,500 Chinook). In 2017 the at-sea sector caught 3,769 Chinook, with the shoreside and tribal sectors catching 1,394 and 577, respectively.

Table 10. Bycatch of Chinook salmon (#) by year for the whiting fisheries in relation to the 11,000Chinook threshold for the whiting sector (from PFMC 2018b).

Sector 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

At-sea 1,679 2,648 805 3,963 1,209 1,321 722 319 714 3,990 4,232 3,737 6,685 1,808 3,051 3,769

Shore-based 1,062 425 4,206 4,018 839 2,462 1,962 378 2,997 3,727 2,333 1,313 7,554 2,424 733 1,394

Tribal 1,018 3,439 3,740 3,985 1,940 2,404 697 2,147 678 906 17 1,025 154 1 200 577

Total 3,759 6,512 8,751 11,966 3,988 6,187 3,381 2,844 4,389 8,623 6,582 6,075 14,393 4,233 3,984 5,740

% 11k 34% 59% 80% 109% 36% 56% 31% 26% 40% 78% 60% 55% 131% 38% 36% 52% threshold

In 2013, NMFS re-initiated ESA consultation about the impacts of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery (including the Pacific hake fishery) on ESA-listed salmonids. In September 2015, the PFMC provided guidance to NMFS about the groundfish fishery to inform the analysis for and development of the new Biological Opinion (BiOp). In December 2017, NMFS published the new ESA salmon BiOp.

Under the previous BiOp, exceeding the Chinook thresholds required re-consultation. The new BiOp explicitly states that NMFS will act to avoid exceeding the threshold, including fishery closure. Moreover, the new BiOp states that the Council and NMFS will review and develop mechanisms to prevent exceeding the coho salmon thresholds of 474 coho salmon for the whiting sector and 560 coho for the non-whiting sector, which are the historical maximums. Unlike the exceedance of the Chinook salmon thresholds and reserve, exceedance of the coho salmon guidelines alone will result in re-consultation.

At the March, April, and June 2018 PFMC meetings, the PFMC considered and adopted a range of mitigation measures in response to the BiOp to be implemented as part of the 2019-2020 groundfish specifications and management process. Subsequently, NMFS and the GMT reported at the November 2018 PFMC about additional management measures that could be considered for future implementation to ensure compliance with the BiOp's Incidental Take Statement (ITS) (PFMC 2018).

Seabirds

Seabirds of conservation concern, including the endangered short-tailed albatross (STAL), occur on the WA-OR-CA coasts and interact with groundfish fisheries. To date, the at-sea

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 27 hake fishery has never documented a STAL mortality, but if it were to occur, a STAL mortality could have negative impacts on the fishery.

Seabird mortalities caused by striking trawl warps or the data transponder cable (a.k.a. 3rd wire) have been recorded in similar at-sea processing fleets in both Alaska and the Southern Hemisphere. Observations of seabird cable strikes by fisheries observers are rare because observer duties prevent them from being present for the majority of strikes. Seabird carcasses are rarely recovered from such strikes because the carcass sinks to the ocean floor or the injured bird leaves the area, and thus carcasses are not captured by the net or cables.

Black-footed albatross were the only species observed taken on at-sea catcher processor vessels with between one and five BFALs recorded during 2010-2016. The most frequently caught non-albatross species on these vessels were northern fulmars, followed by gulls. Very rarely, one to a few individuals of nine other taxa were observed taken annually on at- sea catcher processor vessels (Jannot et al 2018a).

Since 2016, observers have spent 15 minutes per day observing cables for seabird strikes on at-sea hake catcher-processor vessels. Observers monitored over 500 hauls for almost 150 hours of observation time, during which they observed 120 strikes. Observers classified 30/120 strikes as "hard" meaning they had the potential to cause mortality. There were 12 observed hard strikes of black-footed albatross (BFAL), a species of conservation concern similar to STAL and listed under the Agreement tom Conservation of Albatross and Petrals (ACAP). When expanded to the total amount of daytime towing in the fleet, NMFS estimated that there were likely 738 hard strikes of BFAL in the fleet in 2016. Using a conservative estimate of 12% mortality for hard strikes obtained from the scientific literature, NMFS estimated that of the 738 hard strikes of BFAL, 85 resulted in mortality. Observers only recovered two BFAL carcasses in 2016 that could be verified as cable strikes, indicating the cryptic nature of cable strike mortality. In 2017 and 2018, observers continued to collect data on seabird cable strikes and NMFS is collaborating with industry to develop workable solutions to reduce cable-strike mortality (Jannot et al. 2017).

The recent USFWS BiOp for non-salmon ESA-listed species interactions in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery (PCGF) concluded that the PCGF is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of short-tailed albatross (USFWS 2017). However, it does indicate an expectation that "takes" could occur in the PCGF (including the CP hake fishery). Therefore, the Incidental Take Statement (page 48) mandates a series of Reasonable and Prudent Measures, including: "RPM 2. NMFS shall minimize the risk of short-tailed albatross interacting with trawl cables. Because short-tailed albatross are vulnerable to striking aerial trawl cables, particularly in the catcher-processor fleet, The Terms and Conditions specific to RPM 2 states, "T&C1 for RPM2 --To minimize the risk of short-tailed albatross interacting with trawl cables, NMFS shall: a) Continue to conduct research that investigates the extent of take associated with trawl gear and new or improved management actions that minimize take as a result of interactions with trawl gear in the PCGF. Management actions that should be examined include: i) The use and effectiveness of streamer lines when using trawl gear; ii) The degree to which minimizing the aerial extent of trawl cables affects the risk of bird strike; and iii) Feasible offal management techniques that decrease attraction of short-tailed albatross to the vicinity of aerial lines. b) Based on the research and findings of NMFS’s investigations into trawl-associated mortality or injury, implement measures that minimize potential for short-tailed albatross interactions with trawl gear.” In essence, the BiOp states that further research is needed to “develop an unbiased estimate of trawl-associated mortality” and requires NMFS to continue to conduct research, assess potential mitigation measures, and (based on the research) “implement measures that minimize potential for short-tailed albatross interactions with trawl gear.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 28 A NMFS sponsored workshop with seabird scientists, fishery participants, and gear manufacturers was held November 7-8, 2017 in Seattle (Jannot et al 2018c). The PFMC discussed this BiOp at their November 2017 meeting

Marine Mammals

The latest available report covers the period 2002 – 2016, and shows fishery interactions with California sea lions, Steller sea lions, elephant seals, harbor seals, and Dall’s porpoise (Jannot et al. 2018b). It suggests marine mammals are rarely taken incidentally in the US mid-water trawl Hake fishery with no observed mortality of any marine mammal in the midwater hake fishery since the last update of this report.

Pacific Halibut, Eulachon, and Forage Fish are other prohibited or ETP species or groups that interact with the US whiting fishery, and these interactions continue to be minimal and inconsequential to the status of the respective stocks.

Canada

The following species with a listed status on the Canadian Species At Risk Act have the potential to interact with the Canadian hake fishery based on their geographic distribution relative to hake fishing areas:

Rougheye rockfish types I and II, yelloweye rockfish shorthead sculpin, green sturgeon, basking shark, sixgill shark, tope shark, fin whale, grey whale, and Steller sea lion. In addition there has been concern raised about depleted runs of Pacific salmon encountered by this fishery. While several salmon stocks are listed as endangered within COSEWIC, they have not (yet) been SARA listed. As such, they are not treated as ETP within this assessment. However, the assessment team is keeping these stocks and the impact of the fishery on them, under review.

Salmon

Incidental catch of salmonids in the 2012 and 2014-2017 fisheries is summarized in Table 11 and has fluctuated without trend over the past six years Salmon is comprehensively managed under the DFO Salmon IFMP (summary available here: https://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/smon-sc-cs-ifmp-pgip-sm-eng.html) including precautionary provisions for protection of depleted runs. All commercial fisheries (including the directed salmon fisheries) must not retain any salmon from low-abundance populations.

Table 11. Incidental catch of salmonids in the offshore Canadian Pacific hake fishery in 2012 and 2014-2017.

Species 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 CHINOOK SALMON 8,661.5 4,588.2 12,730.0 2,367.7 6,383 CHUM SALMON 313.0 193.9 1,810.0 750.5 1,354 COHO SALMON 333.4 266.2 200.0 436.8 342 PINK SALMON - 4.0 220.0 9.5 72 SOCKEYE SALMON - 40.0 190.0 17.5 105

A representative from the David Suzuki Foundation, Dr Scott Wallace, registered specific concerns about the status of several Chinook salmon stocks and the potential impact of fisheries, including the hake fishery. A full report of concerns raised is given in Appendix 3. Regarding Chinook salmon, Dr Wallace reported that there have recently been twelve new Fraser River Chinook stocks listed under the Canadian Committee on the Status of

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 29 Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) to be submitted to and considered by the Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for potential listing under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), eight as endangered and four as threatened. None are listed under SARA to date. He noted that Chinook of Fraser River origin are known to occur as bycatch in both the US and Canadian hake fisheries.

SARA-listed rockfishes

Rougheye rockfish types I and II, yelloweye rockfish, and longspine thornyhead are all classified under SARA as “special concern.” As such they are treated as ETP species in this assessment.

Rougheye rockfish was considered a main bycatch species in the 2014 full assessment and a condition was assigned. This condition has now been closed on the basis of progress made, and the very small catches of this species in the fishery over the most recent five-year period. However, its evaluation under the ETP component is still required based on its SARA listing.

The Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish complex comprises two species, Rougheye Rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus) and Blackspotted Rockfish (S. melanostictus). Both species belong to the family Scorpaenidae, and are possibly among the longest lived fish species on earth. In Alaska, scientists aged one specimen to 205 years. These species appear red with dark or dusky blotches of pigment in the back dorsal region, and generally do not exceed 80 cm in size. The two species have similar appearances with slight variations in colour. The complex occurs in the Pacific Ocean, with a range that extends from the northwestern Pacific to British Columbia and southern California. The relative distribution and abundance of these two species in Canadian waters is unknown.

A management plan was published in April 2012. The SARA management plan “is an action- oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become threatened or endangered” (DFO 2012b). The Rougheye rockfish management plan’s goal is to maintain sustainable populations of these species, within each species’ known range in Canadian Pacific waters. The plan’s management actions, relevant to the commercial groundfish fisheries, to achieve this goal include:

• Continue the current management regime of the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish complex and Longspine Thornyhead, including 100% catch monitoring and other management tools (where necessary and applicable) in the commercial groundfish fishery, while working to develop methods to obtain catch estimates for Rougheye and Blackspotted Rockfish. • Work with other commercial fishing sectors to develop methodologies to account for bycatch of the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish complex and Longspine Thornyhead in commercial non-groundfish fisheries. • Incorporate all catch on research surveys into future DFO Science Rougheye Rockfish, Blackspotted rockfish and Longspine Thornyhead stock assessments.

The assessment team received an update on the status of the Rougheye Rockfish type I/II stock assessment from DFO in October of 2018 (DFO 2018b).

The following progress was reported (direct excerpt in grey):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 30 A draft assessment of the Black‐spotted/Rougheye rockfish complex has been done and a presentation of the draft results was made to the Technical Working Group in September 2018.

Upon review of the draft, the Technical Working Group provided direction on components of the assessment. Specifically,

• the addition of existing synoptic survey data to increase observations, and improve depth and spatial coverage; • revising the size‐at‐age analysis to reconcile anomalies between combined and species‐specific analysis; and, • the choice of age composition data to include because fitting the model to length data alone may lead to bias due to differing growth rates between Rougheye type I and type II.

The Technical Working Group was scheduled to meet again with the analysts in December 2018 to review progress on this additional work and review the changes, model fit and performance, with the intention of scheduling a formal DFO CSAS peer review in mid-2019. This Technical Working Group meeting has occurred as planned.

Once the science advice has been peer‐ reviewed it is considered at DFO fisheries management advisory processes which meet regularly throughout the year. Fisheries managers and stakeholders consider the science advice received at these meetings and management changes are made, if needed.

This history of implementation of in-season management measures where necessary enables the assessment team to be confident that if the results of the science advice show any issue with this stock complex, management can act immediately while formal regulations are finalized.

In reviewing the catch composition in the hake fishery over the past five years, the assessment team noted that the proportion of rougheye rockfish in the catch is very low (0.03% in 2017).

Yelloweye rockfish are solitary benthic dwellers with small home ranges. They can live to 115 years in British Columbia, and females reach 50% maturity at about 16 and 20 years of age for the outside and inside waters populations, respectively. On average, females tend to be larger and older than the males, and can reach a maximum size of 88 cm in British Columbia.

There are two distinct Designatable Units of Yelloweye Rockfish within the coastal waters of British Columbia. The Pacific Ocean Inside waters Yelloweye population inhabits the Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait. The Pacific Ocean Outside waters population extends from at least southeast Alaska through to northern Oregon, including the whole of the British Columbia offshore, north and central coast waters. The two Yelloweye

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 31 populations are distinguished on the basis of genetic information indicating restricted gene flow, and age at maturity.

Based on the 2012 and 2015 stock assessment surveys, both the Inside and Outside waters populations are estimated to have declined to 12% and 18%, respectively, of the estimated initial biomass in 1918 (DFO 2012; DFO 2015)

The hake fishery has the potential to interact with the Outside population of yelloweye rockfish. Fishery removals from the Outside population peaked in the mid to late 1980s and have declined since. Model results estimates the stock biomass in 2014 to be 18% of the unfished biomass B0. There is a 63% probability that stock biomass in 2014 is below the LRP of 0.4 BMSY and a 99% probability that stock biomass in 2014 is below the USR of 0.8 BMSY (DFO 2015). It also estimated that the 2014 biomass is 60% of the biomass in 2002, when the first of numerous catch reduction measures were introduced under the Rockfish Conservation Strategy. Based on this updated science information, application of DFO’s Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach and consultation with interested parties, DFO implemented a rebuilding strategy and reduced catch limits for the outside population of Yelloweye Rockfish in Groundfish Management Areas 3 and 5 (see DFO IFMP (2018), Section 8.1, Page 31; DFO IFMP (2018), Section 9.1.5.4, Page 53; DFO IFMP (2018) Appendix 6, Section 1.4, Page 3; and, DFO IFMP (2018), Appendix 9).

Given yelloweye rockfish has been listed as “special concern” under SARA, a draft management plan was prepared and sent for consultation. Relevant input received during the consultation period has been incorporated into the draft. The completed draft management plan is currently in Ottawa for approval by the competent Ministers (Fisheries Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and Environment and Climate Change). Once approved, the document will be posted on the Species at Risk website. In the interim and based on updated science information, the Department has set out a near term plan for stepped reductions of total Yelloweye outside population harvest from the estimated total catch mortality of 287 MT in 2014 to a mortality cap of 100 MT over 3 years (2016/17 to 2018/19). This plan accounts for survey catches and Indigenous fishing opportunities (DFO 2018).

Since the 2011 listing decision, DFO has received updated harvest advice through the CSAS process and has already started implementing management measures to support rebuilding. The new management measures have been developed in consideration of the draft SARA management plan.

In Canada, total allowable catch (TAC) of Yelloweye Rockfish in commercial fisheries was reduced by 50% outside and 75% inside between 2001 and 2002, in response to concerns about population status. Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA), closed to all commercial and recreational fishing, protect rockfish habitat with a goal of protecting 20% and 30% of rockfish habitat within RCAs for the outside and inside waters, respectively. Currently 164 such RCAs are in place. The Canadian hake fishery took approximately 0.7 tons of yelloweye rockfish on average over the past 5 years.

Longspine thornyhead Longspine thornyhead lives in the Pacific Ocean where it ranges from the southern tip of Baja California in Mexico up to the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, at depths from 370 m to 1600 m. In British Columbia this species occurs along the continental slope at depths between 500 and 1,600 m. The predominant population group can be found in DFO fisheries management region WCVI (West Coast Vancouver Island), with two smaller observed groupings in the Tidemarks and Rennell regions further north.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 32 The Longspine Thornyhead Rockfish is listed as Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). It also receives protection under the Fisheries Act and total allowable catches broken down by area and fleet are in place for longspine thornyhead. Fisheries management has closed the Flamingo region (west coast of Moresby Island) to all directed trawling on longspine thornyhead. There is also no trawling activity in the region known as Triangle due to the steepness and roughness of the bottom topography. As well, commercial trawlers do not usually fish at depths greater than 1,200 m, while longspine thornyheads were found to exist in waters as deep as 1,600 m (from 1996-2005).

The hake fishery recorded zero catch of longspine thornyhead over the past 5 years.

Seabirds

Relatively few seabirds are taken in the Canadian mid-water trawl hake fishery and none have been identified as SARA listed (Table 12), though two of three recorded interactions are with “unknown birds.”

Table 12. SARA logbook data for seabird interactions with the Canadian midwater trawl fleet since 2013 (Source: DFO SARA logbook database, 2019).

Birds encountered in the directed offshore hake fishery (excluding JV*), 2012 - 2018 HAKE_PRODUCT_TYPE YEAR SPECIES_CODE SPECIES_COMMON_NAME SPECIES_SCIENCE_NAME LANDED_KG RELEASED_KG TOTAL_KG FROZEN 2013 014 UNKNOWN BIRD AVES 0 0.91 0.91 FROZEN 2014 935 GULLS LARINAE 0 0.91 0.91 FROZEN 2016 014 UNKNOWN BIRD AVES 0 0.91 0.91

(*Note that no birds were recorded from the JV fishery during this time period)

However, several bird species with the potential to interact with the Canadian hake trawl fishery are listed within international agreements such as ACAP, and the IUCN redlist (as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered) and as such must be considered as ETP species within this assessment.

Black-footed albatross population trends are monitored through nest surveys on breeding colonies, principally on three islands in the Hawaiian archipelago that account for 77% of the total breeding population for Laysan and Black-footed albatross (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). Black-footed albatross were heavily depleted in the late 1800s / early 1900s by feather hunting (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). The current primary threat is incidental catch in pelagic longlining (Naughton et al. 2007), taking 5,000 black- footed and 2,000 Laysan albatrosses annually. The rate of albatross kills in demersal longline fisheries represents a much smaller threat (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b).

For Black-footed Albatross, in a 2017 update IUCN notes the current population trend is increasing and it has downlisted the species again to “Near Threatened from “Vulnerable” (was downlisted from “Endangered” in 2012) (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698350/0). The assessment team notes no recorded interactions between the Black-footed albatross and the offshore hake fishery, but also noted the increase in recorded interactions in the US fishery that have resulted since the dedicated bird observer program was put in place.

For Short-tailed albatross, in a 2017 update IUCN notes the population trend is increasing and that conservation efforts have resulted in a steady population increase, but cautions the short-tailed albatross still has a very small breeding range, limited to Torishima and Minami- kojima (Senkaku Islands), rendering it susceptible to stochastic events and human impacts (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698335/0). Though longline and gillnet fisheries are

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 33 listed along with oil pollution, ingestion of plastics, and heavy metal bioaccumulation, as threats to short-tailed albatross in Canada, trawl fisheries are not.

In addition to protections afforded by SARA, short tailed albatross are also protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the British Columbia Wildlife Act. Short-tailed albatross and other seabirds are monitored by the Canadian Wildlife Service using coast guard vessels to monitor abundance and seasonal distribution. A recovery strategy was developed to protect and preserve short-tailed albatross populations (Environment Canada, 2008). The recovery strategy emphasises and addresses all threats in Canadian waters but acknowledges that threats at the breeding colonies likely have a greater effect on the species than threats occurring in Canada.

For Pink-footed shearwater, in a 2017 update IUCN continues to list this species as “Vulnerable” and notes it has a very small breeding range at only three known locations, which renders it susceptible to stochastic events and human impacts http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698195/0. If invasive species, harvesting of chicks, bycatch in fisheries or other factors are found to be causing population declines, then the species would warrant uplisting to “Endangered”.

Pink-footed Shearwater have been listed as Threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. A recovery strategy was published in 2008 to protect and preserve Pink-footed shearwater populations (Environment Canada, 2008). The threat classification in the recovery strategy lists interaction with commercial fishing gear as a low level of concern for pink-footed shearwater. The recovery strategy emphasizes and addresses all threats in Canadian waters but acknowledges that threats at the breeding colonies likely have a greater effect on the species than threats occurring in Canada. According to the recovery strategy, Canadian at-sea fishery observer programs have not reported bycatch of pink- footed shearwaters in commercial longline fisheries and no pink-footed shearwaters were salvaged from a seabird bycatch salvage program between 2000 and 2005. Pink footed shearwater is not a species listed as being encountered in the hake trawl fishery catch data provided (2012-2018).

A recovery strategy was developed to protect and preserve pink footed shearwater populations (Environment Canada, 2008). The recovery goal is to support and augment international efforts to restore and increase populations. Recovery objectives for the species in Canada are to: minimize or remove threats under Canadian jurisdiction; identify and conserve Canadian marine habitats of importance; promote, support and augment international initiatives contributing to the recovery throughout their range; develop and implement educational activities that support recovery in Canada; and address knowledge gaps concerning threats understanding their ecology in Canada. The threat classification (Table 1 in the strategy) in the recovery strategy lists interaction with commercial fishing gear as a low level of concern for pink-footed shearwater. The recovery strategy emphasizes and addresses all threats in Canadian waters but acknowledges that threats at the breeding colonies likely have a greater effect on the species than threats occurring in Canada.

The Scott Islands Marine NWA (more information on NWAs may be found at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ap- pa/default.asp?lang=En&n=A269062B-1), located off the northern tip of Vancouver Island, has been proposed for designation through amendment to the Wildlife Area Regulations (DFO, 2013). The islands support approximately 2.2 million breeding seabirds between March and September. The management of a Marine Wildlife Area provides for authorities to permit specific activities that can be shown to be compatible with the conservation objectives established for the area. DFO would continue to regulate and administer fisheries within the proposed area. Environment Canada and DFO are planning to develop a collaborative approach and agreement regarding management of

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 34 fisheries in the area. The area has the potential to protect marine seabird feeding areas for species such as the Cassin’s Auklet, Rhinoceros Auklet, Tufted Puffin, and Common Murre.

Marine Mammals

ETP marine mammals with the potential to interact with this fishery in Canada are Steller sea lion, harbor porpoise and 9 whale species, including fin whales, killer whales and grey whales. Marine mammals are rarely taken incidentally in the Canadian mid-water trawl hake fishery, and none were recorded in 2017.

The following other species are either SARA-listed or prohibited by the conditions of the groundfish trawl license: Pacific halibut, green and white sturgeon, Pacific herring, basking shark, tope shark, sixgill shark, wolf-eels, shorthead sculpin, and eulachon. Prohibited species cannot be retained and must be returned to the water from which caught, unharmed if possible (DF0 2017b). There is limited interaction between the hake fishery and any of these species and this is unchanged from the most recent full assessment in 2014 (Petersen et al., 2014).

Habitat

There were no changes since the 2013 certification of the US fishery that would affect habitat impacts, information or management.

Canada

Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement, an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts in a precedent setting ecosystem-based management plan, continues to address the habitat impacts of bottom trawling in Canada’s Pacific waters. This plan was developed through a negotiated agreement between the fishing industry and ENGOs in British Columbia and then brought to the regulator, the DFO, to implement through the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (DFO 2017a). It is shown that measures implemented have resulted in an immediate change to fisher behavior and consequently reduced impacts to sensitive benthic habitat features such as coral and sponge complexes.

Ecosystem

Section 1.4 of the 2013 Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) outlines a reporting process wherein NOAA provides the Council with a yearly update on the state of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), as derived from environmental, biological and socio-economic indicators. NOAA’s California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) team is responsible for this report. The highlights of the team’s 5th report (PFMC 2018c), which covers 2017 is shown in the following box (directly excerpted from the CCIEA report):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 35

Several changes in indicators tracked in the 2018 report were made on the basis of feedback on the 2016 and 2017 reports. These changes are summarized in Appendix C of PFMC 2018a and demonstrate the responsiveness of science to management and stakeholder interests.

Canada

The Strategic Program for Ecosystem-Based Research and Advice (SPERA) continues to support research projects and scientific tool development that support national priorities for managing ecosystems in Canadian domestic waters (DFO 2017a). Projects address key issues, such as scientific guidance on the avoidance of benthic impacts; science support for mitigating by-catch and tools to help manage biological diversity in Canadian waters.

The SPERA funds projects by DFO researchers which:

1. Assess the ecosystem impacts of human activities; 2. Assess and report on ecosystems and 3. Develop tools to implement the ecosystem approach to management.

Ongoing research supported by SPERA during 2016 (DFO 2017a) includes:

• Understanding the impact of a changing climate on interactions between Pacific sardine and Pacific herring populations in British Columbia • Rapid screening tool for marine fish based on the Australian Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 36 • Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts. • Future hypoxia in British Columbia. This project will provide graphs of oxygen concentration and use historical data to assess the relative contributions of the two regions to predict future oxygen concentration trends in BC. • Evaluation of historical multivariate datasets to identify changes in biodiversity, species distribution, behaviour, abundance, and interaction in response to environmental forcing in a marine ecosystem.

Application of an Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Oceans Management of Large Ocean Management Areas and Marine Protected Areas: Case study for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area and Oceans Act Marine Protected Area of British Columbia.

3.6.4 Principle 3

Area of Operation of the Fishery and Under Which Jurisdiction it Falls

No changes. The fishery operates on a shared stock of Pacific whiting (hake) under the jurisdiction of the United States and Canada. The fishery is managed under the controlling framework of the bilateral agreement known as the Pacific Whiting Treaty.

Recognized Groups with Interests in the Fishery

No changes.

Consultations Leading to Formulation of the Management Plan

No changes.

Arrangement for On-Going Consultations with Interest Groups

No changes.

Details of the Decision-making Process or Processes, Including the Recognized Participants

The structure of the decision processes and their participants has remained unchanged at international and national levels. Documents have been updated since the previous reassessment in accordance with standard procedures.

International

Advisory committees of the Pacific Whiting Agreement have issued reports in response to changing conditions (AP 2015; 2017; 2018; SRG 2-15; 2016; 2017; 2018).

United States

The PFMC updated the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP in 2016 (PFMC 2016a). A five-year review of the trawl catch share program was finalized in 2017 (PFMC and NMFS 2017a; 2017b). An appendix to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan outlining ecosystem initiatives was completed in 2017 (PFMC 2017b). A five-year review of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan was completed in 2018 (PFMC 2018g). In 2018 hard caps for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 37 ocean perch in the at-sea whiting sector were changed to set-asides in Amendment 21-3 to the groundfish FMP (PFMC 2018f).

Canada

The latest Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish (IFMP) was updated in February 2018 (DFO 2018a). The Offshore Pacific Hake Harvest Plan was updated in June 2018 (DFO 2018c).

Objectives for the Fishery

International

In 2014, the Joint Management Committee adopted a set of management principles: 1. Manage the Pacific whiting resource utilizing the best available science in a precautionary and sustainable manner. 2. Maintain a healthy stock status across a range of recruitment events and consider total allowable catch levels that spread the harvest of strong cohorts over multiple years. 3. Manage the fishery resource in a manner that aims to provide the best long-term benefits to the parties. 4. Manage the fishery to ensure that each country has the opportunity to receive the intended benefits contemplated in the treaty. 5. These management principles are dynamic and shall be reviewed annually by the JMC and the AP to ensure they remain valid.

United States

No changes.

Canada An evaluation of formal fishery objectives as contained in the IFMP was conducted by the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Body (GIAB) in 2017. DFO has begun a process of developing a new suite of management objectives. In the interim, existing objectives will remain in place (Bussel 2018).

Fleet Types or Fishing Categories Participating in the Fishery

No changes.

Individuals or Groups Granted Rights Of Access To The Fishery

No changes.

Measures Agreed Upon for the Regulation of Fishing In Order to Meet the Objectives

United States

Measures for regulating the Pacific hake fisheries are found in the Federal Code of Regulations (50 CFR 660.131). Since the previous re-assessment the following regulatory changes have been made:

Chafing Gear: In 2012 the PFMC approved a provision to allow the sides and bottom of mid- water codends to be covered with a single panel of chafing gear. This regulatory change was made to correct a previous interpretation of regulations on chafing gear in order to reduce wear on codends and provide regulatory consistency between Alaska and the West

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 38 Coast. The PFMC action was implemented by NMFS in December 2014 (US Dept. Commerce 2014; Waldeck 2016).

Flow Scales: In 2016 NMFS published proposed revisions to flow scale regulations in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries to align performance and technical requirements with Alaska regulations (US Dept. Commerce 2016; Waldeck 2017).

Electronic Monitoring: In 2014 Midwater Trawlers Cooperative and United Catcher Boats co- sponsored an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application to determine whether using cameras in place of human observers at sea could be effective in terms of logistics, costs and catch/discards monitoring. In 2015 NMFS issued an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) allowing electronic monitoring to be used on catcher vessels in place of human observers. 2018 was the fourth year fishing under the EFP program (Waldeck 2017; Mann 2018).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: The at-sea sectors continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to authorize at-sea discharge of fish processing wastes. The process has been ongoing since 2014; the final permit is likely to be issued in 2019 (Waldeck 2018).

Set Asides (Soft Caps): In 2016 the PFMC recommended changing the hard caps for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch in the MS and CP sectors to set asides (soft caps) because hard caps were causing economic harm to the at-sea sector without a conservation need or benefit. Hard caps close a fishery automatically when reached; soft caps do not lead to automatic closures but can still lead to closures under the discretion of NMFS once set-aside and buffer amounts are anticipated to be reached. A final rule was issued by NMFS in January 2018 (NMFS 2018a).

Forage Fish: In 2016 NMFS published a final rule implementing the new Forage Fish regulations and a Compliance Guide to detail the new regulations and requirements for industry (US Dept. Commerce 2016a; Waldeck 2016).

Canada

Hail-out: In 2015 DFO implemented a requirement that a hail-out report must be filed “a minimum of eight (8) hours” before the start of fishing trip for shore-side delivery (Petersen et al,. 2018).

Juvenile sablefish protocols: In 2018 DFO implemented an informal fleet communications protocol with move-on rules to avoid juvenile rockfish. Data from observer logs on areas of high juvenile sablefish interception were electronically communicated to fleet managers and skippers. DFO is working on a more formal avoidance protocol for the 2019 fishing season, and is developing a similar program for bocaccio rockfish (Bussel 2018).

Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement

United States

The At-Sea Hake Observer Program continues to require 100% coverage by two observers at all times (NMFS 2019). The shoreside sector is also required to have 100% observer coverage. Vessels may either carry a human observer at all times or participate in the voluntary electronic monitoring (EM) program, enabled through an Exempted Fishing Permit. The EM program has been in place since 2015 (Mann 2018). Cooperative Enforcement Agreements (CEAs) continue to coordinate state and federal enforcement efforts. New agreements for the 2018-2022 period were developed in 2018 (NOAA Fisheries OLE 2018).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 39

There has been a continuing low level of enforcement issues since the previous assessment (Petersen et al., 2017; Petersen et al., 2018; Stern-Pirlot et al., 2019). No significant enforcement issues were documented for the 2017 US hake fishery (NOAA Fisheries OLE 2017; 2018; 2019). Through 2016 the information basis for fisher compliance was fishery– specific enforcement data reported annually to the PFMC by NOAA Fisheries OLE (PFMC 2013c; 2014; 2015; 2016c; 2019). Aggregate enforcement reports have not highlighted particular problems with whiting fishery enforcement. For the trawl rationalization program as a whole, no “notices of violation” were issued in 2018, consistent with oral reports from OLE that compliance levels are high in this fishery.

Electronic Monitoring

As noted above, an electronic monitoring (EM) program has been employed in the shoreside sector since 2015 and is considered by enforcement to be effective and well-functioning overall (PFMC 2018d).

Most of the shore-side whiting sector participates in the voluntary EM program. The program is authorized by NMFS through an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP). Under this program camera systems monitor catch and discards, replacing human observers. Catch and bycatch are also required to be recorded in logbooks. Vessels using EM operate under a maximized retention rule, in which only unintentional discards (not under the control of the vessel operator) are authorized. Intentional discards are not authorized. (PFMC 2018d). The rationale for the retention requirement is that while the volume and weight of discards may be accurately estimated by camera, species composition may be more difficult to estimate, creating the potential for discards to erode the quality of data on total catch (PFMC 2018d).

In 2017 a misunderstanding of EFP rules resulted in widespread discarding by the shoreside sector throughout the fishing season (PFMC 2018e). Discards amounted to 3.5m lbs., or about 1% of that sector’s total 2017 landings (PFMC 2017d). Vessel operators were under the impression that they could follow the same rules as with human observers; i.e. that discards were allowable as long as they were recorded by camera and in logbooks. There was no attempt to conceal discards; cameras remained on and all discards were recorded in logbooks. Neither vessel operators nor the EFP sponsors (Midwater Trawlers Cooperative and United Catcher Boats) received feedback regarding problems with the discarding practice from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the entity charged with reviewing the electronic and logbook records of each trip (PFMC 2018i).

At the end of the 2017 season the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) issued correction letters to 16 of the 22 vessels with discard events. Of these, the NOAA Fisheries OLE opened investigations into 14 vessels (discards of the other two vessels were determined to be de minimus). These investigations were subsequently referred to the NOAA General Counsel (PFMC 2018d, e) and as of January 2019 have not been resolved one way or another (Mann 2019).

Following a review of the 2017 discard events, EFP sponsors met with NMFS SFD and with the Enforcement Consultants (EC) to discuss compliance issues and avenues for improved communication (PFMC 2018d; 2018e). Three recommendations resulted from those meetings: (PFMC 2018e; PFMC 2018h): 1. More comprehensive, frequent feedback with captains and vessels owners following video review; 2. Incorporation of EFP sponsors in the feedback loop; 3. Mandatory training webinar for captains and vessel owners before the start of each whiting season.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 40

The recommendations were developed collaboratively by NMFS, the shore-side sector, and enforcement, and were implemented during the 2018 season.

Another issue discussed at the meetings is the benefit of updating and refining discard definitions in order to more easily track violations (PFMC 2018e). Definitional improvements would complement earlier recommendations of the Enforcement Consultants and support of NOAA Fisheries OLE for the provision of greater detail (e.g. type and numbers of violations, by fishery, notices of violations (NOVAs) issued and their disposition) in its annual compliance report (cf. Matthews 2012).

Canada

There were no significant changes in the observer and conservation and protection programs.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 41 3.7 Previous assessments Table 13. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions

Condition PI Year Justification closed [Canada] By the fourth 2.1.3 Year 4 Walleye Pollock: year, the fishery client A stock assessment for walleye pollock was completed and reviewed in the November 2017 CSAS cycle. Information in shall demonstrate that this stock assessment (covering two stocks; BC North and BC South) sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect information is to biologically based limits for both stocks as is required by PI 2.1.3 Sib and thus the 80 SG is now met for this . For the BC North stock, the probability that the 2018 stock biomass is greater than sufficient to estimate scoring issue for walleye pollock the LRP is 90% and the probability that it is above the Bmsy proxy of 2xLRP is 43%. For the BC South stock the outcome status with probability that B2018 is greater than the LRP is 99% and the probability that it is above 2xLRP is 95%. respect to biologically based limits for With the stock assessment completed, peer reviewed, and the current catches supported therein, combined with future Yellowtail Rockfish, work identified and ongoing multispecies surveys, it can be concluded that sufficient data continue to be collected to Redstripe Rockfish, detect any increase in risk level to main retained species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the and Walleye Pollock operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy; as required by PI2.1.3 SId). Therefore the SG80 is met for and that sufficient this scoring issue for walleye pollock. The assessment team also wishes to note that although the catch of this data continue to be species is the largest of any non-hake incidental catches in the fishery, it still only comprises roughly 1% of the total collected to detect any catch and as such, does not meet the threshold as a main species and will not be considered as one in the reassessment report. increase in risk level to Yellowtail Rockfish, Redstripe Rockfish Redstripe Rockfish, A stock assessment for Redstripe rockfish was completed and reviewed as part of the 2018 CSAS cycle (DFO 2018a). and Walleye Pollock The following is a summary excerpted from this document: • Two stocks of Redstripe Rockfish were identified along the British Columbia (BC) coast based on observable, consistent differences in mean length and growth models between the areas. The two stocks are called BC North (or BCN) in Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (PMFC) 5DE and BC South (or BCS) in PMFC 3CD5ABC. • Both Redstripe Rockfish stocks were assessed using a single fishery, annual two-sex catch-at-age model, implemented in a Bayesian framework to quantify uncertainty of estimated quantities.. • The median (and 5 and 95 percentiles of the Bayesian results) female spawning biomass at the beginning of 2018 (B2018) is estimated to be 0.91 (0.69-1.13) of unfished female spawning biomass (B0) in BCN and 0.62 (0.47-0.81) of B0 in BCS. Also, B2018 is estimated to be 3.16 (2.02-4.00) of the equilibrium spawning biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY, in BCN and 2.43 (1.51-3.79) of BMSY in BCS. • At current catch levels, there is an estimated probability of >0.99 that both B2018 > 0.4BMSYand B2018 > 0.8BMSY for both stocks (i.e. of being in the healthy zone). The probability that the exploitation rate in 2017

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 42 was below that associated with MSY is also >0.99 for both stocks • Advice to management is presented in the form of decision tables using the provisional reference points from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) Precautionary Approach. The decision tables provide five-year projections across a range of constant catches. • The appropriateness of the MSY based reference points for long lived low productivity species is uncertain, consequently advice to management relative to reference points based on 0.4 and 0.2 of B0 (unfished spawning biomass) is also presented as an alternative option. • It is recommended that the next assessment occur in 2023, with three new indices available from each of the four biennial synoptic trawl surveys and five additional years of ageing and catch data. No appropriate indicators for this stock are recommended that would trigger an assessment earlier than scheduled. Advice for the interim years is explicitly included in the decision tables. • Recommended future work includes the investigation of alternate reference points due to the sensitivity of BMSY based reference points to assumptions about model parameters and functions, including: catchability (q), natural mortality (M), recruitment variability (σR), and commercial and survey selectivities. It is also recommended that future assessors review the informative priors used in this stock assessment and investigate alternatives with the intent of developing more appropriate priors.

On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits for Redstripe rockfish, and sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level to Redstripe rockfish (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). As a result, the SG80 is met and the condition is closed for Redstripe rockfish.

The assessment team also wishes to note that although redstripe rockfish is a more vulnerable species according to its life history, it still only comprises roughly 0.22% of the total catch in this fishery and as such, does not meet the threshold as a main species and will not be considered as one in the reassessment report.

1. [Canada] By 2.2.3 Year 4 The assessment team received an update on the status of the Rougheye Rockfish type I/II stock assessment from DFO the fourth year, in October of 2018 (DFO 2018b). the fishery client shall The following progress was reported (direct excerpt in grey): demonstrate A draft assessment of the Black‐spotted/Rougheye rockfish complex has been done and a presentation of the draft that results was made to the Technical Working Group in September 2018. information is sufficient to Upon review of the draft, the Technical Working Group provided direction on components of the assessment. estimate Specifically, outcome status with • the addition of existing synoptic survey data to increase observations, and improve depth and spatial coverage;

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 43 respect to • revising the size‐at‐age analysis to reconcile anomalies between combined and species‐specific analysis; and, biologically • the choice of age composition data to include because fitting the model to length data alone may lead to bias due based limits for to differing growth rates between Rougheye type I and type II. Rougheye Rockfish and The Technical Working Group met again with the analysts in December 2018 to review progress on this additional work that sufficient and review the changes, model fit and performance, with the intention of scheduling a formal DFO CSAS peer review in data continue mid 2019. Based on this Technical Working Group meeting discussions, preliminary assessment models will be revised to be collected and fitted to new data with another Technical Working Group meeting planned for early 2019

to detect any Once the science advice has been peer‐ reviewed it is considered at DFO fisheries management advisory processes increase in risk which meet regularly throughout the year. Fisheries managers and stakeholders consider the science advice received level to this at these meetings and management changes are made, if needed. species. Fisheries and Oceans Canada strives to align processes for delivery of science advice and implementation of management measures. This however does not preclude the implementation of interim advice or in‐season management measures when deemed necessary. For example, science advice on the Yelloweye Rockfish (Outside population) was received in September 2015 and, as a result, a rebuilding plan was implemented for the 2016 season. There have also been cases where, based on the advice received, in‐season changes have been made (e.g. Pacific cod).

In reviewing the catch composition in the hake fishery over the past five years, the assessment team noted that the proportion of rougheye rockfish in the catch is very low (0.03% in 2017), and as such no longer qualifies as a main bycatch species in this fishery. With the progress made toward a stock assessment and with evidence of swift management action when issues are found, and in light of the fact that this is no longer a main bycatch species, the assessment team considers this condition closed. The PI was rescored at the 4th surveillance. However, the team wishes to note that due to its vulnerable life history and lack of updated stock assessment, the rougheye rockfish complex is now listed as “special concern” under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA), and as such should be considered under the ETP component of the assessment and will be considered as such in the full reassessment currently underway.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 44 4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Assessment Methodologies The MSC FCR v2.0 and accompanying guidance and corresponding MSC Reduced Reassessment Reporting Template were used to assess this fishery. The Default Assessment Tree was used without modification. The RBF was not used. Further details on assessment methodologies for the fishery as a whole are given in sections below. 4.2 Evaluation Processes & Techniques

4.2.1 Site Visits and consultations

The site visit for the Pacific hake (whiting) re-assessment was announced on the MSC website on November 6th, 2018, together with the announcement of the year 4th surveillance.

The Assessment Team of Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Stocker and Susan Hanna conducted on- site meetings in Seattle and Nanaimo, and teleconferences on the 6, 7 and 10 December 2018.

Information supplied by the clients and management agencies was reviewed by the assessment team ahead of the meetings, and discussions with the clients, management agencies, scientists and stakeholders centered on the content within the provided documentation. In cases where relevant documentation was not provided in advance of the meeting, it was requested by the assessment team and subsequently supplied during, or shortly after the meeting.

Thirty days prior to the audit, all identified stakeholders were informed of the opportunity to provide information to the auditors in advance of, or during, the period of the audit. A request for meeting was received from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Table 14 lists the attendees and their affiliations, and Table 15 gives the schedule of meetings and who attended each.

Table 14. Year 4 surveillance and re-assessment participants in site visits and teleconferences.

Name Affiliation Amanda Stern-Pirlot MRAG Americas, Assessment Team Leader Max Stocker Assessment Team Susan Hanna Assessment Team Michelle McClure NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Sandy Parker-Stetter NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Ian Taylor NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Aaron Berger NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA Jim Hastie NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Kellie Johnson NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Kristin Marshall NOAA, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA Greg Busch NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Seattle WA Ann Bussell DFO Enforcement, Vancouver BC John Holmes DFO Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo BC Greg Workman DFO Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo BC Andrew Edwards DFO Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo BC

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 45 Chris Grandin DFO Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo BC Sean Cox Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC Scott Wallace David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver BC Robert Tadey DFO Fisheries Management, Vancouver BC Paul Ryall DFO Fisheries Management, Vancouver BC Shannon Mann Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen, Vancouver BC Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society, Bruce Turris Vancouver BC Jan Jacobs Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, Seattle WA Dan Waldeck Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, Portland, OR Yelena Nowak Oregon Trawl Commission, Brookings OR Mike Luchino Trident Seafoods, Seattle WA Barron Carswell BC Ministry of Agriculture, Victoria BC Kevin Romanin BC Ministry of Agriculture, Victoria BC Michael Turner BC Ministry of Agriculture, Victoria BC Corey Niles Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Jessi Doerpinghaus Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Table 15. Consultation Meetings during the 4th Surveillance and re-assessment of the Pacific Hake US-Canada Pacific Hake Fishery.

Organization Present at Meeting Meeting Type Date/Time Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Trident Stocker, Susan Hanna, Dan Client Opening Seafoods, Waldeck, Jan Jacobs, 6 Dec. 2018; 8:00 am Meeting Seattle WA and Yelena Nowak, Shannon conference call Mann, Bruce Turris Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Stocker (by phone), Susan Hanna (by phone), Michelle McClure (by phone), Sandy Parker-Stetter, Jim Hastie, Trident NOAA NMFS Kellie Johnson, Ian Taylor, Seafoods, 6 Dec. 2018; 8:30 am NWFSC Aaron Berger (by phone), Seattle WA Kirsten Marshall (by phone) Mike Luchino, Cassandra Donovan, Owen Hamel, Dan Waldeck Amanda Stern-Pirlot (by phone), Max Stocker, Susan Pacific Biological BC Ministry of Hanna (by phone), Barron Station, 6 Dec. 2018; 1:00 pm Agriculture Carswell, Michael Turner (by Nanaimo BC phone), Kevin Romanin (by phone) Amanda Stern-Pirlot (by phone), Max Stocker, Susan Hanna (by phone), John Pacific Biological DFO Science Holmes, Greg Workman (by Station, 6 Dec. 2018; 2:00 pm phone), Andrew Edwards, Nanaimo BC Chris Grandin, Sean Cox (by phone) David Suzuki Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Conference call 6 Dec. 2018; 3:30 pm Foundation Stocker, Susan Hanna, Scott

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 46 Wallace DFO and NMFS Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Fisheries Stocker, Susan Hanna, Ann Conference call 7 Dec. 2018; 10:30 am Enforcement Bussell, Greg Busch NOAA NMFS Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Fisheries Stocker, Susan Hanna, Conference call 7 Dec. 2018; 11:15 am Management Frank Lockhart Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Stocker, Susan Hanna, WDFW/PFMC Conference call 7 Dec. 2018; 1:00 pm Corey Niles, Jessi Doerpinghaus Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max Trident Stocker, Susan Hanna, Dan Client Closing Seafoods, Waldeck, Jan Jacobs, Mike 7 Dec. 2018; 2:30 pm Meeting Seattle, WA and Luchino, Yelena Novak, Conference call Shannon Mann, Bruce Turris Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Max DFO Fisheries Stocker, Susan Hanna, Paul Conference call 10 Dec. 2018; 9:30 am Management Ryall, Robert Tadey

4.2.2 Consultations See Table 14 above, with respect to details of the individuals interviewed during the site visit and after, and the summary of topics discussed. A written summary of consultation with Scott Wallace from the David Suzuki Foundation is given in Appendix 3.

4.2.3 Evaluation Techniques MRAG published an announcement of the reassessment on our website and sent a direct email to all stakeholders on our stakeholder list. MSC posted the announcement on its US and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting midwater trawl track-a-fishery page, as well as sent it by email in their Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients. At this time, MRAG Americas also announced the assessment site visit dates and location, as well as the assessment team. This was done according to the process requirements as laid out in MSC’s FCR v2.0. In addition, follow-up emails were sent to stakeholder groups closer to the time of the meeting to schedule and provide details for remote participation. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders.

The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with management and science personnel, and industry and harvest-sector representatives relevant to the fishery assessment.

In the FCR v2.0 default assessment tree used for this assessment, the MSC has 28PIs, six in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and seven in Principle 3. The PIs are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each PI consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring Guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the 60 (conditional pass), 80 (full pass), and 100 (state of the art) levels.

Note that some scoring issue may not have a scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels; in the case of the example above, scoring issue (b) does not have a scoring issue at the SG60 level. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a PI is

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 47 scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; PI scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If the fishery meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the PI would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80.

Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails.

Scoring for this fishery followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating PIs to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each PI. Review of sections 3.2-3.5 by all team members assured that the assessment team was aware of the issues for each PI. Subsequently, the assessment team member, or members in this case, responsible for each principle filled in the scoring table and provided a provisional score. The assessment team members reviewed the rationales and scores, and recommended modifications as necessary, including possible changes in scores.

PI scores were entered into MSC’s Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (see Table 18, below) to arrive at Principle-level scores. The RBF was not used in this assessment.

Table 16. Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Main/not Data-deficient main or not Principle 1 Pacific hake/whiting US and N/A Not Canada shared stock Primary Species-US Misc. minor Minor Not Primary Species-Canada Misc. minor including chinook Minor Not salmon Secondary Species-US Misc. minor Minor N/A-not scored Secondary Species-CA Misc.minor Minor N/A-not scored ETP Pacific Salmon (US) N/A Not ETP Seabirds (US and CA) N/A Not ETP Marine mammals (US and CA) N/A Not ETP Eulachon (US and CA) N/A Not ETP Pacific Halibut (US and CA) N/A Not ETP Sturgeon (US and CA) N/A Not ETP Tope, sixgill, basking sharks N/A Not (Canada) ETP Wolf-eels (Canada) N/A Not ETP Rougheye Rockfish types I and II N/A Not (Canada) ETP Yelloweye Rockfish (Canada) N/A Not Habitat Pelagic Only Not

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 48 Ecosystem California Current LME Only Not

5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The currently valid certificates are not expected to expire before the reassessment process concludes. Thus the product from this fishery will remain continuously eligible if this reassessment is successful.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

The offshore Pacific Hake fisheries in the US and Canada operate under catch share programs that have rigorous reporting requirements. In both cases, the fisheries have 100% at sea monitoring, either via on-board observers or electronic monitoring, or both, and 100% dockside monitoring. All landings are recorded on fish receiving tickets. There are two much smaller stocks with much smaller ranges potentially overlapping the Pacific Hake unit of certification: a Puget Sound stock and a Gulf of Georgia stock. These separate, and much smaller, populations are not included in this analysis and there is negligible risk that fish from either of these two stocks could be mixed with the certified offshore hake as described in table 17. US vessels permitted for the offshore hake fishery do not have permits to fish in the waters of Puget Sound or Gulf of Georgia. Canadian vessels in the Gulf of Georgia may not mix catch with certified offshore hake and in practice they never do, as the fishing seasons in these two areas do not overlap. In addition, offshore and most Gulf of Georgia hake vessels must have 100% observer coverage, and all landings have 100% dockside monitoring to confirm area of landing. The section below describes the rigorous monitoring and traceability of the Pacific Hake landings.

The client group for the US includes all fishermen and companies authorized to fish for and sell Pacific Hake, with the exception of US fishermen with authorization to fish with demersal trawls. The demersal trawl fishermen are separately certified as part of the US West Coast Groundfish fishery and have a certificate sharing agreement with the offshore hake fishery such that they may also sell hake as certified. The US does not specify landing sites, but rather requires a ‘first receiver site license’ for each onshore buying station that authorizes the holder to receive, purchase, or take custody, control, or possession of an IFQ landing at a specific physical site onshore directly from a vessel. Each buyer of groundfish from a vessel making an IFQ landing must have a first receiver site license for each physical location where the IFQ landing is offloaded. Catcher vessels may land on shore or deliver codends to processing vessels. Onshore landings must go to a site with a first receiver site license. Vessels with mothership and catcher vessel permits may participate in the mothership fishery with at-sea deliveries to vessels designated in section 5.3. Motherships must meet reporting requirements, have observers as specified, and weigh all catch in its round form on a NMFS-approved scale. All motherships 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA or longer must carry two NMFS-certified observers, and all vessels shorter than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA registered to a Mothership permit must carry one NMFS-certified observer while receiving fish. Any vessel delivering catch to any mothership must carry one NMFS-certified observer while fishing.

The Canadian certificate is opened to all T Licensed hake vessels annually upon agreement to an annual cost share agreement. Without the agreement, the Canadian client group restricts the

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 49 certificate to member vessels only. To date, there has always been a cost share agreement reached and therefore the certificate has been open. Landings records identify vessels and gear, so that little likelihood exists that Hake from these vessels outside the cost sharing agreement could enter the MSC supply. Only catches from the Gulf of Georgia could potentially mix with the certified Canadian fishery but this risk is extremely low due to the traceability system described above, and the fact that no vessels are fishing in both areas during the same times of year (no overlap in fishing seasons). The Conditions of Licence specify the statistical areas of the offshore (certified) area and the Gulf of Georgia area. The Conditions of Licence require records of location of catch, which is monitored by on-board observers or electronic monitoring and by on-shore monitors. All Pacific Hake caught in the offshore Area shall be landed at a fish buying station licensed under the Fisheries Act (Province of British Columbia), or, in some circumstances Canadian hake can be landed in ports in Washington State (USA) subject to ensuring equivalent dockside monitoring and reporting requirements are met. In practice, Canadian hake is rarely landed outside of British Columbia.

No fish shall be landed unless an observer is present and authorizes the commencement of weight verification. The weight and species of all fish landed from the vessel shall be verified by an observer. Therefore, little risk exists for contamination of certified Pacific Hake by non- certified product.

Pacific hake is a white fish, similar in characteristics to many other white fish. It could be difficult to distinguish Hake from other fish once processed. However, motherships, catcher-processors, and shoreside processing plants in the US must have CoC prior to processing, so substitution with uncertified fish is unlikely. In Canada, JV motherships and shoreside processors also must have CoC. Shoreside landings require 100% monitoring, so all non-hake would be sorted out upon landing. Hake represents on the order of 99% of the volume of catch, so very little uncertified fish occur in the hake fisheries. Therefore, it is unlikely that substitutions could occur.

Table 17. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be Negligible risk: The client group for the US includes used within the fishery all fishermen and companies authorized to fish for and sell Pacific Hake, with the exception of US fishermen with authorization to fish with demersal trawls. The demersal trawl fishermen are separately certified as part of the US West Coast Groundfish fishery and have a certificate sharing agreement with the offshore hake fishery such that they may also sell hake as certified. In Canada, only midwater trawl is used to target fish for Pacific hake and this is the certified gear. This is expressed in the conditions of license and the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan and monitored by at-sea observers and electronic monitoring. Potential for vessels from the UoC to Negligible risk: In the US, vessels participating in fish outside the UoC or in different the offshore hake fishery also participate in other

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 50 geographical areas (on the same trips fisheries but in fully distinct geographical areas (e.g. or different trips) Alaska) at different times of year and never on the same trips and all are subject to the rigorous reporting and monitoring requirements described in the section above this table. In Canada, a handful (between one and four) midwater trawl vessels do fish for hake in the Gulf of Georgia area, but at a completely different time of year from the offshore hake fishery. In addition, as described above, there is a rigorous catch monitoring and tracking system that ensures the origin of the fish is clearly specified at point of landing, and all shoreside processors require chain of custody. The fishery certificate very clearly specifies the eligible UoA area. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC Negligible risk: See eligibility description above. or client group fishing the same stock

Risks of mixing between certified and Negligible risk: See description of tracing, reporting non-certified catch during storage, and monitoring requirements above. CoC begins at transport, or handling activities the point of first landing at shoreside or transfer at (including transport at sea and on land, sea for both the US and Canada. points of landing, and sales at auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and Negligible risk: There are two much smaller stocks non-certified catch during processing with much smaller ranges potentially overlapping the activities (at-sea and/or before Pacific Hake unit of certification: a Puget Sound subsequent Chain of Custody) stock and a Gulf of Georgia stock. These separate, and much smaller, populations are not included in this analysis. US vessels permitted for the offshore hake fishery do not have permits to fish in the waters of Puget Sound or Gulf of Georgia. Canadian vessels in the Gulf of Georgia do not mix catch with certified offshore hake as a result of distinctly different seasons. All offshore and Gulf of Georgia hake vessels must have 100% at-sea monitoring (Observers and/or electronic), and all landings have 100% dockside monitoring to confirm area of landing, and chain of custody begins at the point of first landing at shoreside or transfer at sea for both the US and Canada. This means CoC certification is required for motherships, JV motherships, C/P vessels and shoreside processors. Risks of mixing between certified and Negligible risk: CoC begins at the point of first non-certified catch during transhipment landing at shoreside or transfer at sea.

Any other risks of substitution between Pacific hake is a white fish, similar in characteristics fish from the UoC (certified catch) and to many other white fish. It could be difficult to fish from outside this unit (non-certified distinguish hake from other fish once processed. catch) before subsequent Chain of However, motherships and catcher-processors must Custody is required have CoC prior to processing, so substitution with

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 51 uncertified fish is unlikely. Shoreside landings require 100% monitoring, so all non-hake would be sorted out upon landing. Hake represents on the order of 99% of the total landed catch, so very little uncertified fish occur in the hake fisheries. Therefore, it is unlikely that substitutions could occur.

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

This fishery certification has evaluated the Chain of Custody as follows: • For the US fishery, the fishery certificate ends and chain of custody is required at the point of processing. This means, all Catcher-Processors, motherships, and shoreside processing plants must have chain of custody in order to sell hake a certified. Catcher vessels delivering product either to motherships or shore plants do not require chain of custody certification. • For the Canadian fishery, in the case of delivery to Joint Venture mothership, chain of custody likewise begins at the point of transfer to the mothership, meaning motherships (foreign) must have CoC certification in order to sell hake as MSC. The Canadian government provides the foreign mothership with a ":Catch Certificate" verifying that the product species and quantity and that it came from a sustainable managed fishery within Canadian jurisdiction. For delivery by catcher vessels to shore plants, the fishery ends and chain of custody begins at the point of processing, meaning shore plants must have CoC in order to sell hake as certified. For Canadian freezer trawlers, the fishery ends at the point where frozen product is transferred from the vessel, regardless of when change of ownership takes place (change of ownership can vary on a case by case basis). Thus, Canadian catcher vessels, including freezer trawlers do not require CoC.

US Pacific Hake Client Companies Authorized to Sell MSC Certified Pacific Hake

U.S. Catcher-Processor Owning Companies (if in possession of a valid chain of custody certification): All legally permitted catcher-processor vessels participating in the Catcher- Processor hake fishery.

U.S. Mothership Catcher Vessels: All legally permitted catcher vessels participating in the Mothership hake fishery, inclusive of vessels in Washington, Oregon and California

U.S. Mothership Owning Companies (if in possession of a valid chain of custody certification): • American Seafoods company • Arctic Storm Management Group • Golden Alaska Seafoods • Phoenix Processor Limited Partnership/ Premier Pacific Seafoods

U.S. Shoreside Vessels: All legally permitted catcher vessels participating in the Shoreside hake fishery, inclusive of vessels in Washington, Oregon and California

U.S. Shoreside Vessels, Processing Companies and Locations: All Pacific hake processing companies in Oregon if in possession of a valid chain of custody certification and processing Pacific hake legally landed in Oregon and; The following client group Pacific hake processing

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 52 companies, if in the possession of a valid chain of custody certification and processing legally landed Pacific hake from vessels certified in the MSC Pacific Hake mid-water trawl fisheries: • Ocean Gold Seafoods, Inc. (processing facilities in Westport, WA) • Washington Crab Producers (processing facilities in Westport, • WA) • Bandon Pacific Seafoods (processing facilities in Charlestown, OR) • Pacific Coast Seafoods (processing facilities in Warrenton, OR) • Pacific Shrimp Co. (processing facilities in Newport, OR) • Pacific Choice Seafood (processing facilities in Eureka, CA) • Jessie’s Ilwaco Fish Co. (processing facilities in Ilwaco, WA)

Canadian Pacific Hake Client Vessels Authorized to Sell MSC Certified Pacific Hake

Certificate holders are the members of the Association of Pacific Hake Fishermen and, subject to an annual cost sharing agreement, the certificate is then opened to all Trawl licensed hake vessels.The agreement covers the fishery from February 21st to the following February 20th, one year each. An active list of eligible vessels can be found here: https://www-ops2.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/vrnd-rneb/index-eng.cfm?pg=LicsRptOutput

5. 4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

The fishery does not contain any IPI stocks.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 53 6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores

Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores Principle Score US Score Canada Principle 1 – Target Species 93.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 97.7 93.3 Principle 3 – Management System 100 100.0

6.2 Summary of Scores A table showing each PI score for the US and Canadian UoAs is given below.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 54 Table 18. Summary of PI Scores for the US and Canadian hake UoAs.

Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt US CA

1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100 100 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 75

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 95 95 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 80 80 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 90 90

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 95 95

2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100 90

Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 95

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 95

2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 90 90

Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 100

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 95 95

2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 95 95

Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 90 75

2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 95 90

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 100 100

Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 100

2.4.3 Information 0.333 95 85

2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 100 90

Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 100 100

2.5.3 Information 0.333 100 95

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 100 100

Governance and policy 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 100 100

3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 100 100

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 100 100

3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 100 100 Fishery specific management system 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 100 100

3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 0.25 100 100

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 55 6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 19. Summary of Conditions

Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/ NA) By the first surveillance audit (2020) there must Y-previous be an objective basis for confidence that the 2.3.2 condition was on measures/strategy to protect/rebuild the (Canada; 2.2.2. Connection 1 rougheye rockfish types I and II stocks in Canada rougheye discussed in ETP will work, based on information directly about rockfish) background the fishery and/or the species involved. section.

6.4 Recommendations Recommendation for the US fishery (PI 3.2.3): For the present re-assessment it is possible to infer high levels of compliance within the whiting sector from the high levels of compliance within TRat as a whole. However, in the instance that violations were to be reported it would not be possible to conclude from the aggregate report whether the violations were occurring in the whiting fishery or in another sector of TRat. We recommend that the clients continue to encourage OLE to present annual TRAT enforcement data disaggregated by fishery.

Recommendation for the Canadian fishery (PI 2.3.3): Noting the increase in observed interactions with seabirds, notably Blackfooted albatross, in the US fishery since the inception of the dedicated seabird observer program, the assessment team would have greater confidence in the veracity of SARA-logbook data regarding seabird interactions if a similar program were in place in the Canadian fishery.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The Pacific hake mid-water trawl fishery achieved overall scores of 92.5 for Principle 1 (both UoAs), 98.0 for the US and 93.0 for Canada for Principle 2 and 100 for the US UoA and 100 for the Canadian UoA for Principle 3. As such, following the recommendation of the assessment team, peer and public review, and internal review, MRAG Americas has determined that this fishery should be recertified against the MSC Fishery Standard. Following the completion of the objection period with no objection raised, MRAG Americas has decided to recertify this fishery as sustainable against the MSC Fishery Standard.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 56 References

50 CFR § 660.50. 2018. Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Fisheries. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/660.50.

American Bird Conservancy 2019. Comprehensive species report for Black-footed Albatross. Report produced by the Seabird Information for Fisheries Assessment Tool on March 29, 2019. https://www.fisheryandseabird.info/index.php/reports/comprehensive_report?ids=28:1.

AP. 2015. Joint Report Of The Canadian And U.S. Advisory Panel Regarding the 2015 Whiting TAC. March 18, 2015. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ ap-report-march2015.pdf.

AP. 2017. Joint Report Of The Canadian And U.S. Advisory Panel of The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement) March 2, 2017. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ 2017-ap-report.pdf.

AP. 2018. Joint Report Of The Canadian And U.S. Advisory Panel of The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement) March 6, 2018. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ 2018-ap-report.pdf.

Bellman, M.A., S.A. Heppell, and C. Goldfinger. 2005. Evaluation of a U.S. west coast groundfish habitat conservation regulation via analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of trawl fishing effort. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 2886-2900.

Berger, A.M., C.J. Grandin, I.G. Taylor, A.M. Edwards, and S. Cox. 2017. Status of the Pacific Hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian waters in 2017. Prepared by the Joint Technical Committee of the U.S. and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 202 p.

Bussel, A. 2018. Pacific Hake Compliance and Enforcement Summary 2017. Personal communication December 2018. DFO Regional Groundfish Enforcement Coordinator.

Canada Minister of Justice. 2018a. Species at Risk Act. S.C. 2002, c.29. Current to December 12, 2018. Last Amended on May 30, 2018. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf.

Canada Minister of Justice. 2018b. Oceans Act. S.C. 1996, c.31. Current to December 12, 2018. Last Amended February 26, 2015. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-2.4.pdf.

Chu, D. R.E. Thomas, S.K. de Blois, and L.C. Hufnagel Jr. 2017. Pacific hake integrated acoustic and trawl survey methods. NOAA Fisheries NWFSC Draft Jan 31 , 2017. 54 p.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 57 Cope, J., E.J. Dick, A. MacCall, M. Monk, B. Soper, and C. Wetzel. 2015. Data-moderate stock assessments for brown, China, copper, sharpchin, stripetail, and yellowtail rockfishes and English and rex soles in 2013. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 298. pp.

Crawford W.R. and J.R. Irvine. 2010. State of physical, biological, and selected fishery resources of Pacific Canadian marine ecosystems in 2009. Research Document - 2010/053. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Crawford, W.R. and J.R. Irvine. 2011. State of the ocean report for the Pacific Noth Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2971. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Curtis, J.M.R., K. Poppe, C.C. Wood. 2013. Indicators, impacts and recovery of temperate deepwater marine ecosystems following fishing disturbance. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/125. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs- DocRech/2012/2012_125-eng.html.

Devitt, S., M. Stocker, J. Collie, and M. Petersen. 2009. Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) mid-water trawl fishery -US (WOC) Pacific EEZ and Canadian Pacific EEZ waters. Final Certification Report. Tavel Certification Inc. 254 p.

DFO 2007. An Integrated Aboriginal Policy Framework. DFO/2007-1239. http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/aboriginal-autochtones/IAPF-CIPA-eng.pdf.

DFO. 2008. Science at Fisheries and Oceans Canada: A Framework for the Future. http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/333332.pdf.

DFO. 2012. Stock Assessment for the inside population of Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) In British Columbia, Canada for 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/084 13p.

DFO. 2012b. Evaluation of proposed ecologically and biologically significant areas in marine waters of British Columbia. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/075.

DFO. 2013. Evaluation of proposed ecologically and biologically significant areas in marine waters of British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/075. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_075-eng.html.

DFO. 2015. Stock Assessment for the Outside population of Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) for British Columbia, Canada in 2014. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2015/060. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365329.pdf.

DFO. 2018a. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish, Effective February 21, 2018. Version 1.0 ftp://ftp.lgl.com/Public/For%20TTA/IFMPs/IFMP%202018- 2019_Groundfish.pdf.

DFO. 2018b. MSC conditions, RE: Rougheye Rockfish type I/II. Letter from Adam Kaizer, Regional Manager, Groundfish, to Robert Trumble, MRAG Americas. 23 October 2018. 2 pages. Available upon request from DFO or MRAG Americas.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 58 DFO. 2018c. 2018 Offshore Pacific Hake Harvest Plan: Addendum to the 2018/2019 Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish. June 28, 2018. Version 1.0. Not available online.

Dorn, M.W. and M.W. Saunders. 1997. Status of the coastal Pacific whiting stock in U.S. and Canada in 1997. In PFMC, Appendix: Status of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery through 1997 and recommended acceptable biological catches in 1998: Stock assessment and fishery evaluation. PFMC, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

Edwards, A.M., I.G. Taylor, C.J. Grandin, and A.M. Berger. 2018. Status of the Pacific hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian waters in 2018. Prepared by the Joint Technical Committee of the U.S. and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 222 p.

Field, J.C., R.C. Francis, and K. Aydin. (2006). Top-down modeling and bottom-up dynamics: Linking a ﬁsheries-based ecosystem model with climate hypotheses in the Northern California Current. Progress in Oceanography. Vol. 68 pp. 238–270.

Fournier, D.A., H.J. Skaug, J. Ancheta, J. Ianelli, A. Magnusson, M.N. Maunder, A. Nielsen, and J. Sibert. 2012. AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim. Methods Softw. 27: 233-249.

Gertseva, V.V., J.M. Cope and D.E. Pearson. 2009. Status of the U.S. splitnose rockfish (Sebastes diploproa) resource in 2009. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. 291pp.

Grandin, C.J., A.C. Hicks, A.M. Berger, A.M. Edwards, N. Taylor, I.G. Taylor, and S. Cox. 2016. Status of the Pacific Hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian waters in 2016. Prepared by the Joint Technical Committee of the U.S. and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 165 p.

Haltuch, M., M. O’Conner, C. Holt, A.E. Punt, A.E., and E. Clarke. 2012 unpublished. Development of real-time tool for predicting the location of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus). NOAA-Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA.

Hamel, O.S., Ressler, P.H., R.E. Thomas, D.A. Waldeck, A.C. Hicks, J.A. Holmes, and G.W. Fleischer. 2015. Biology, fisheries, assessment and management of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus). In H. Arancibia (ed.). Hakes: Biology and exploitation, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 234-264.

Hicks, A.C., S. Cox, N. Taylor, I.G. Taylor, C. Grandin, and J. Ianelli. 2015. Conservation and yield performance of harvest control rules for the transboundary Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) fishery in U.S. and Canadian waters. MSE Book Chapter. 24 p.

Holt, C.A., A. Enson, B. Dorner, and M. Haltuch. 2012 unpublished. Predicting the spatial distribution of Pacific hake using satellite-derived data on mesoscale oceanographic features. Pacific Biological Station Nanaimo, B.C. Canada.

Jamieson, G.S. and Davies, H. 2004. State of Knowledge of Marine Habitats of Northern British Columbia. Research Document. 2004/009. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (http://www.isdm-

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 59 gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/Publications/result- eng.asp?params=0&series=4&year=2004).

Jannot, J.E., Tuttle, V., Good, T., and Donovan, C. 2017. Unobserved seabird interactions with trawl cables on U.S. West Coast Pacific hake at-sea catcher processor vessels NWFSC, NOAA, Seattle, WA.

Jannot, J.E,, T. P. Good, K. Somers, V. Tuttle, J. McVeigh. 2018a. Seabird Mortality in U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fisheries 2002-2016. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC Observer Program, 2725 Montlake Blvd E., Seattle, WA 98112.

Jannot, J.E, K.A. Somers, V. Tuttle, J. McVeigh, J.V. Carretta, and V. Helker. 2018b. Marine Mammal Mortality in U.S. west coast fisheries 2002-2016. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC Observer Program,2725 Montlake Blvd E, Seattle, WA 98112.

Jannot, J. E., T. Good, V. Tuttle, A. M. Eich, and S. Fitzgerald, editors. 2018c. U.S. West Coast and Alaska Trawl Fisheries Seabird Cable Strike Mitigation Workshop, November 2017: Summary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NWFSC-142. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-142.

JMC. 2016. Report of the Joint management Committee of The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement) March 18, 2016.

JMC. 2017. Recommendation on Coastwide Hake/Whiting TAC and each Party’s National TAC. Joint Management Committee for Pacific Hake. Memo. March 2, 2017. 2 p. http://pacificwhiting.org/images/msc_audit_8/P3_1_3_JMC_2017_TAC_decision_letter.pdf.

JMC. 2018. Recommendation on Coastwide Hake/Whiting TAC and each Party’s National TAC. Joint Management Committee for Pacific Hake. Memo. March 7, 2018. 2 p. http://pacificwhiting.org/images/msc_audit_8/P3_1_1_JMC_2018_TAC_decision_letter.pdf.

Johnson, K.F., M.B. Rudd, M. Pons, C.A. Akselrud, Q. Lee, F. Hurtado-Ferro, M.A. Haltuch and O.S. Hamel. 2015. Status of the U.S. sablefish resource in 2015. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 377 pp.

JTC. 2013a. Status of the Pacific hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian Waters in 2013. International Joint Technical Committee for Pacific hake. Final Document, 4 March, 2013. 190p.

JTC. 2013b. Workplan and Candidate Scenarios for 2013-2014 Pacific Hake Management Strategy Evaluation. International Joint Technical Committee for Pacific hake. 11 July, 2013. 11p.

JTC. 2014. Status of the Pacific hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian Waters in 2014 with a management strategy evaluation. International Joint Technical Committee for Pacific hake. Final Document, 2 February, 2014. 168p.

Kaiser, M.J., K.R. Clarke, H. Hinz, M.C.V. Austen, P.J. Somerfield, and I. Karakassis. 2006. Global analysis and prediction of the response of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 1-14.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 60

Kaplan, I. C., I. A. Gray, and P. S. Levin. 2012. Cumulative impacts of fisheries in the California Current. Fish and Fisheries.

Kuriyama, P.T., K. Ono, F. Hurtado-Ferro, A.C. Hicks, I.G. Taylor, R.R. Licandeo, K.F., Johnson, S.C. Anderson, C.C. Monnahan, M.B. Rudd, C.C. Stawitz, and J.L. Valero. 2016. An empirical weight-at-age approach reduces estimation bias compared to modeling parametric growth in integrated, statistical stock assessment models when growth is time varying. Fisheries Research 180: 119–127.

Levin, P.S. and F.B. Schwing (eds.). 2011. Technical background for an integrated ecosystem assessment of the California Current: Groundfish, salmon, green sturgeon, and ecosystem health. U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-109. 300p.

Mann, H. 2018. Whiting Electronic Monitoring Program. Submission to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. May 15. https://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/Observer/0518OACEMWG/Whiting%20EM%20pr ogram%20Summary.pdf.

Mann, H. 2019. Personal communication. Executive Director, Midwater Trawlers Co-Operative, 31 January 2019.

Marshall, K. 2018. Pacific Whiting MSE DRAFT Work Plan. NOAA Fisheries. NWFSC, Seattle, WA 98112. 7 p. http://pacificwhiting.org/images/msc_audit_8/P1_7_2018_HakeMSE_Work_Plan_Draft.pdf.

Matthews, D. 2012. Letter to Daniel Waldeck, Executive Director, Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, Seattle, WA 98199, concerning possible improvements in the provision of monitoring and enforcement information on the Pacific whiting fishery. July 30, 2012.

McAllister, M.K. and J.N. Ianelli. 1997. Bayesian stock assessment using catch-age data and the sampling-importance resampling algorithm. Canadian Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 284-300.

Methot, R.D. and C.R. Wetzel. 2013. Stock synthesis: a biological and statistical framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fisheries Research 142: 86-99.

Methot, R.D., C.R. Wetzel, and I.G. Taylor. 2018. Stock Synthesis User Manual Version 3.30.10. NOAA Fisheries, Seattle, WA USA. Available from https://vlab.ncep.noaa.gov/web/stock- synthesis.

Meyers, R.A., K.G. Bowen, and N.J. Barrowman.1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 2404-2419.

MSC. 2014. MSC Reduced Re-assessment Reporting Template v1.0. Marine Stewardship Council. 1 Snow Hill, London EC1A 2DH, UK. 79 p.

NMFS. 2013. Compliance Guide for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program. 21 November.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 61 https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/public_n otices/pie_2_compliance_guide.pdf.

NMFS. 2015. Background Information for Essential Fish Habitat. Agenda Item H.8.a. NWFSC Report. September, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/H8a_NWFSC_Rpt_EFHBackground_SEPT2015BB.pdf.

NMFS. 2018a. Public Notice For Immediate Release Jan. 8, 2018. Final Rule to Change Pacific Whiting At-Sea Sector Darkblotched Rockfish and Pacific Ocean Perch (POP) Allocations to Set-Asides, Amendment 21-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/public_n otices/nmfs-sea-18-01.pdf.

NMFS. 2018b. NWFSC/FRAM: West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/data/map.

NMFS. 2018c. 2017 List of Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, MD.

NMFS. 2019. At-Sea Hake Observer Program. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer- home/regions/westcoast/at-sea-hake.

NOAA. 2016. NOAA Announces Revisions to Federal Fishery Management Guidelines. October 13, 2016. https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-announces-revisions-to-federal-fishery- management-guidelines.

NOAA Fisheries. 2019. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment: California Current. At URL: https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov//regions/california-current- region/index.html.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). 2017. West Coast Enforcement Division Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. PFMC Supplemental Information Report 4, June 2017. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/InfoRpt4_Sup_2017_WCD_PFMC_AnnlRpt_06052017_Jun2017BB.p df.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. (OLE) 2018. West Coast Enforcement Division Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. PFMC Supplemental Information Report 3, June 2018. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/SuppIR3_Supp_2018_WCD_PFMC_Annual_Report-Final_5-18- 2018_JUNE2018BB.pdf.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). 2019a. West Coast Enforcement Division Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. PFMC Informational Report 2, April 2019. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IR2_OLE_WCD-2018-TRAT-Compliance- Report_APRBB2019.pdf.

NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). 2019b. West Coast Enforcement Division Report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. PFMC Informational Report 9, April 2019. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sup_IR9_TRAT- Compliance_APRBB2019.pdf.pdf.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 62

NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region. 2019. Pacific Whiting Treaty. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting_treaty.h tml.

Parker-Stetter. 2018. Evaluating winter distribution and biology of Pacific hake. Fisheries Engineering & Acoustic Division. NOAA Fisheries. NWFSC, Seattle, WA 98112. 64 p.

Petersen, M., M. Stocker and R. Trumble. 2017. MSC 2nd Annual Surveillance Report Review of Information for the US and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Mid-water trawl Fishery. January 2017. 38 p.

Petersen, M., M. Stocker and R. Trumble. 2018. MSC 3rd Annual Surveillance Report Remote Surveillance for the US and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Mid-water trawl Fishery. January 2018. 42 p.

Pedersen, M., M. Stocker and R.J. Trumble. 2014. US and Canada Pacific hake mid-water trawl fishery. MSC Public certification Report. MRAG Americas Inc., #202-8950 Martin Luther King St N, St Petersburg, FL 33702. 116 p.

PFMC. 2010a. Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPPs). Adopted November 2010. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/Nov_2010_SOPP_FINAL_Jan_2014.pdf.

PFMC. 2010b. Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry trawl Fishery, Final Environmental Impact Statement. June. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/1_Pacific- Coast-Grounddfish-Limited-Entry-Trawl-Fishery-FEIS.pdf.

PFMC. 2011. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan as amended through December 2011. Pacific Fishery Management Council, #101-7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland OR 97220. 146 p.

PFMC. 2013a. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem July 2013. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/FEP_FINAL.pdf.

PFMC. 2013b. Research and Data Needs. July. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/Res_Data_Needs_2013_FINAL_v2.pdf.

PFMC. 2013c. TRAT Compliance Summary, 2012. Agenda Item D.2.c. NMFS OLE Report, April 2013. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/D2c_NMFS_OLE_PPT_MAR13_APR2013BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2014. TRAT Compliance Summary, 2013. Agenda Item C.3.b., NMFS Report 2, April 2014. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/C3b_NMFS_Rpt2_TRat_APR2014BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2015. TRAT Compliance Summary, 2014. Agenda Item E.1.a. Supplemental NMFS Report 3, April, 2015. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/E1a_SupNMFS_Rpt3_Trat_APR2015BB.pdf.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 63 PFMC. 2016a. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and Washington groundfish fishery. Pacific Fishery Management Council, #101-7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland OR 97220. 160 p. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/GF_FMP_FinalThruA27-Aug2016.pdf.

PFMC. 2016b. Appendix B; Part 2: Groundfish life history descriptions. In Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon and Washington groundfish fishery: 173-176. Pacific Fishery Management Council, #101-7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland OR 97220. 160 p.

PFMC. 2016c. TRAT Compliance Summary, 2015. Agenda Item F.1.a, NMFS Report 4, April 2016. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/F1a_NMFS_Rpt4_TRAT_Compliance_Report_2015_APR2016BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2016d. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 280 pp.

PFMC. 2017a. Agenda Item F.3 Council Action: Provide Final Recommendation to NMFS on Chinook Bycatch Thresholds and Other Measures for the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/F3_CouncilAction_Apr2017.pdf.

PFMC. 2017b. California Current Integrated Ecosystem Team Assessment (CCIEA) California Current Ecosystem Status Report 2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/F1a_NMFS_Rpt1_2018_IEA_SoCC_FINAL_main_Mar2018BB.pdf

PFMC 2017c. Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix to the Pacific Coast Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/FEP_Initiatives_Appendix_post_03_17_final_170509.pdf.

PFMC. 2017d. NMFS Report on EM Agenda Item F.11. Agenda Item F.11.a Supplemental NMFC Presentation 1, November 2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/F11a_Sup_NMFS_Presentation1_EM_Hooper_NOV2017BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2017e. Enforcement Consultants Report On Electronic Monitoring—Final Pacific Halibut Discard Mortality Rates, Discard Species Lists, And Third-Party Review. Agenda Item F.11.a Supplemental EC Report 1 November 2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/F11a_Sup_EC_Rpt1_NOV2017BB-1.pdf.

PFMC. 2017f. Agenda Item F.3.a Supplemental GMT Report 1 April 2017. Groundfish Management Team Report On Salmon Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation: Recommendations. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/F3a_Sup_SAS_Rpt_Apr2017BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2018a. Agenda Item G.8.a. GMT Report 1. Groundfish Management Team Report on Endangered Species Act Salmon Mitigation Measures-Scoping. November 2018. 9 pages. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G8a_Supp_SAS_Rpt1_NOV2018BB.pdf.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 64 PFMC. 2018c. California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) California Current Ecosystem Status Report, 2018. Harvey, C., Garfield, T., Williams, G, Tolimieri, N. and Hazen, E. (eds.). Agenda Item F1.a. NMFS report 1. March 2018.

PFMC. 2018d. Agenda Item H.1.c. Supplemental EC Report 1. Enforcement Consultants Report on National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Report. March 2018. 2 pp. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/H1c_Sup_EC_Rpt1_Mar2018BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2018e. Supplemental NMFS Report 4 March 2018. Supplemental NMFS Report: Status Update on Whiting Discards Issue in the Groundfish Electronic Monitoring (EM) Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Prepared by NMFS West Coast Regional Office PFMC Meeting, March 9- 14, 2018. Agenda Item H.1.a. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/H1a_Sup_NMFS_Rpt4_EM_EFP_Mar2018BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2018f. Amendment 21-3 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. NMFS-SEA-18-01, January 8, 2018. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/public_n otices/nmfs-sea-18-01.pdf.

PFMC. 2018g. Fishery Ecosystem Plan Five-Year Review – Scoping. Agenda Item G.2 Situation Summary. September 2018. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/G2__SitSum_FEP_5-year_Review_SEPT2018BB.pdf.

PFMC 2018h. Groundfish Advisory Subpanel Report On National Marine Fisheries Service Report. Agenda Item H.1.c Supplemental GAP Report 1 March 2018. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/H1c_Sup_GAP_Rpt1_Mar2018BB.pdf.

PFMC. 2018i. Recorded testimony at the March 2018 PFMC meeting of Heather Mann, Executive Director of Midwater Trawlers Co-Operative and Brent Paine, Executive Director of United Catcher Boats, on 2017 shore-side sector whiting discards. At section H1 at. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/INDEX_of_March_2018_Meeting_Recordings.pdf.

PFMC. 2018j. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. November 2018. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/SAFE_Nov2018_Final.pdf.

PFMC. 2018k. Amendment 28: Pacific Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat, Rockfish Conservation Area Modifications, and Magnuson Act Discretionary Closures. https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/amendment-28/.

PFMC. 2019a. Council Operations: Council and Advisory Bodies. https://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-and-committees/.

PFMC 2019b. Council Operating Procedures as Amended through January 2019. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Current_COP_January_2019.pdf.

PFMC. 2019c. Who We Are and What We Do. https://www.pcouncil.org/.

PFMC. 2019d. Groundfish: Fishery Management Plan and Amendments. Webpage. https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 65

PFMC and NMFS. 2017a. West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program: Five-year review. Approved by the Pacific Fishery Management Council November 16th 2017, Costa Mesa, CA. . https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Trawl_CSR_2017_MainDoc_Final.pdf.

PFMC and NMFS. 2017b. West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program: Five-year review – Appendices. December 2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Trawl_CSR_2017_Appendices_Final.pdf.

Restrepo, V. R. and Powers, J. E. 1999. Precautionary control rules in US fisheries management: specification and performance. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56 (6): 846-852.

Sampson, D.B., O.S. Hamel, K. Bosley, J. Budrick, L. Cronin-Fine, L.K. Hillier, K.E. Hinton, M.J. Krigbaum, S. Miller, K.M. Privitera-Johnson, K. Ramey, B.T. Rodomsky, L.K. Solinger, and A.D. Whitman. 2017. 2017 Assessment Update for the U.S. West Coast Stock of Arrowtooth Flounder. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 152 pp.

Schirripa, M.J. 2007. Status of the Sablefish Resource off the Continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2007. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Portland, Oregon. 117 pp.

SRG. 2015. Joint U.S.-Canada Scientific Review Group Report for 2017. February 24-27, 2015. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ 2015_srg_report_final.pdf.

SRG. 2016. Joint U.S.-Canada Scientific Review Group Report for 2017. February 23-25, 2016. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ 2016_srg_report.pdf.

SRG. 2017. Joint U.S.-Canada Scientific Review Group Report for 2017. February 14-16, 2017. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/whiting/ 2017-srg-meeting-report.pdf.

SRG. 2018. Joint U.S.- Canada Scientific Review Group Report for 2018. Lynnwood Convention Center, 3177 196th Street SW, Lynnwood, WA 98036, February 26 – March 2, 2018. 16 p. (http://pacificwhiting.org/images/msc_audit_8/P1_2_2018_pacific_hake_assessment_final.pdf).

Stephens, A. and I.G. Taylor. 2018. Status of Yellowtail Rockfish (Sebastes flavidus) Along the U.S. Pacific Coast in 2017. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 300 pp.

Stern-Pirlot, A., M. Stocker and S Hanna. 2019. MSC 4th Annual Surveillance Report On-site Surveillance for the US and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Mid-water trawl Fishery. January 2019. 62 p.

Taylor, I.G. and A. Stephens. 2014. Stock Assessment of Shortspine Thornyhead in 2013. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. 159 pp.

Taylor, I.G., C. Grandin, A.C. Hicks, N. Taylor, and S. Cox. 2015. Status of the Pacific Hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian waters in 2015. Prepared by the Joint Technical

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 66 Committee of the U.S. and Canada Pacific Hake/ Whiting Agreement; National Marine Fishery Service; Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 159 p.

Thorson, J.T., A.C. Hicks, and R.D. Methot. 2014. Random effect estimation of time-varying factors in Stock Synthesis. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 72: 178–185.

United Nations. 1995. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Related to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Sixth Session, New York, 24 July – 4 August 1995, Article 6 and Annex II. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/aipuncls/aipuncls.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act, as Amended through January 12, 2007. file:///Users/susanhanna/Downloads/msa-amended-2007.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 130405338–4987–02] RIN 0648–BC84. Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Chafing Gear Modifications. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations. https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2014/December/14sfnjclosurepfr.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce 2016a. 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No.: 150629565–6224–02] RIN 0648–BF15. Fisheries Off West Coast States; Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plans for Coastal Pelagic Species, Pacific Coast Groundfish, U.S. West Coast Highly Migratory Species, and Pacific Coast Salmon. Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-04-04/pdf/2016-07516.pdf.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2016b. 15 CFR Part 902; 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 151005920–6371–02] RIN 0648–BF39. Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Flow Scale Requirements. Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-05/pdf/2016-10476.pdf.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 2004. The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting. 108th Congress 2d Session. Treaty doc. 18-24. https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th- congress/24/document-text?overview=closed.

Waldeck, D. 2015. MSC Pacific Hake – U.S. Client Summary Report. November 2015.

Waldeck, D. 2016. MSC Pacific Hake – U.S. Client Summary Report. November 2016.

Waldeck, D. 2017. MSC Pacific Hake – U.S. Client Summary Report. November 2017.

Waldeck, D. 2018. MSC Pacific Hake – U.S. Client Summary Report. November 2018.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 67 Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a PI 1.1.1 low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guidepost It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high stock is above the the stock is above the degree of certainty point where PRI. that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Yes Yes Yes Justification SG60 – See SG100 SG80 – See SG100 SG100 The 2018 median posterior female spawning biomass was estimated to be 66.8% of the estimated unfished equilibrium (SB0) with the posterior 95%credibility intervals ranging from 30.0% to 154.1%. The lower estimate (30.0% of SB0) is well above the default limit reference point of 20% of B0. The 2018 stock assessment provides stock-recruit estimates (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. 34), showing both the extremely large variability about the year-class strengths and the lack of relationship between spawning stock and subsequent recruitment. The scatter plot also shows that the female spawning biomass is observed to be less than 20% of B0 before the recruitment would be impaired. This is consistent with the assumptions about the steepness of the Beverton-Holt stock recruitment function used in the assessment. The Beverton-Holt function is re-parameterised in terms of the steepness parameter. Steepness is defined as the proportion of virgin recruitment (R0) obtained when the spawner abundance is 20% of the virgin level (SB0). The mean prior for steepness (h=0.78) is based on a meta-analysis of the family Gadidae (Myers et al. 1999), and has been used in previous hake assessments since 2007. It is well known that the higher h is, the more resilient the population is, and the more robust the stock is to harvesting.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 68 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a PI 1.1.1 low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

It is considered that there is a high degree of certainty that the female spawning biomass (SB) is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Thus the SG 100 requirement is met. B Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidepost The stock is at or There is a high fluctuating around a degree of certainty level consistent with that the stock has MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes Yes

Justification The estimated target reference point is SB40% or 813,000 t. SB40% is greater than SBMSY (SBMSY is estimated at 518,000 t). There is a high degree of certainty that the female spawning biomass has been fluctuating around SB40% or has been above this level from 2004-2018. The female spawning biomass has been estimated to be above SB40% from 2012 to 2018. Thus the SG100 requirements are met.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 69 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a PI 1.1.1 low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Edwards et al., 2018; Meyers et al., 1999 References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference Value of reference relative to reference point point point

Reference point SB0 2,032,000 t female The 2018 female used in scoring spawning biomass spawning biomass was stock relative to estimated to be 1,357,000

PRI (SIa) t (posterior credibility

interval 610,000-3,161,000 t). The current stock status relative to SB0 is 0.67 (e.g. 1,357,000/ SB =0.67). 0

406,400 t female The 2018 female SB20% spawning biomass spawning biomass was estimated to be 1,357,000

t (posterior credibility

interval 610,000-3,161,000 t). The current stock status

relative to SB20% is 3.34 (e.g. 1,357,000/

SB20%=3.34).

Reference point SB40% 813,000 t female The 2018 female used in scoring spawning biomass spawning biomass was stock relative to estimated to be 1,357,000

MSY (SIb) t (posterior credibility

interval 610,000-3,161,000 t). The current stock status relative to SB40% is 1.67

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 70 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a PI 1.1.1 low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 (e.g. 1,357,000/ SB40%=1.67).

1,357,000 t/ F =1.86 FSPR=40% 730,000 t female SPR=40% spawning biomass US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 71 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? No relevant Not relevant Justifi The Pacific hake stock is not considered depleted, and so PI 1.1.2 is not scored. cation B Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance that exploitation rates or they will be able to rebuild previous performance that the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 72 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guidepost The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the the stock and is reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. elements of the harvest designed to achieve strategy work together stock management towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI management objectives 1.1.1 SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justificati MSC defines harvest strategy as the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, on HCRs and management action, which may include a Management Procedure (MP) or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE (MSC CR v2.0). The intention is that these elements (monitoring, stock assessment, HCRs and management actions) should work together effectively to ensure overall performance, measured in terms of achieving outcomes (i.e., meeting objectives).

The harvest strategy in place for Pacific hake is formalized through the hake treaty and consists of the elements considered as PIs 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rule), 1.2.3 (Monitoring, and 1.2.4 (Stock Assessment). Each PI is considered below in its own right. PI 1.2.1 is intended to show how they work together to achieve objectives.

As per PI 1.2.2 the HCR for Pacific Hake is defined in Article III of the Hake Agreement between the U.S. and Canada: “…the default harvest rate shall be F-40 percent with a 40/10 adjustment”. The 40:10 harvest policy is responsive to the state of the stock as it reduces the harvest linearly from the F40% rule when the female spawning biomass is below SB40% such that the harvest goes to zero when SB10% is reached. The 40:10 harvest policy provides a precautionary mechanism to reduce harvest during times when the Hake stock is low. In recent years, the total landings have not exceeded the recommended catch limit set by the harvest policy, indicating that management procedures have been effective in achieving stock management objectives. Further considerations, such as by-catch limits, have often resulted in catch targets to be set lower than the recommended catch limit.

Year Total Landings (t) Coast-wide catch target (t) 2008 318,746 364,842 2009 178,683 184,000 2010 224,115 262,500 2011 282,398 393,751 2012 206,771 251,809 2013 285,807 365,112 2014 299,254 428,000 2015 193,834 440,000 2016 332,330 497,500 2017 440,944 597,500

The exploitation history in terms of both the biomass (SB40%) and F-target reference points, portrayed graphically in the 2018 stock assessment document via a phase-plot,

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 73 shows that historically the fishing intensity has been low and the biomass has been high demonstrating that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the PI 1.1.1 SG80, and thus the requirements for SG100 are met. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidepost The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has experience or plausible but evidence exists that it been fully evaluated and argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No Justificati SG60 – See SG80 on Evidence has been provided to the Assessment Team to demonstrate that the management strategy is achieving its objectives and that the 40:10 rule is by nature precautionary in the sense that harvest rate is reduced as stock biomass declines.

Annual harvest levels are based on rigorously reviewed stock assessments and strictly follow recommendations made by the Hake Agreement Scientific Review Group, Advisory Panel, and Joint Management Committee. Since 2007, the combined US and Canadian harvests have not exceeded annual catch targets derived from applying the harvest policy, averaging 76.8% of the target.

In 2018 applying the default HCR with the base case model predicted a median TAC of 725,984 t. The considerable uncertainty in the assessment especially with regard to the uncertainty of the strength of recent year-classes was taken into consideration for setting the 2019 TAC. The AP recommended and the JMC adopted a coast-wide TAC of 597,500 t for the 2019 season, demonstrating that management decisions are precautionary.

Past management responses have been effective as indicated in the Phase Plot. Historically the fishing intensity has been low and the biomass has been high. In 2009, spawning depletion was around 20% triggering a response of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to initiate a rebuilding plan for Pacific Hake because the depletion level was below 25% of unfished spawning biomass (SB0). However, due to the strong 1999 year class entering the fishery the stock rebuilt and the rebuilding plan did not have to be implemented.

Further evidence that the Pacific Hake harvest strategy is effective and precautionary is based on the recent temporal progression of years (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. h). The estimated spawning biomass has been below B40% from 2007-2011, and considerably above B40% from 2012-2017. The median relative fishing intensity has been below target in all years (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. f). Thus recent management actions have resulted in the Pacific Hake stock being consistently in the Precautionary/Healthy Zone. Since the Pacific Hake agreement, TACs have been set at or below harvest at the F40%, demonstrating that the application of the rules is appropriate and effective.

The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. However, Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of the Hake Agreement’s harvest policy is a priority for the JMC and its advisors. The MSE is being developed as an integral part of the Hake Agreement’s management and decision-making process to help inform decision making about harvest policies and research priorities. This is an on-going

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 74 process. Thus the SG100 requirements are not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidepost Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes Justificati SG60 on Monitoring is in place through the Hake Agreement’s committee structure and the DFO and PMFC groundfish fisheries management plans. Evidence that the harvest strategy is working is best illustrated with the Phase Plot.

d Harvest strategy review Guidepost The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Yes Justificati SG100 on Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of the Hake Agreement’s harvest policy is a priority for the JMC and its advisors. The MSE is being developed as an integral part of the Hake Agreement’s management and decision-making process to help inform decision making about harvest policies and research priorities. This is an on-going process.

In 2018 the JMC (2018) continued their efforts to develop a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for the Pacific Whiting resource. The JMC acknowledges the progress made by NOAA Fisheries in securing the personnel to work on the MSE and associated environmental research that may impact the Hake/Whiting resource. The JMC identified the members of the MSE workgroup and approved a two year work plan with the goal of:

• evaluating the performance of having a current hake management procedures under alternative hypotheses about current and future environmental conditions; • better understand the effects of hake distribution and movement on both

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 75 countries' ability to catch fish; and • better understand how fishing in each country affects the availability of fish to the other country in future years.

It is clear that under the MSE process underway, the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. e Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that There is a high degree not taking place. shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justificati Scoring issue e is not scored as sharks are not a target species. on f Review of alternative measures Guidepost There has been a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial potential effectiveness and of the potential review of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- practicality of alternative practicality of alternative related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise measures to minimise catch of the target stock. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justificati There is no unwanted catch of the target stock. on References Edwards et al., 2018; Senate, 2004; SRG, 2018; AP, 2018; JMC, 2018; PMFC, 2011, 2016a; Hicks et al., 2015; DFO, 2018 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/w hiting/whiting-treaty.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: US 95 Can 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 76 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes No Justifi As per the Hake Agreement, the 40:10 harvest policy reduces the harvest linearly cation from the F40% rule when the female spawning biomass is below SB40% such that the harvest goes to zero when limit reference point, SB10%, is reached. F40% is the fishing mortality rate that would result in a 40% spawning potential ratio (SPR) or spawning biomass per recruit that is 40% of the unfished level. This SPR approach is used because the stock-recruitment relationship for Pacific Hake, along with FMSY and BMSY reference points, cannot be estimated reliably from historical data.

There is a high degree of certainty that the female spawning biomass has been fluctuating around SB40% or has been above this level from 2004-2018. The female spawning biomass has been estimated to be above SB40% from 2012 to 2018 (see PI 1.1.1b).Thus the SG80 requirements are met. While the HCRs have kept the stock fluctuating at or above the target level

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 77 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

consistent with SB40% the HCRs have not taken the ecological role of the stock into account. Thus the SG100 requirement is not met. B HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Yes No Justifi The Pacific Hake HCR adopted by the Hake Agreement originates from cation Amendment 11 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards guidelines. The F40% target catch level for Hake is explicitly risk averse, taking into account uncertainty of the production capacity of Hake corresponds to greater caution in setting target catch levels. The main uncertainty taken into account is the uncertainty in year class strength. The SG80 requirement is met. The HCRs have not taken the ecological role of the stock into account. Thus the SG100 requirement is not met. C HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No Justifi Evidence has been provided to the Assessment Team to demonstrate that the cation management strategy is achieving its objectives and that the 40:10 rule is by nature precautionary in the sense that harvest rate is reduced as stock biomass declines.

Further evidence that the Pacific Hake harvest strategy is effective and precautionary is based on the recent temporal progression of years (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. h). The estimated spawning biomass has been below B40% from 2007- 2011, and considerably above B40% from 2012-2017. The median relative fishing intensity has been below target in all years (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. f). Thus recent management actions have resulted in the Pacific Hake stock reverting to the Precautionary/Healthy Zone. Since the Pacific Hake agreement, TACs have been set at or below harvest at the F40%, demonstrating that the application of the rules is appropriate and effective (SG80).

From the recent MSE exercise it has been learned that the F40%-40:10 rule reduces the median average depletion of the stock to below 30% in the long-term which is less than the SB40% target level. Thus SG 100 is not met. Edwards et al., 2018; Senate, 2004 References http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfi sh/whiting/whiting-treaty.pdf US 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 78 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 79 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Stock structure: Knowledge of the spatial distribution and seasonal migration for the cation migratory coastal Pacific Hake is fairly well understood. Pacific Hake have a range that extends from the southern portions of Baja California (winter) to as far north as southeast Alaska (late summer). Typical northward migrations usually extend to the northern portions of Vancouver Island, but have ranged to southeast Alaska on a few occasions.

Stock productivity: Overall, there is comprehensive knowledge of the life-history parameters for Pacific Hake to conduct robust assessments and develop appropriate biological reference points. Biological samples are routinely collected on an annual basis from both domestic and joint venture fisheries in both US and Canada, as well as the fisheries independent surveys. Annual length-weight relationships are established each year for US and Canada and this information has been used in stock assessment models to convert population numbers to biomass. Mean weight at age is calculated from samples pooled from all fisheries and acoustic surveys. For the 2018 stock assessment a new age-based maturity ogive was developed using histological estimates of functional maturity from 1,947 ovaries that were associated with age estimates. In recent stock assessments, natural mortality has either been fixed at 0.20, or estimated using an informative prior. The stock-recruitment function is a Beverton-Holt parameterization with a prior for steepness (h) of 0.78.

Fleet composition: US High quality data are available for the U.S. Hake fleet sectors. The catcher/processor sector, or C/P Coop Program, is composed of catcher/processors registered to a limited entry permit with a C/P endorsement; the mothership sector, or MS Coop Program, is composed of motherships and catcher vessels that harvest Pacific whiting for delivery to motherships. Motherships are vessels registered to an MS permit, and catcher vessels are vessels registered to a limited entry permit with an MS/CV endorsement or vessels registered to a limited entry permit without an MS/CV endorsement if the vessel is authorized to harvest the coop's allocation; and the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery is composed of vessels

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 80 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy that harvest Pacific whiting for delivery shore-side to IFQ first receivers during the primary season. Canada High quality data are available for the Canadian Hake fleet sectors from the DFO vessel licensing system, the observer program and the dockside monitoring program (see DFO IFMP Groundfish). Stock abundance: The joint U.S. and Canadian integrated acoustic and trawl survey has been the primary fishery independent tool use to assess distribution, abundance and biology of coastal Pacific Hake. Data sources used in the 2018 assessment included biomass indices and age compositions from the 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017 surveys. Fishery removals: Total catch from all U.S. and Canadian fisheries (including tribal catches) from 1966 to 2017 have been used to undertake the 2018 stock assessment. In Canada on-board observers have monitored and sampled catch of all domestic groundfish vessels since 1996. All landed catch is subject to dockside monitoring. The U.S. Pacific Hake fishery is fully monitored by observers. Other data: NMFS and PBS have completed studies on environmental influences on Hake distribution. The NFMS component of the project describes the north- south summertime distribution of Hake and involves developing both descriptive and forecast models for Hake distribution. The PBS component describes cross- shelf summertime distribution for the central California Current, and looks at a fine scale (5km grid) distribution of Hake in relation to sea surface temperature and other variables. The NMFS and PBS study results will allow future surveys to be designed to better capture concentrations of target species from predictive models of Hake distribution based on environmental parameters. B Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least regularly monitored at a is monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to with the harvest control there is a good support the harvest rule, and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No Justifi All information required by the HCR is monitored annually. Removals are monitored cation annually through comprehensive on-board observer programs and dockside monitoring. The joint U.S. and Canadian integrated acoustic and trawl survey regularly monitors stock abundance. The annual stock assessment estimates spawning biomass and fishing mortality in relation to target and limit reference points taking uncertainty into account. Therefore, the fishery meets the SG80. However, terminal year estimates of recruitment are highly uncertain. More information could potentially be collected to estimate annual recruitment. Thus the SG100 is not met. C Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 81 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Met? Yes Justifi There is good information on Pacific Hake removals in the U.S. and Canadian cation groundfish trawl fisheries as these fisheries have on-board observations as well as dockside monitoring. References Edwards et al., 2018; Haltuch et al., 2012; Holt et al., 2012 US 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 82 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes Justifi The assessment for Pacific Hake is carried out with the Stock Synthesis (SS cation version 3.30j) model written by Richard Methot of the National Marine Fisheries Service. SS is a statistical age-structured population modeling framework that has been applied in a wide variety of fish assessments globally. The method has generally been accepted as rigorous. SS is a state-of-the-art software that is implemented in the Automatic Differentiation Model Builder (ADMB) software developed by David Fournier. The 2018 assessment reports a single base-case model and an alternative model representing the collective work of the Joint Technical Committee. The assessment is fully Bayesian, with the models incorporating prior information on natural mortality (M) and the steepness (h) of the stock-recruit relationship, and integrating over parameter uncertainty to provide results for probabilistic interpretation. The 2018 assessment incorporated new approaches for weighting composition data and for parameterizing time-varying selectivity. The maturity and fecundity relationships of hake were updated, and a new age- based maturity ogive was developed in the 2018 assessment. The model incorporates sources of information on catch (1966-2017), relative abundance (acoustic survey 1995, 98, 2001, 03, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13, 15 and 17), age composition, growth and maturity. Thus the SG100 requirements are met. B Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes Justifi Reference points have been estimated (see PI 1.1.1). The 2018 assessment cation estimates Pacific Hake stock status relative to the fishing intensity target and the 40:10 control rule limits. This is depicted as a phase plot of the median posterior fishing intensity (F-axis) vs. the median posterior relative spawning biomass (B- axis) from 1966-2017 (Edwards et al., 2018; Fig. h) The temporal pattern is shown relative to the fishing intensity (y-axis) and the 40:10 control rule limits (x-axis). Thus the SG80 is met. C Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major sources uncertainty into into account uncertainty of uncertainty. account. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 83 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Pacific Hake displays the highest degree of recruitment variability of any west coast cation groundfish stock. This results in large and rapid changes in stock biomass. A major source of uncertainty in the 2018 status and target catch is in the estimate of the size of recent year classes. This volatility, coupled with a dynamic fishery, which potentially targets strong cohorts resulting in time-varying selectivity, and little data to inform incoming recruitment until the cohort is age 2 or greater, will continue to result in highly uncertain estimates of current stock status and even less-certain projections of future stock trajectory. The base case assessment model integrates over the substantial uncertainty associated with several important model parameters including: acoustic survey catchability (q), the productivity of the stock (via the steepness parameter, h, of the stock-recruit relationship), the rate of natural mortality (M), and recruitment deviations. Although the Bayesian results presented include estimation uncertainty, this within-model uncertainty is likely an underestimate of the true uncertainty in current stock status and future projections, since it does not include structural modelling choices, data-weighting uncertainty and scientific uncertainty in selection of prior probability distributions. Given the uncertainty in stock status and magnitude, the JTC developed a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) to explore topics including testing of the basic performance of the default harvest policy and the effect of annual vs. biennial surveys. The results of these explorations showed that biomass levels and average catch was variable, mainly because of the high recruitment variability seen with Pacific Hake. Even though the Pacific Hake fishery is relatively data-rich, with a directed fishery- independent survey program, substantial biological sampling for both commercial fisheries and the acoustic survey, and reliable estimates of catch, the data are less informative about incoming recruitment which results in large differences between the simulated abundance and the estimated abundance. Thus the assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment reports stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The median posterior distribution for spawning depletion (SBt/SB0) with 95% credibility intervals is shown relative to the 40:10 reference levels. Also, a decision table showing predicted status and fishing intensity relative to target fishing intensity is presented with uncertainty represented from within the base-case model. The decision table shows the projected outcomes for each potential catch level (rows) and can be evaluated across the quantiles (columns) of the posterior distribution. Thus the SG100 requirements are met. D Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes Justifi The assessment used a Bayesian estimation approach, sensitivity analyses, and cation retrospective investigations to evaluate potential consequences of parameter uncertainty, alternative structural models, and historical performance of the assessment model, respectively. The JTC conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to investigate the structural

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 84 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status uncertainty of the base model by examining the effect of changing parameter priors and assumptions. The sensitivities included the following: 1. Increasing the standard deviation on the prior for natural mortality (M), 2. Considering alternative values of steepness (h), 3. Increasing or decreasing the recruitment variability assumption (σr), 4. Assuming time invariant ageing error, 5. Using McAllister-Ianelli method for data weighting, 6. using alternative methods for aggregating age compositions, 7. Alternative maximum age assumptions for estimating selectivity, 8. Alternative standard deviations for time-varying selectivity, and 9. alternative parameterization for time- varying selectivity. Retrospective analyses were conducted by systematically removing the terminal year’s data and estimating the parameters under the assumptions of the base model. Overall, there was little retrospective change to the relative spawning biomass trajectory up to the mid-2000s. Most retrospective change occurred in the final years of the retrospective model. Thus the assessment has been tested using a systematic exploration of the interactions among different sets of assumptions. This confirms that alternative hypothesis and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Thus the SG100 requirements are met. E Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Yes No Justifi Under the authority of the Hake Agreement the Scientific Review Group conducts cation the peer review of the assessment of the Pacific Hake stock status. In 2018 the SRG included three U.S., two Canadian and two independent members designated by the Joint Management Committee. In addition, the JMC appointed one U.S. and one Canadian industry advisor (AP members) to the SRG. The SRG met in Lynwood, WA February 26-March 2, 2018, to review the draft stock assessment document prepared by the JTC. Thus, the peer review occurs only within the framework of the Hake Agreement. Peer reviews happen internally but not externally; thus the SG 100 is not met. References Edwards, et al., 2018; Methot and Wetzel, 2013; SRG, 2018, McAllister and Ianelli, 1997; Fournier et al., 2012; Berger et al., 2017 US 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 85 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place between rebuilding. all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi There are no main primary species in either the US or Canadian hake fisheries. The cation combined non-hake catch in the US fishery is roughly 0.7%. In the Canadian fishery, the stock with the single highest proportion other than hake is walleye pollock at just over 1% of the total catch. As such the SG100 is met for both UoAs. B Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? US-Y CA-N

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 86 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Justifi US Fishery cation There are a number of extremely minor primary species caught in the US offshore Pacific hake fishery. These (and the secondary species) are listed in Table 1 and together comprise less than 0.7% of the catch in this fishery on average between 2012 and 2016, based on landings and discards as reported from the observer program with 100% coverage. According to the MSC definition, primary species in this list include spiny dogfish, jack mackerel, yellowtail rockfish, widow rockfish, splitnose rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, sablefish, and shortspine thornyhead. The status of each in relation to likelihood of being above PRI is given in the following table. All primary minor stocks are highly likely to be above the point of PRI, thus the SG100 is met for this scoring issue. Stock PRI as a % of B0 2018 Status relative to B0 Arrowtooth flounder 12.5% 87% Sablefish 25% 37% Shortspine thornyhead 25% 72% Splitnose rockfish 25% 116% Yellowtail rockfish 25% 70% Widow rockfish 25% 87% Spiny dogfish 25% 63% Jack mackerel OFL=126,000mt Catch in this fishery = 101 mt

Canadian fishery There are several minor primary rockfish and other species (defined as individually comprising at least 0.01% of the catch. However this assessment has not evaluated the status of these species with respect to PRI so the SG100 is not met. Cope et al., 2015; Gertseva et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2015; PFMC, 2016d; References Sampson et al., 2017; Schirripa 2007; Stephens and Taylor 2018; Taylor and Stephens 2014 US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 87 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As mentioned under PI 2.1.1. there are no main primary species in this fishery, cation hence the SG80 is met for both US and Canada.

US Fishery The biennial harvest specifications process for assigning ABCs and OFLs, associated full catch accounting in near-real-time, and other relevant management measures for each FMP-managed species or species group comprises a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species. PFMC Operating Procedure 9 (rev. 9/18/17) describes this biennial cycle, during which eligible management measures are implemented for a two-year period and adjusted through routine in-season actions. Those management measures not eligible for implementation within the biennium can be considered for future action by the Council in June of the even years. Separate harvest specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) are identified for each year in the two-year period, based on science- based recommendations from the SSC. The fishery sectors are then allocated catch shares for each species or group based on the ACLs as the primary means of ensuring they are not exceeded. All this being the case, it does not really apply to the at-sea hake sector because this fishery does not target any species other than hake and its catch of them is very small relative to the directed groundfish fishery, to which most of this management strategy is applied. As such, the SG100 is met for this scoring issue.

Canadian Fishery The strategy in place for managing retained species is outlined in the IFMP (DFO 2018a) and Hake Management Plan (DFO 2018b). The IFMP recognizes the multispecies nature of groundfish catches in British Columbia. This plan prohibits the retention of Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), salmon, Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), sturgeons, Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii), and wolf eel (Anarrhichthys ocellatus). All other species are subject to coast-wide quotas under the individual vessel quota system (DFO 2018a), with TACs set based on sound stock assessment information, or in a precautionary way when such information is lacking. This comprises the strategy needed to achieve the SG100.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 88 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. B Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-N Justifi US Fishery cation The biennial harvest specifications process described above was implemented by the PFMC in 2003 through Amendment 17 to the groundfish FMP and has been functioning successfully ever since. As stated in PI 2.1.1., there is an extremely small amount of catch of primary species in this fishery, and the managed stocks as a whole have been within the ACLs (and OFLs) for at least the past 5 years and are appreciably above the PRI. Thus it is clear that there is an effective strategy to manage impacts to these stocks within this fishery and generally within the fishery management system. There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy for managing minor primary species will work based on some information directly about the fishery and species involved and testing supports high confidence that it is working based on information directly about the hake fishery (catch composition based on full-catch accounting). The SG100 is met for this scoring issue. Canadian Fishery There is objective basis for confidence that the strategy in the IFMP (DFO 2018a) will work, based on information directly obtained from the fishery through the 100% coverage observer program of species involved and generally good adherence to TACs. However, TACs are not always based on recent stock assessments, and although generally precautionary in the absence of stock status information, there are still stocks of concern that are not rebuilding or rebuilt. Although these are generally either not encountered or encountered in very small numbers by the offshore hake fishery (as compared with the groundfish trawl or hook and line fisheries), since all the fisheries are part of the same IFMP and TAC setting process, the 80 level is met but not the 100. C Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation There is clear evidence that the strategy in place is being implemented successfully and achieving its overall objective of ensuring that the science-based ACLs for each stock are not exceeded and evidenced by all minor primary stocks being appreciably above the point of PRI (see 1.1.1). The ACLs are set every two years

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 89 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. based on fully vetted recommendations from the SSC to ensure stocks remain highly productive. Therefore, the overall objective is being met, and a score of 100 is awarded. Canadian Fishery There is clear evidence that the strategy in place is being implemented successfully and achieving its overall objective of ensuring the TACs (generally based on sound stock assessments or precautionary in their absence) are not exceeded. In addition, there is a provision for compensating for any TAC overages that may occur in a given year (this is rare) by commensurately reducing them in the following year. 100% at-sea monitoring assures that catch accounting is accurate. The SG100 is met. D Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Shark species are encountered in relatively small numbers within this fishery (mainly spiny dogfish in very small quantities) and there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. A federal law (the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000) prohibits shark finning, where the fins are removed and the carcass is discarded. The law prohibits any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in the finning of sharks, possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act also requires NOAA Fisheries to provide Congress with an annual report describing efforts to implement the law. In addition, in January 4, 2011, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 was signed into law, amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the MSRA. The Shark Conservation Act requires that all sharks in the United States, with one exception (commercial fisheries for smooth dogfish), be brought to shore with their fins naturally attached. Moreover, several states, including California, Oregon and Washington, have shark fin laws that prohibit the possession and/or retention of shark fins (even if they are legally landed under the requirements of the Shark Conservation Act). In addition, Including pelagic shark species in the Highly Migratory Species FMP enables catches to be monitored and managed. The FMP also designates great white, megamouth, and basking sharks as prohibited species, meaning if these species are caught, they may not be retained. This discourages intentional catch and, in cases where the shark survives the interaction, reduces fishing mortality. There is no evidence in observer reports of the three prohibited species mentioned above occurring in the catch of this fishery and the high level of observer coverage and/or electronic monitoring of all catches and discards comprise comprehensive external validation that shark finning is not taking place within this fleet. Canadian Fishery Most shark species are prohibited catch, thus not retained. For any retained sharks (e.g. spiny dogfish) fishery regulations stipulate that shark carcasses must be retained in addition to fins. The number of fins must match with the number of shark carcasses. With 100% dockside validation of landings, there is a high degree of

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 90 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. certainty that shark finning is not taking place in the hake fishery. E Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? US-Not relevant US-Not relevant US-Not relevant CA-Y CA-Y CA-N Justifi There is no significant mortality of unwanted primary species catch in this fishery in cation the US or Canada, and no main primary species identified and the majority of minor primary species retained. As such, this SI is not relevant for the US fishery, and the 80SG is met for Canada. In Canada, Pacific salmon are treated as minor primary species (whereas in the US they are ETP). Although retention of Pacific salmon is prohibited in the offshore hake fishery, and catches have fluctuated without trend over the past several years, there is no biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to further reduce or minimize the UoA- related mortality of unwanted Pacific salmon species. Thus the SG100 is not met. References http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/cop9.pdf; United States of America, 2000, 2011; DFO 2018a, b US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 91 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to to assess with a high main primary species with assess the impact of the degree of certainty the respect to status. UoA on the main primary impact of the UoA on species with respect to main primary species with status. respect to status. OR

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score adeqaute to estimate PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes for information is adequate to main primary species. assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery and Canadian Fishery cation As indicated in previous PIs, there are no main primary species in this fishery. This determination is based on catch composition data generated through A-SHOP in the US, and DFO Groundfish Observer Program in Canada, both with 100% observer or EM coverage (fully quantitative). Thus the SG100 is met. B Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? US-Y CA-N Justifi US Fishery cation As described under PI2.1.1. there are a handful of minor primary species in this fishery, caught in extremely small numbers. All of these are well above PRI, and the at-sea hake fishery is a very small contributor to their overall fishing mortality. This comprises sufficient quantitative information to estimate the impact of this UoA on minor primary species with respect to status, and the SG100 is met. Canadian Fishery As indicated in PI 2.1.1. there are several minor primary species in this fishery and these are largely covered under the Groundfish IFMP. Though there is good information about removals of these stocks for the hake fishery and all other

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 92 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species commercial fisheries in Canada, this does not meet the SG100 requirement with respect to estimation of impact of the UoA on primary species with respect to status, thus the SG100 is not met. C Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US and Canadian Fisheries cation As detailed above, there are no main primary species in this assessment and a few minor primary species caught in small numbers (see PI2.1.1). 100% at-sea observer/EM coverage and full catch accounting in both countries in the hake and other groundfish fisheries means information is sufficient to understand the UoA impact on all primary species and to manage these impacts appropriately according to scientifically sound reference points and catch limits. Thus information can be considered to be adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. The SG100 is met for this scoring issue. References DFO 2018a,b; NMFS 2018b; PFMC 2016a US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 93 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi There are no main secondary species in either the US or Canadian hake fisheries. cation The combined non-hake catch in the US fishery is roughly 0.5%. In the Canadian fishery, the stock with the single highest proportion other than hake is walleye pollock (a primary species) at just over 1% of the total catch. As such the SG100 is met for both UoAs. B Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 94 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? US-N CA-N Justifi For both the US and Canada, there are a few minor secondary species as indicated cation in the Principle 2 section of the report. However, as secondary species these are not necessarily managed with biologically-based reference points. Though removals from these fisheries is small, there is not sufficient information to say with high likelihood that they are all above biologically based limits, hence the SG100 is not met. References NMFS 2018b. US-90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 95 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation As indicated above, there are no main secondary species in this assessment, hence the SG80 is met. Regarding minor secondary species (ecosystem component species in the groundfish FMP), these do not require specification of reference points and OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs but are monitored to the extent that any new pertinent scientific information becomes available (e.g., catch trends, vulnerability, etc.) to determine changes in their status or their vulnerability to the fishery. For this classification, such species should: 1. Be a non-target species or stock; 2. Not be determined to be subject to overfishing, approaching overfished, or overfished; 3. Not be likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished, according to the best available information, in the absence of conservation and management measures’ and 4. Not generally be retained for sale or personal use (PFMC 2016a). Therefore, the strategy in place for managing minor secondary species consists of regular monitoring of catches and abundance trends, and if any of the above conditions for ecosystem species classification are called into question, there is a review and possible redesignation of these stocks as individually managed within the FMP. As such, this comprises a strategy for the UoA managing minor secondary species and therefore the SG100 is met for this scoring issue.

Canadian Fishery As indicated above, there are no main secondary species in this assessment, hence the SG80 is met. Regarding minor secondary species, we have identified just American shad (introduced to the Pacific and managed only in Atlantic Canada) and squids as minor secondary species. The assessment team has deemed it unnecessary for this fishery to have an explicit management strategy in place for

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 96 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. minor secondary species in this case, as the reason there are not more secondary species is that the fishery manages the vast majority of groundfish species and thus they are primary. The SG100 is met. B Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation The process of keeping a watchful eye on ecosystem component species and redesignating them as ‘part of the fishery’ within the FMP if they fail to meet the four conditions laid out above supports high confidence that the strategy of managing these minor secondary species does work. For example, based on steadily increasing catches and higher market values, in 2015, the PFMC redesignated big skate as an individual stock ‘in the fishery’ and thus removed it from the EC portion of the FMP. This demonstrates that the above strategy for managing minor secondary species (by effectively turning them into primary species according to MSC terminology) is working. Hence the SG100 is met. Canadian Fishery The lack of secondary species in this fishery means that the vast majority of stocks fished or encountered in Pacific Canadian fisheries are managed explicitly within the IFMP, and as such there are mandated regular assessments and precautionary TACs and quotas set. This indicates that the strategy in place to capture all stocks within management is working, and the SG100 is met. C Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi For both the US and Canadian fisheries, there is clear evidence that the strategy cation for managing minor secondary species is being implemented successfully. In the US, as indicated above, the implementation of the process of keeping a watchful eye on ecosystem component species and redesignating them as ‘part of the fishery’ within the FMP if they fail to meet the four conditions laid out above shows that. For example, based on steadily increasing catches and higher market values, in 2015, the PFMC redesignated big skate as an individual stock ‘in the fishery’ and thus removed it from the EC portion of the FMP. In Canada, as stated above, the

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 97 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. active management of the vast majority of species encountered in Canadian Pacific fisheries means that there are almost no secondary species. Hence the SG100 is met. D Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi See justification under PI 2.1.2. cation E Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? N/R N/R N/R Guide There is no significant mortality of unwanted catch in this fishery in either the US or post Canada. There is a very small fraction of the catch that is not the target species, and of this the majority is retained, hence this scoring issue is not applicable. References PFMC 2018a US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 98 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main secondary species OR with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As indicated in previous PIs, there are no main secondary species in this fishery. cation This determination is based on catch composition data generated through A-SHOP in the US, and DFO Groundfish Observer Program in Canada, both with 100% observer or EM coverage (fully quantitative). Thus the SG100 is met. B Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? US-N CA-N Justifi The status of all secondary species has not been investigated by the assessment cation team in either the US or Canada, nor has the impact of this fishery relative to others. Thus the SG100 has not been met. C Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 99 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As there are no main secondary species in either the US or Canada, the SG80 is cation automatically met. Regarding information availability to manage minor secondary species, there is full catch accounting and quantitative information on the mortality to these species arising from this and all other commercial fisheries in both the US and Canada. In the US, as described above, management action is taken with regard to ecosystem component species when the need arises based on monitoring. In Canada, the vast majority of stocks/species are already captured within the IFMP, and quantitative data continues to be collected on the catch of all species in the hake fishery and other groundfish fisheries. Hence the SG100 is met for this scoring issue. References PFMC 2016a US-95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 100 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y CA-ETP rockfish-Y CA-ETP rockfish-Y CA-ETP rockfish-Y Justifi US fishery cation Pacific salmon Table 2 in the main text shows the bycatch of Chinook salmon by year for the US whiting fishery by sector (PFMC 2018b) since 2002. The fishery as a whole has remained below the 11,000 Chinook salmon threshold in all but 2005 and 2014, and in all years remained below the threshold plus reserve amount (total of 14,500 Chinook). In 2017 the at-sea sector caught 3,769 Chinook, with the shoreside and tribal sectors catching 1,394 and 577, respectively. Other MSC certified fisheries with ETP salmon interactions are the Alaska groundfish (pollock, flatfish, and Pacific cod) fisheries, the US west coast trawl fishery, and Canadian and US salmon and halibut fisheries. Most of these fisheries have their own salmon catch limits assigned and all are generally within their own caps. Moreover, according to PFMC 2018b, all groundfish fisheries on the west coast (certified or not) have consistently been within their 20,000 Chinook salmon threshold levels in the past 15 years (they were slightly above in 2003 only). Based on this information it can be said that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stocks of ETP salmon are known and highly likely to be within national (fishery by fishery) limits. And, because the combined groundfish fisheries are consistently within their limits, this can be said with a high degree of certainty as defined by MSC. Thus, a score of 100 is awarded for this scoring element.

Canadian fishery Rougheye I/II and Yelloweye rockfish Rougheye rockfish types I and II, and yelloweye rockfish are SARA listed and interact with the Canadian hake fishery. The stock status of yelloweye rockfish (Outside stock) was more likely below than above the LRP as of the 2015 stock assessment report (DFO 2015). The stock status of Rougheye types I and II are as yet unknown, though a stock assessment carried out in late 2018 is due for completion in mid-2019. For quota managed species designated as ETP, the national requirement for protection is met by adhering to a total allowable catch for all sectors mediated by IVQ and trip limits (including the MSC-certified BC halibut fishery and this hake fishery). There is a requirement to develop a management plan within 5 years for any species listed on SARA. Catch amounts are deducted upon landing from the quota. Catch accounting within Canada assures a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs (halibut and hake)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 101 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species are within these limits thus the SG100 is met. B Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-N US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-N US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-N CA-mammals-Y CA-mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-N CA-sharks, etc.-Y CA-sharks, etc.-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y Justifi US fishery cation Marine Mammals

Seabirds

Short-tailed, Black-footed, and Laysan albatrosses are all ACAP listed ETP birds with the potential to interact with this fishery. Of these, black-footed albatross were the only species observed taken on at-sea catcher processor vessels with between one and five BFALs recorded during 2010-2015. The most frequently caught non- albatross species on these vessels were northern fulmars, followed by gulls. Very rarely, one to a few individuals of nine other taxa were observed taken annually on at-sea catcher processor vessels (Jannot et al 2018a). Since 2016, observers have spent 15 minutes per day observing cables for seabird strikes on at-sea hake catcher-processor vessels. Observers monitored over 500 hauls for almost 150 hours of observation time, during which they observed 120 strikes. Observers classified 30/120 strikes as "hard" meaning they had the potential to cause mortality. There were 12 observed hard strikes of black-footed albatross. When expanded to the total amount of daytime towing in the fleet, NMFS estimated that there were likely 738 hard strikes of BFAL in the fleet in 2016. Using a conservative estimate of 12% mortality for hard strikes obtained from the scientific literature, NMFS estimated that of the 738 hard strikes of BFAL, 85 resulted in mortality. Observers only recovered two BFAL carcasses in 2016 that could be verified as cable strikes, indicating the cryptic nature of cable strike mortality. In 2017 and

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 102 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species 2018, observers continued to collect data on seabird cable strikes and NMFS is collaborating with industry to develop workable solutions to reduce cable-strike mortality (Jannot et al. 2017). Although this species is still of conservation concern, according to the American Bird Conservancy, its population trend is increasing and major fishing threats in the Pacific are identified as longline and drift gillnet fisheries (ABC 2019). Therefore, it can be said that known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP black-footed albatross, but not with a high degree of confidence. SG80 is awarded.

Miscellaneous other species Pacific Halibut, Eulachon, and Forage Fish are other prohibited or ETP species or groups that interact with the US whiting fishery, and these interactions continue to be minimal and inconsequential to the status of the respective stocks. Thus there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on other prohibited or ETP species and a 100 score is awarded.

Canadian fishery Marine mammals ETP marine mammals with the potential for interaction with this fishery include Stellar sea lions, harbor seals, and nine whale species. Marine mammals are rarely taken incidentally in the Canadian mid-water trawl hake fishery, and none were recorded in 2016 or 2017. Thus there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP marine mammals and the SG100 is awarded.

Seabirds Though no Pacific Ocean seabirds are SARA listed in Canada, the hake fishery has the potential to interact with ACAP-listed short-tailed, black-footed, and Laysan albatrosses, which are classified as ETP species according to MSC requirements. Data on interactions between the Canadian hake fishery and seabirds shows extremely low numbers (three interactions in the past 6 years of data). This provides the team with confidence that known interactions are highly unlikely to not hinder recovery of any ETP seabirds, however this data does not provide a high degree of certainty as required for SG100. This is because recorded interactions are likely not fully reflective of actual interactions, evidenced by the contrast in interaction records resulting from the dedicated seabird observer protocol in the US fishery since its inception as compared with previously.

Rockfishes Known direct effects of the offshore hake fishery on ETP rockfishes are highly likely not to hinder recovery on the basis of their small catches/landings as compared with other groundfish fisheries. However, due to the remaining uncertainty on the status of the stock complex and appropriateness of the TAC and management, there is not a high degree of certainty. The SG80 is met but not the SG100.

Sharks and other prohibited species. The following other species are either SARA-listed or prohibited by the conditions of the groundfish trawl license: Pacific halibut, green and white sturgeon, Pacific herring, basking shark, tope shark, sixgill shark, wolf-eels, shorthead sculpin, and

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 103 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species eulachon. Prohibited species cannot be retained and must be returned to the water from which caught, unharmed if possible (DF0 2017b). There is limited interaction between the hake fishery and any of these species and this is unchanged from the most recent full assessment in 2014 (Petersen et al., 2014). The SG100 is met. C Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-Y CA-mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-sharks, etc.-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y Justifi There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental cation indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. The SG100 is met for both the US and Canada.

U.S. Fishery Results of 100% fishery monitoring justifies the mid-water Hake fishery listing as a Category III fishery (remote likelihood of/ no known interactions with ETP marine mammals) by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources (NMFS 2018c), thus indirect impacts through disturbance to foraging or other behaviour is highly unlikely. The PFMC adopted the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), the Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix, and a schedule for implementation (PFMC 2018c). The purpose of the FEP is to enhance the PFMC’s species-specific management programs with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations and management policies that coordinate PFMC management across its Fishery Management Plans and the California Current Ecosystem. These activities are providing best available science to inform managers of any indirect effects of the fishery. Analysis by Kaplan et al. (2012) suggests that the Hake mid-water trawl fishery has impacts primarily only on its target and bycatch species; few indirect effects from the fleet extended through predator-prey links to other parts of the food web.

Canadian Fishery The Strategic Program for Ecosystem-Based Research and Advice (SPERA) continues to support research projects and scientific tool development that support national priorities for managing ecosystems in domestic waters (DFO 2018a). Projects address key issues, such as scientific guidance on the avoidance of benthic impacts; science support for mitigating by-catch and tools to help manage biological diversity in Canadian waters. Analysis by Kaplan et al. (2012) suggests

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 104 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species that the Hake mid-water trawl fishery has impacts primarily only on its target and bycatch species; few indirect effects from the fleet extended through predator-prey links to other parts of the food web. References American Bird Conservancy 2019; Jannot et. al 2017; 2018a, 2018b, 2018c; Kaplan et al 2012; Petersen et al., 2014. PFMC 2018b. US-95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 105 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP and international above national and species. requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP for the protection of ETP species. species. Met? US-all groups-Y US-all groups-Y US-all groups-N CA-all groups-Y CA-all groups-Y CA-all groups-N Justifi US Fishery cation Generally, here is a strategy in place to manage the UoA’s impacts on ETP species. This strategy is designed to minimize ETP species mortality by the UoA and is highly likely to achieve national and international requirements and to ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery. The FMP outlines how it manages interactions with ETP species and works to limit such interactions, including measures that have established conservation zones and have implemented gear restrictions and time/area closures to reduce bycatch of ETP species. The FMP also states that the UoA shall follow the numerous requirements laid out by the ESA and MMPA.

Specifically regarding Pacific salmon, in 2013, NMFS re-initiated ESA consultation about the impacts of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery (including the Pacific hake fishery) on ESA-listed salmonids. In September 2015, the PFMC provided guidance to NMFS about the groundfish fishery to inform the analysis for and development of the new Biological Opinion (BiOp). In December 2017, NMFS published the new ESA salmon BiOp.

Under the previous BiOp, exceeding the Chinook thresholds required re- consultation. The new BiOp explicitly states that NMFS will act to avoid exceeding the threshold, including fishery closure. Moreover, the new BiOp states that the Council and NMFS will review and develop mechanisms to prevent exceeding the coho salmon thresholds of 474 coho salmon for the whiting sector and 560 coho for the non-whiting sector, which are the historical maximums. Unlike the exceedance of the Chinook salmon thresholds and reserve, exceedance of the coho salmon guidelines alone will result in re-consultation.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 106 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Subsequently, NMFS and the GMT reported at the November 2018 PFMC about additional management measures that could be considered for future implementation to ensure compliance with the BiOp’s Incidental Take Statement (ITS) (PFMC 2018a). Regarding non-ESA-listed black-footed albatross (ETP by ACAP designation), NMFS is collaborating with industry to develop workable solutions to reduce cable- strike mortality (Jannot et al. 2018c). Although this species is still of conservation concern, according to the American Bird Conservancy, its population trend is increasing and major fishing threats in the Pacific are identified as longline and drift gillnet fisheries (ABC 2019).

Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. While there are comprehensive strategies in place, they are not always designed to achieve above national and international requirements so SG100 is not met, although it should be noted that the authority to close the hake fishery upon exceedance of the Chinook salmon threshold represents a considerable strengthening of this particular strategy and is one of the most precautionary strategies to ensure a fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP salmon in the country.

Canadian fishery

All SARA schedule 1 species have recovery strategies developed that include short-term and long-term goals for protection and recovery (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Action plans are developed within a year of listing for endangered species and two years for threatened or extirpated species. Management plans may also be developed that set goals and objectives for maintaining sustainable population levels for species that are particularly vulnerable to environmental factors and incorporate an ecosystem management approach. Canadian vessels are required to fill out a special logbook for SARA listed species if they are encountered during fishing operations. DFO has increased efforts by Conservation and Protection officers to enforce compliance. Another source of information is DFO’s fishery observer database. Catch accounting in the BC fisheries is monitored in great detail and audited by third party independent contractors.

Of the listed species, catch monitoring shows that the fishery encounters on occasion but at low levels Steller sea lions, harbour porpoise, basking shark, bluntnose six gill shark, and tope shark. No mortality limits are set for these species, but the fisheries are required to minimize encounters. Monitoring demonstrates that the fishery rarely encounters these species. These Cetaceans (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/cetacean-cetaces/index- eng.html) and Pinnipeds (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals- mammiferes/pinnipeds-pinnipedes/index-eng.html) are protected by regulations and by SARA. An assessment of Basking shark was conducted by COSEWIC as part of it is listing recommendation process and a recovery strategy was finalized in 2011 (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=977#ot18). The management plan for Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and Tope Shark is available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1569 There are negligible recorded interactions with any seabirds (see Table 12).

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 107 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

The fishery encounters and retains rougheye rockfish Types I and II, and yelloweye rockfish, both quota management species. For these species, the strategy includes a TAC, IVQ to prevent overages/wastage, and 100% verified catch information through EM and dockside monitoring (DFO 2018).

While there are comprehensive strategies in place, they are not always designed to achieve above national and international requirements so SG100 is not met. B Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure ETP species. ETP species. the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant since there are national and international requirements in place for cation most ETP species. Therefore, all ETP species are assessed under SI a since either SI a or b is scored. C Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general measures/strategy will on information directly experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-N US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-N US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-N CA rockfishes-N CA-mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA-mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-N CA-sharks, etc.-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc.-Y Justifi US Fishery cation There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. The UoA has had little or no bycatch of ETP species, showing that the strategy has worked and will likely continue to work. Further, the strategy is based on information directly

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 108 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. about the fishery and the ETP species involved. Measures, such as individual catch limits (for salmon), area closures, and other operational practices as applicable, are done with the UoA and species in mind to ensure intended bycatch minimization and/or recovery goals are met, and a quantitative analysis available on fishery/ETP species interactions as well as analysis of ETP species status and recovery trajectory for most species supports a score of 100 for ETP mammals, and other prohibited species. However, for seabirds, SG100 is not met since the process of understanding and mitigating impact to ACAP-listed Black-footed albatross is still ongoing, and there is therefore not high confidence that it will work. The SG80 but not 100 is met for seabirds. . For Pacific salmon, the SG100 is also not met because although the strategy in place are likely to work in terms of effectively limiting the impact of the hake fishery on ETP Pacific salmon stocks, there is no quantitative analysis available to support high confidence that this strategy will work, particularly as some salmon stocks continue to fail to meet escapement goals and remain ESA listed.

Canadian Fishery SARA recovery strategies http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm aim to: Describe the particular species and its needs; • identify threats to survival; • classify the species’ critical habitat, where possible; • provide examples of activities that are likely to result in destruction of the critical habitat; • set goals, objectives and approaches for species recovery; • identify information gaps that should be addressed; and state when one or more action plans relating to the strategy will be completed

In general, the strategies achieve these guidelines and the interactions between the fishery and ETP species is minimal. However, for ETP rougheye rockfish types I and II, it is not yet possible to determine if the current TAC/quota management of this stock will work to allow rebuilding, as the results of the stock assessment and subsequent management review for this stock is not yet available (expected mid- 2019; DFO 2018c). Hence the SG80 is not met for ETP rockfishes (rougheye).

In addition, in relation to ETP seabirds, SARA logbook data provides data about the fishery sufficient for an objective basis of confidence that the strategy to ensure the hake fishery is not hindering their recovery will work. However, as mentioned previously, there is not a quantitative analysis of this data that provides high confidence, due to the lack of specific observer protocol for seabird leading to uncertainty in the SARA logbook records. The SG80 is met but not SG100 (irrelevant for the Canadian UoA because rockfishes do not meet the 80 anyway). D Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 109 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-N US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-N US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-N CA mammals-Y CA-mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-N CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc.-Y Justifi US fishery cation There is clear evidence that the strategies in place to manage and mitigate impacts of the hake fishery on marine mammal and other prohibited species is being implemented successfully and achieving their objectives. The main evidence is in lack of interactions supported by 100% catch accounting. For Pacific salmon and ACAP-listed black-footed albatross (seabird) the SG100 is not met. For salmon, although the strategy is clearly being implemented successfully, there is not clear evidence that it is achieving its objective because some salmon stocks continue to fail to meet escapement goals and remain ESA listed. Though the offshore hake fishery is only one of many factors in the rebuilding of ESA-listed salmon stocks, it is not clearly insignificant enough to allow for a score of 100 in this scoring issue. For black-footed albatross, evidence exists in that the population of this seabird is increasing (ABC 2019) that the strategy to mitigate impacts is being implemented successfully. However, information gathering and impact-mitigation strategies are still in progress so it is too soon to tell if they will achieve the objective of further minimizing the impacts of this fishery. Hence the SG80 is met for salmon and seabirds, but not the SG100.

Canadian fishery

SARA recovery strategies http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm aim to: • describe the particular species and its needs; • identify threats to survival; • classify the species’ critical habitat, where possible; • provide examples of activities that are likely to result in destruction of the critical habitat; • set goals, objectives and approaches for species recovery; • identify information gaps that should be addressed; and • state when one or more action plans relating to the strategy will be completed.

In general, the strategies achieve these guidelines. Measures to monitor interactions are required, 100% discard requirements are in place for many species, and measures to minimize impacts are in place. For ETP rockfish, there is evidence

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 110 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. that the TAC-based strategies are being implemented successfully. The high level of monitoring provides evidence on these measures and interactions. Thus, there is evidence of successful implementation and the SG80 is met for all groups. For all groups but rockfish and seabirds, the SG100 is also met with clear evidence that the strategies are being implemented successfully and achieving their objectives. See scoring issue C for a description of the situation with regard to rougheye rockfish. For seabirds, quantitative evidence suggests there is very little interaction between this fishery and ETP birds. However, this contrasts strongly with the data from the US seabird observer program, which indicates that the evidence presented from the SARA logbooks may not constitute “clear evidence” as required by the SG100, as the observer program as currently deployed may not be recording all interactions. E Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-N/R CA-N/R CA-N/R Justifi US Fishery cation Every two years the PFMC develops its biennial specifications and management measures, considering the overlap of target stocks and protected stocks when selecting bycatch minimization measures, and the implementation process can be initiated at any time. New measures are developed through either the PFMC’s harvest specifications and management measures rulemaking process or its full rulemaking process. This is particularly relevant for Pacific salmon species where there is an ongoing process for management and mitigation of interactions with this fishery. Therefore, SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery This scoring issue is not relevant for the Canadian fishery. Where limits exist, interactions with ETP species are very small and well within these limits. For other ETP species, interactions are already very rare. References ABC 2019; DFO 2018c; Jannot et. al, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; PFMC 2018a; SARA recovery strategies: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm US-90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 111 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate available to assess with a UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA high degree of certainty ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries OR a threat to protection and and the consequences recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI species. species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-N US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-N CA mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-N CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate mortalities from the Pacific Hake fishery and outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty resulting from 100% observer coverage of the fishery which document occurrence of ETP species, and additionally the newly implemented seabird observer protocol. Information was sufficient for NMFS NWR Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) to complete consultation with Protected Resources Division (PRD) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA on the effects of the operation of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery in 2012 on most of the ETP under the PRD jurisdiction. PRD published a Biological Opinion on February 9, 2012, documenting their findings. In the Opinion, NMFS concluded that operation of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery (including the Pacific Hake fishery) in 2012) was not likely to jeopardize the continued

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 112 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. existence of ETP under the PRD jurisdiction. Only Chinook salmon occurs in the Hake fishery at above near-zero levels, and stock status of Chinook is regularly quantitatively estimated and reviewed by the PFMC. Observer date show near-zero catch of other ETP species (except black-footed albatross), and a determination by NFMS OPR that no Hake-specific measures are required for protection of these species.

The USFWS and NMFS are working on a Memorandum of Understanding concerning seabirds. Until and unless the Memorandum of Understanding describes measures for the Pacific Hake fishery necessary for migratory bird protection, none are currently required of the fishery. Regarding interactions with ACAP listed black-footed albatross, although research is ongoing to determine the degree of impact from the hake fishery and identify possible mitigation measures, it is clear that the populations of this bird are increasing (ABC 2019), thus the SG80 is met but not the SG100.

Canadian Fishery Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty for most ETP species, resulting from 100% at sea coverage of the fishery (DFO 2018a), which documents occurrence of ETP species (e.g. Appendix Table 2). SARA establishes a process for conducting scientific assessments of the status of individual wildlife species and a mechanism for listing extirpated, endangered, threatened and special-concern species. SARA also includes provisions for the protection, recovery and management of listed wildlife species and their critical habitats and residences. Assessments and action plans for listed species can be found in the SARA Registry at URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/recovery/action_e.cfm. However, for rougheye rockfish types I and II, while quantitative data is sufficient to estimate UoA related mortality, there is not yet enough information to say with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for its status, thus the SG100 is not met. The same is true for seabirds in Canada where seabird interactions are rarely reported and likely to be low, but where there is also not a dedicated seabird observer protocol as has recently been implemented in the US fishery, therefore confidence in the data records is not as high as for the US fishery. B Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y US-Pacific salmon-Y

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 113 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-mammals-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-seabirds-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y US-other prohib-Y

CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-Y CA rockfishes-N CA mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA mammals-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-Y CA-seabirds-N CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y CA-sharks, etc-Y Justifi For both countries, information is sufficient to measure trends and support a cation strategy to manage impacts on all of the ETP species/groups identified in this assessment. As has been stated several times, removals and interactions are well documented through 100% observer coverage, and there is regular analysis of trends in population statuses of ETP species as designated in both jurisdictions, and internationally, often with an accompanying management strategy requiring avoidance and catch limitations (e.g. salmon and rockfishes), hence the SG80 is met. However, biological data is not sufficient for rougheye rockfish in Canada to say with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective. The same is true for seabirds in Canada where seabird interactions are rarely reported, but where there is also not a dedicated seabird observer protocol as has recently been implemented in the US fishery. Hence the SG 100 is not met for seabirds or ETP rockfishes in Canada. References ABC 2019; DFO 2018a US-95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-90 RECOMMENDATION: Noting the increase in observed interactions with seabirds, notably Blackfooted albatross, in the US fishery since the inception of the dedicated seabird observer program, the assessment team would have greater confidence in the veracity of SARA-logbook data regarding seabird interactions if a similar program were in place in the Canadian fishery.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 114 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation As this is a pelagic trawl fishery, the most commonly encountered habitat is pelagic, and bottom contact is infrequent. As noted in the previous full assessment, in the US, As part of EFH considerations, the Council adopts mitigation measures directed at the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH. Principal among these are closed areas to protect sensitive habitats. There are three types of closed areas: bottom trawl closed areas, bottom contact closed areas, and a bottom trawl footprint closure. The 34 bottom trawl closed areas are closed to all types of bottom trawl fishing gear. The bottom trawl footprint closure closes areas in the EEZ between 1,280 meters (700 fathoms) and 3,500 meters (1,094 fathoms), which is the outer extent of groundfish EFH. The 17 bottom contact closed areas are closed to all types of bottom contact gear intended to make contact with bottom during fishing operations, which includes fixed gear, such as longline and pots. In the most recent EFH process, the PFMC and NMFS did not feel it was necessary to exclude mid-water trawling to protect essential fish habitat. The SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery As this is a pelagic trawl fishery, the most commonly encountered habitat is pelagic, and bottom contact is infrequent. DFO has reviewed literature and provided advice on the susceptibility of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents to fishing impacts as well as their potential for recovery once impacted (Curtis et al., 2013) and has established a network of areas closed to all bottom contacting fisheries as well as some areas closed to all fishing. The midwater This is sufficient to meet the SG100 for this fishery. B VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 115 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi The VMEs within the managed areas in the US and Canada include deep sea cation corals, sponges, sea pens, and seamounts. However, this is a pelagic trawl fishery and as such bottom contact is infrequent. Pertaining to seamounts specifically, The UoAs do not fish on seamounts so there is evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of seamounts. There is similar evidence that the Canadian fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. As in the U.S., DFO permits mid-water trawling in 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas and Coral and Sponge Habitat off the west coast of Canada because mid-water trawling has negligible impact on benthic rockfish species and their habitat that the RCAs are intended to protect (DFO 2013b).Therefore, the SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met for this scoring issue. C Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? US-Y CA-Y Justifi As stated above, the pelagic nature of this fishery and demonstrated negligible cation impacts to habitats in both the US and Canada means that there is evidence that these UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of “minor” habitats to the point of serious or irreversible harm and the SG100 is met. References PFMC, 2016, 2018 DFO 2013b; Curtis et al., 2013 US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 116 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi In the US, the Pacific Council considered EFH and developed comprehensive cation strategies for managing fishing impacts on EFH (PFMC 2014b). The strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types is to specify that only mid-water or pelagic trawl gear is required for the directed Hake fishery. Mid-water trawl gear components only make bottom contact infrequently (NMFS, 2005). The 100% observer coverage of the fishery will provide data that will be used to detect any increased risk to habitat types. If such an increased risk were detected, it would be submitted to the PFMC process for development and implementation of management measures. Similarly, in Canada only mid-water or pelagic trawl gear can be used for the directed Hake fishery. DFO permits mid-water trawling in 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas and Coral and Sponge Habitat off the west coast of Canada because mid water trawling has negligible impact on these key benthic habitats (DFO 2013b). The 100% at sea coverage would detect any increased risk to habitat types. The main strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types is described in Risk-based assessment framework to identify priorities for ecosystem-based oceans management in the Pacific Region (CSAC 2012a). B Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi In the US the PFMC has a process for regular review and modification of their cation EFHs. After completion of a periodic EFH review in 2014, the PFMC determined that the consideration of changes to groundfish EFH was warranted given new information (e.g., substrate type, species rebuilding numbers) and initiated a process to develop alternatives. A multi-year process of reviewing and modifying EFHCAs and RCAs as part of the Amendment 28 to the groundfish FMP is near completion, and the changes will be implemented in mid/late 2019. As part of this review, additional areas are being closed, but some are also being reopened, but the hake midwater trawl fishery is still unaffected due to the pelagic nature of the fishery. The PFMC’s system is responsive to changing information about the UoA and habitats as more is known about impacts, habitat location, etc. Therefore, it is

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 117 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. concluded that testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, meeting the SG60, SG80, and SG100. In Canada, closing areas to fishing, even if they have been fished before to allow them to recover, is an effective management strategy (Jamieson and Davies, 2004; Kaiser et al, 2006). DFO considering the effectiveness of connectivity between MPAs also reduces risk to habitat types by careful spatial planning and resource impacts on habitats. The BC EEZ is rich in several resources with many industries interested in utilizing them. Spatial planning and monitoring is an effective tool for ensuring the long-term use of several resources. Several surveys and ROV surveys have been completed to test the impacts of fishing gear (DFO 2013g) and to understand changes over time. Regarding management measures, the fishery meets the SG100. C Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi Canadian fishery: cation DFO follows the Habitat Policy requirements through collecting information, conducting risk assessments (e.g., Boutillier 2016; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/risk-ecolo-risque-eng.htm), determining management measures (DFO 2018), and monitoring and evaluating effectiveness (DFO 2018).

All groundfish vessels, whether fishing for hake or other species, are required to log several aspects of fishing activities including fishing location and details on sets. Information is transmitted from a GPS system. If the Electronic Monitoring system on the vessel (video and GPS) is not working, the fisher must cease fishing activity. Records from vessel activity are clear evidence that the strategies regarding fishing locations and adhering to spatial and temporal closures (few of which apply to the midwater hake fishery) are being implemented successfully.

The well-constructed strategy plus documented implementation of requirements by the fishery meet the SG100. D Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 118 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As mentioned previously, there is extensive monitoring and management of fishing cation impacts to all habitats, VME or otherwise. There is also 100% monitoring of fishing activity in the hake fleet in both the US and Canada such that it is clearly evident that they are complying with any requirements pertaining to protections to VME habitats. In this situation, there are no other protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC or non-MSC fisheries, so this part of the scoring issue is not relevant in either the US or Canada. The SG100 is met. DFO 2013; Jamieson and Davies, 2004; Kaiser et al., 2006; DFO 2018; Jamieson and Chew, 2002; Boutillier 2016; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports- References rapports/regs/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm#n2.1; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpabc-cbzpm/page04-eng.html; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/risk-ecolo-risque-eng.htm; Bellman et al., 2005; PFMC 2016a, 2018k US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 119 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Extensive data are available on main and minor habitat types and VMEs. The locations of these habitats are known across the UoA’s managed area (i.e., the EEZ), which is an appropriate level of detail for the UoA’s scale and intensity. A great deal of information is also known about the nature and vulnerability of these habitats, including recoverability and composition. The fishing footprint and effort data cover 2011-2015, which help determine those habitats vulnerable to fishing impacts and those habitats needing protection (NMFS 2015). This information is considered sufficient to score SG100 for the US fishery, particularly given that this is a pelagic fishery with very limited habitat impact. Therefore, the SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery For the Canadian hake fishery (and all other Canadian commercial fisheries), the location and distribution of fishing operations is well documented. DFO has developed criteria for identifying ecologically and biologically significant areas, which serves as a tool for calling attention to an area that has particularly high Ecological or Biological Significance to facilitate provision of a greater-than-usual degree of risk aversion in management of activities in such areas (DFO 2004, DFO 2011). In 2012, using the criteria outlined, DFO identified proposed Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the marine waters of British Columbia and outlined next steps to improve identification (DFO, 2013b).

DFO has also produced a summary of the current knowledge of cold water corals in British Columbia (Jamieson and Davis 2004). The paper summarizes the current

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 120 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. state of knowledge about the cold water corals in British Columbia. The paper provides a list of Pacific Canada’s known coral species and potential species based on records from adjacent jurisdictions is presented, along with maps derived from existing records showing all currently known locations of corals in British Columbia. The report documents five Orders, 24 Families and 61 species of corals from British Columbian waters, but an additional Order, three Families and 50 species may also occur in British Columbia, as these species have been documented from areas adjacent to British Columbia, i.e., south-east Alaska, Gulf of Alaska sea mounts and Washington/Oregon.

DFO has reviewed literature and provided advice on the susceptibility of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents to fishing impacts as well as their potential for recovery once impacted (Curtis et al., 2013).

Therefore, the distribution of habitats is well known, including vulnerable habitats, such that the fishery meets the SG100. B Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? US-Y US-Y US-N CA-Y CA-Y CA-N Justifi US fishery cation The fishing footprint and effort data cover 2011-2015 for the catch shares portion of the UoA. This portion is also subject to 100% observer coverage. The NMFS database includes observer data, trawl surveys, etc. All of these data sources help identify habitats within the managed area and the main impacts on those habitats. Spatial data from the UoA assist in evaluating the extent and type of habitat affected by fishing disturbances. Therefore, the team concludes that there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The SG60 and SG80 are met. The SG100 is not met since, though likely negligible, the impacts on all habitats have not been quantified fully.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 121 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

Canadian fishery DFO has reviewed literature and provided advice on the susceptibility of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents to fishing impacts as well as their potential for recovery once impacted (Curtis et al., 2013). There is also complete quantitative information about the location and timing of the hake fishery.

Therefore, sufficient data exist to identify the habitats, the impacts of the fishery on the habitats, and the distribution of the fishery relative to the habitat. This meets the SG80. Though expected to be negligible, quantification of impacts has not occurred, so the fishery does not meet the SG100. C Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-N Justifi US fishery cation New information on relationships between groundfish and habitat type, advances in seafloor mapping and habitat classification, and ongoing changes in fishery management contribute to scientific analyses and management. Reopenings of previously closed EFHs were based on new information about substrate type, species rebounding numbers, etc. New closures were based on new information about habitat locations. This data will be available two years after these now closures are implemented, and a full EFH review occurs every 5 years and any future changes to EFHCAs will use the data that continue to be collected and analyzed. This is sufficient to meet the SG100 for this scoring issue.

Canadian fishery The monitoring program collects fishing locations by vessel and gear, such that the management system can track changes in distribution in fishing effort relative to the distribution of habitat. This monitoring also allows detection of vessels intruding into MPA or other closed areas. This allows an opportunity to detect an increase in risk to habitat. This meets the SG80. However, surveys of habitats to detect changes in distribution over time do not occur, so the fishery does not meet the SG100. References Jamieson and Davis 2004; DFO 2004, 2011, 2013b; Curtis et al., 2013; Bellman et al., 2005; NMFS, 2015, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; PFMC 2018k US-95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 122 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to a ecosystem structure and elements underlying point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Partial Justifi US Fishery cation The Pacific Groundfish FMP’s Amendment 24 designated ecosystem component species (species that are not actively managed, targeted, or generally retained), and Amendment 25 added several lower trophic level species to that list. Consistent with the objectives of the PFMC’s FMPs and FEP, Amendment 25 prohibits development of directed commercial fisheries of these species until and unless the PFMC has had adequate opportunity to assess relevant scientific information and consider potential impacts on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the greater marine ecosystem.

Through these various assessments and plans (i.e., stock assessments, CCIEAs, environmental impact statements, FEPs, and FMPs), the PFMC considers different aspects of the overall ecosystem. It is clear that the UoA’s impacts on the ecosystem are taken seriously, that appropriate research is being developed, and that the research outputs are taken into account in the consideration of management actions. These assessments and plans consider the UoA’s impact on the overall ecosystem and take management steps to protect the ecosystem (e.g., closed areas, amendments). Based on this information and Kaplan et al (2012), the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key issues underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm and the SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery The northern boundary of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE) is defined as the northern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Levin and Schwing, 2011). Field et al. (2006), however, demonstrated the northern boundary of the CCE is not static at the northern tip of Vancouver Island, but fluctuates north or south depending on La Niña and El Niño conditions. In relation to the ecosystem effect of fisheries in most of the Canadian waters, the evidence presented above for the US summarizes the status of empirical indicators of the principle prey and predator species of Pacific Hake, and of other ecosystem components that are affected by the Hake fishery. Since these indicators are measured throughout the Hake range, except for a small amount of fishing that occurs north of the CCE, this satisfies the requirements because “fishery impacts on ecosystem structure and function” are now known and “available data on the consequences of removal of the target species” demonstrate there are likely negligible fishery impacts on ecosystem

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 123 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. structure and function within key fishing areas.

Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the best available information indicates that there are no unacceptable fishery impacts on ecosystem structure and function within key fishing areas within the CCE.

Given that about 90% of the Canadian fishery occurs in the CCE, and that the Canadian fleet is similar to the US fleet and operates in a similar manner, much of the US research in the CCE will apply to Canada. However, Canada has presented no studies to specifically complement the US CCE studies to confirm that the Canadian fleet has the same impacts as the US fleet; the team considered that this represents partial evidence. For the small portion of Pacific hake range in the transition zone north of the CCE, Crawford and Irvine (2010, 2011) report minimal fishing impacts on the marine ecosystem of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), which encompasses approximately 102,000 km2 from the edge of the continental shelf east to the British Columbia mainland, and from the British Columbia-Alaska border south to Bute Inlet on the mainland, across to Campbell River on the east side of Vancouver Island and the Brooks Peninsula (50 mi S of Cape Scott) on the west side of Vancouver Island. The SG100 is partially met. References Kaplan 2012; Crawford and Irvine 2010, 2011; Levin and Schwing 2011; Field et al. 2006; PFMC 2013a, 2016a US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 124 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements of information and is main impacts of the the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Section 1.4 of the 2013 Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) outlines a reporting process wherein NOAA provides the Council with a yearly update on the state of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), as derived from environmental, biological and socio-economic indicators. NOAA’s California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) team is responsible for this report. The highlights of the team’s 5th report (PFMC 2018c), which covers 2017 are shown in section 3.6.3 of this report.

Canada

The SPERA funds projects by DFO researchers which:

4. Assess the ecosystem impacts of human activities; 5. Assess and report on ecosystems and 6. Develop tools to implement the ecosystem approach to management.

Ongoing research supported by SPERA during 2016 (DFO 2017a) includes:

• Understanding the impact of a changing climate on interactions between Pacific sardine and Pacific herring populations in British Columbia

• Rapid screening tool for marine fish based on the Australian Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF).

• Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 125 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

• Future hypoxia in British Columbia. This project will provide graphs of oxygen concentration and use historical data to assess the relative contributions of the two regions to predict future oxygen concentration trends in BC.

• Evaluation of historical multivariate datasets to identify changes in biodiversity, species distribution, behaviour, abundance, and interaction in response to environmental forcing in a marine ecosystem.

On this basis, for both countries, there is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem and the SG100 is met. B Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As explained in section 3.6.3 and in the rationale for PI2.5.1, there is evidence that cation the hake fisheries in the US and Canada are not adversely impacting the structure and function of the underlying ecosystem in which they operate. Moreover, as explained in the rationale for scoring issue A, there is a strategy that consists of a plan and regular monitoring and evaluation of the status of this ecosystem and changes impacting it. Therefore, testing (experience, monitoring, and positive outcome) supports high confidence that this strategy is working based on information directly about the ecosystem and the UoAs, and the SG100 is met for both the US and Canada. C Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi As explained in section 3.6.3 and the rationale supporting the scores in PI2.5.1, cation there is evidence that the hake fisheries in the US and Canada are not adversely impacting the structure and function of the underlying ecosystem in which they operate. Moreover, as explained in the rationale for scoring issue A, there is a strategy that consists of a plan and regular monitoring and evaluation of the status of this ecosystem and changes impacting it, and a clear history of management

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 126 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. action being taken where necessary based on this monitoring. Therefore, for both the US and Canada, this comprises clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). References Kaplan 2012; Crawford and Irvine 2010, 2011; Levin and Schwing 2011; Field et al. 2006; PFMC 2013a 2016a US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 127 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information quality Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi For both UoAs, information is adequate to broadly understand the key issues as cation provided in studies of the Ecosystem (CCE) Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) (NOAA Fisheries 2019) and Kaplan et al. (2012). B Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? US-Y US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem issues can be inferred from the Ecosystem (CCE) Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) (NOAA Fisheries 2019) and Kaplan et al. (2012). Results suggest Hake mid-water trawl primarily has direct impacts on its target and bycatch species. Few indirect effects from the fleet extended through predator–prey links to other parts of the food web, but the few include increases in krill, small planktivores, large piscivorous flatfish, Dover sole, shortbelly rockfish, and shrimp.

Canadian Fishery Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem issues can be inferred from information developed for the US fishery. These interactions have been investigated and taken into account during the IFMP (DFO 2018a) development processes.

The SG100 is met for both UoAs. C Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 128 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi High scores and accompanying rationales for both the US and Canadian fisheries cation in Principle 1 and Principle 2 components 1-4 demonstrate that the impacts of the UoA on Principle 1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species, and habitats are identified. The main functions of these components in the ecosystem are also understood in both countries through periodic (e.g. Kaplan et. Al 2012) and ongoing research through the US FEP and CCIEA processes, and Canadian SPERA process. Thus the SG100 is met. D Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-N Justifi US Fishery cation The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Harvest Specifications And Management Measures For The 2017-2018 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery (PMFC 2018d) describes impacts of the fishery on these Components. The FEP (PFMC 2013d) describes impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem issues. These allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred and the SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery The IFMP (DFO 2018a) describes impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Because specific ecosystem studies for the Canadian Hake fishery comparable to those of the US, it is not clear that the extension of the US results reach the SG100 level. E Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate to post to be collected to detect support the development any increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? US-Y US-Y CA-Y CA-Y Justifi US Fishery cation Section 1.4 of the 2013 Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) outlines a reporting process wherein NOAA provides the Council with a yearly update on the state of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), as derived from environmental, biological and socio-economic indicators. NOAA’s California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) team is responsible for this report. The highlights of the team’s 5th report (PFMC 2018c), which covers 2017 are shown in section 3.6.3 of this report. Thus the SG100 is met.

Canadian Fishery

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 129 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. SG60 – NA SG80 – The Science Advisory Report (DFO 2012a) resulting from a peer review of the framework for considering risks of multiple activities to ecosystem components has been published as has the identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) (DFO 2012b). Research papers summarizing the details of both the risk framework and the EBSA evaluation are not yet published. References PFMC 2018c; NOAA Fisheries 2019; DFO 2012b, 2018a US-100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CA-95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 130 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi The bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada known as the cation Pacific Whiting Treaty remains the controlling framework for international management of the Pacific hake fishery. Under the agreement an annual TAC is set. The TAC is allocated to the American and Canadian fisheries according to set percentages specified in the agreement. Management takes place through a Joint Management Committee (JMC), a Joint Technical Committee (JTC), and Advisory Panel (AP) (NOAA Fisheries WC Region 2019). The decision and advisory structure is stable.

Once the TAC is allocated to the United States and Canada the management of Pacific hake fisheries is conducted under the respective national jurisdictions and statutory authorities which have remained unchanged since the previous reassessment. Both Canada and the U.S. have effective national legal systems that contain frameworks for cooperation and have demonstrated organized and effective coordination with other parties. Both systems contain binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties that deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The U.S. and Canada fisheries each meet the SG100 requirements. B Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the context effective in dealing with of the fishery and has most issues and that is been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 131 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi U.S. federal regulatory requirements and PFMC operating structures and cation procedures remain unchanged since the previous assessment. Earlier legal challenges to the trawl individual quota program and the allocation of Pacific whiting to the Makah Tribe in accordance with its treaty rights have been resolved. The PFMC and NMFS have been responsive to court decisions in each of these matters. Dispute resolution mechanisms have remained stable and unchanged since the previous assessment.

The Canadian management structure, advisory processes and operating procedures are stable. Dispute resolution processes are transparent and effective, taking place through established processes of the DFO and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard. Dispute resolution mechanisms have remained stable and unchanged since the previous assessment.

The U.S. and Canada fisheries each meet the SG100 requirements. C Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Legal rights of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood are formally cation recognized by the governments of the U.S. and Canada. The legal mechanisms in place recognizing fishing rights of Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes in the U.S. (50 CFR 660.50) and First Nations with treaty rights in Canada (DFO 2007; DFO 2018a) remain unchanged since the previous assessment.

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. References 50 CFR §660.50; DFO 2007, 2018a; NOAA Fisheries WC Region 2019 US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 132 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi There have been no changes since the previous re-assessment in the identification, cation definition, functions, roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals involved in management processes.

At the international level organizations and individuals involved in the management process are identified in the U.S. – Canada Agreement on Pacific Hake (U.S. Government Printing Office 2004.)

The U.S. system identifies these entities through statute and through documents describing advisory bodies and decision processes. These documents are updated annually (PFMC 2019a; 2019b).

The Canadian system identifies these entities through the Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish (DFO 2018a) and the Offshore Pacific Hake Harvest Plan (DFO 2018b). Both documents are updated annually.

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. B Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 133 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Management system consultation processes are unchanged from the previous re- cation assessment. Management systems at the international and national levels include consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, demonstrate consideration of the information and explain decision outcomes.

At the international level the U.S. – Canada Agreement on Pacific Hake/Whiting requires open meetings, stakeholder participation, distribution of information about meetings outcomes (U.S. Government Printing Office 2004.)

The US system conducts consultation through the PFMC process and distributes information through that same process as well as through industry organizations (PFMC 2019a; 2019b).

The Canadian system conducts regular consultation through its meeting processes and employs mechanisms for distribution of information about decision outcomes (DFO 2018a; 2018b).

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. C Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity all interested and affected and encouragement for parties to be involved. all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes Justifi Management system consultation processes are unchanged from the previous re- cation assessment. Management systems at the international and national levels provide opportunities and encouragement for effective stakeholder engagement.

At the international level the U.S. – Canada Agreement on Pacific Hake/Whiting encourages stakeholder engagement through the requirement for open meetings and stakeholder participation (U.S. Government Printing Office 2004.)

The US system provides opportunity and encouragement for stakeholder engagement through the PFMC process (PFMC 2019a; 2019b).

The Canadian system provides opportunity and encouragement for stakeholder engagement through its regular meeting processes (DFO 2018a; 2018b).

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 134 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties References DFO 2018a, 2018b; PFMC 2019a, 2019b; U.S. Government Printing Office 2004 US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 135 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi At international and national levels there are explicit long-term objectives that guide cation decision-making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach.

Under the Pacific Whiting Treaty the set of management principles recommended by the JTC and adopted in 2014 by the Joint Management Committee (JMC) continue to be in place (JTC 2013b): • Manage the Pacific Whiting resource utilizing the best available science in a precautionary and sustainable manner. • Maintain a healthy stock status across a range of recruitment events and consider total allowable catch levels that spread the harvest of strong cohorts over multiple years. • Manage the fishery resource in a manner that aims to provide the best long-term benefits to the Parties. • Manage the fishery to ensure that each country has the opportunity to receive the intended benefits contemplated in the treaty. • These management principles are dynamic and shall be reviewed annually by the JMC and the AP to ensure they remain valid.

A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) was initiated in 2013 for the purpose of addressing unresolved questions raised by the Joint Management Committee (JMC) that cannot be addressed within the current stock assessment framework; for example, assessing the extent of adherence to the management principles. The process of fully resourcing the MSE with personnel and budget has been slow.

In its 2017 report the Scientific Review Group (SRG) provided guidance to the JMC on activating the MSE. In 2018 NOAA Fisheries renewed support for the MSE by funding a coordinator position at the NWFSC and a scientist to develop a spatially explicit operating model. According to the MSE work plan results will be available to inform discussions on management choices by December 2019 (SRG 2018).

The precautionary approach continues to be explicit in the management of U.S. and Canada fisheries.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 136 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Management policy as expressed through statute has remained unchanged for U.S. fisheries. In 2016 guidelines for three of the 10 national standards to be met by FMPs were revised (NOAA 2016): National Standard 1: to improve conservation through better determination of conservation needs, processes for phasing in catch limits and rules for carryover of unused quota; National Standard 3: to improve definition of stock reference points; National Standard 7: to improve measurement of costs and benefits of management actions.

Management policy as expressed through statute has remained unchanged for Canadian fisheries (DFO 2018a.)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. References DFO 2018a; JTC 2013b; NOAA 2016; SRG 2018 US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 137 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed specific management the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are cation demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management systems of both the U.S. and Canada.

The legal and management structure of the U.S. fisheries, the West Coast groundfish fishery, groundfish trawl rationalization program, and the Pacific whiting fishery have remained fundamentally unchanged since the last re-assessment. Minor amendments and updates have been implemented. Short-term and long-term objectives continue to be contained in: • Magnuson-Stevens Act (U.S. Dept. Commerce 2007) • Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PFMC 2016a) • Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan (PFMC 2013a) • Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiatives (PFMC 2017c) • Trawl Rationalization Final EIS (PFMC 2010b) • PFMC Research and Data Needs (PFMC 2013b)

The legal and management structure of the Canadian fisheries, Pacific Region groundfish fishery and the offshore Pacific hake fishery have remained fundamentally unchanged since the last re-assessment. Minor amendments and updates have been implemented. Short-term and long-term objectives continue to be contained in: • Species at Risk Act (Canada Minister of Justice 2018a) • Oceans Act (Canada Minister of Justice 2018b) • Pacific Region Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish (DFO 2018a) • Offshore Pacific Hake Harvest Plan (DFO 2018b)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. References Canada Minister of Justice 2018a, 2018b; DFO 2018a, 2018b; PFMC 2010b, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2017c; US Department of Commerce 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: US 100

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 138 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 139 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes Justifi Established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to cation achieve the fishery-specific objectives have not changed since the previous reassessment. These are described in updated documents for international, U.S., and Canada management:

International • Pacific Hake/Whiting Joint Agreement (U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 2004)

U.S. fishery: • West Coast Groundfish FMP (PFMC 2016a) • Compliance Guide for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rat. Prog. (NMFS 2013) • PFMC Council Operating Procedures (2019b) • PFMC Statement of Operating practices and Procedures (2010a) • PFMC Who We Are and What We Do (2019c)

Canada fishery: • Pacific Region IFMP Groundfish (DFO. 2018a) • Offshore Pacific Hake Harvest Plan (DFO. 2018b)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG 80 requirements. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 140 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justifi There have been no changes to decision-making processes since the previous re- cation assessment. Both the U.S. and Canada fisheries continue to have decision-making processes that respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes Justifi Both the U.S. and Canada fisheries employ decision-making processes that use the cation precautionary approach and are based on best available information. There have been no changes in the controlling standards and documents since the previous reassessment.

U.S. fishery • Magnuson Stevens Act (U.S. DOC 2007) • National Standard 2 (NMFS 2016) • Restrepo and Powers (NMFS 1999)

Canada fishery • Pacific Region Integrated FMP for Groundfish (DFO 2018) • Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS (UN 1995)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG 80 requirements. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management action provides generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions fishery’s performance or lack of action and management associated with findings actions and describes and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 141 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justifi In both the U.S. and Canada fisheries formal reporting to all interested stakeholders cation provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Statutory requirements and operational guidance have remained unchanged since the previous re-assessment, although documents have been updated according to standard processes.

International management • Scientific Review Group research recommendations (Scientific review Group 2018)

U.S. fishery • Statutory requirements for analysis and information provision (US Department of Commerce 2007) • PFMC standard operating procedures (PFMC 2010a) • PFMC research and data needs (PFMC 2013b)

Canada fishery • Statutory requirements for analysis and information provision (Canada Minister of Justice 2018a; 2018b) • Science framework (DFO 2008) • Integrated FMP for groundfish (DFO 2018a) • Offshore Pacific hake harvest plan (DFO 2018b)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi In both the U.S. and Canada fisheries the management system or fishery acts cation proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.

There have been no changes to the management processes of the U.S. and Canada fisheries that shape response to legal issues since the previous

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 142 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. reassessment. No new legal challenges or disputes have arisen in either fishery.

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. Canada Minister of Justice 2018a, 2018b; DFO 2008, 2018a, 2018b; NMFS 2013; References PFMC 2010a, 2013b, 2019b, 2019c; Restrepo and Powers 1999; United Nations 1995; US Department of Commerce 2007; US Government Printing Office 2004 US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 143 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been cation implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

U.S. fishery The At-Sea Hake Observer Program continues to require 100% coverage by tao observers at all times (NMFS 2019). The shoreside sector is also required to have 100% observer coverage. Vessels may either carry a human observer at all times or participate in the voluntary electronic monitoring (EM) program, enabled through an Exempted Fishing Permit. The EM program has been in place since 2015 (Mann 2018). Cooperative Enforcement Agreements (CEA) continue to coordinate state and federal enforcement efforts. New agreements for the 2018-2022 period were developed in 2018 (NOAA Fisheries OLE 2018). The ability to enforce is demonstrated in the continuing low level of enforcement issues since the previous assessment (see Surveillance Audits in 2017, 2018 and 2019). A widespread inadvertent violation of the EFP stipulations for maximized retention was flagged at the end of the fishing season (PFMC 2017d; 2017e). Subsequent coordination meetings among NMFS, OLE and the industry have developed protocols to prevent its reoccurrence (Section 3.6.4).

Canada fishery Comprehensive catch monitoring programs continue to be in effect. All vessels fishing for hake are subject to 100% at-sea monitoring, either through on-board observers or electronic monitoring. All shoreside hake offloads are subject to 100% coverage by the Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP). These monitoring systems use pre-determined criteria and reporting protocols to identify incidents and generate occurrence reports for DFO (IFMP 2018). The number of investigations by fishery enforcement officers continues to be low; e.g. less than 1% of landings in 2017 contained occurrences needing investigation (Bussel 2018).

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 144 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. post there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and cation demonstrably provide effective deterrence. There has been no change since the previous re-assessment in the system of sanctions in either the U.S. or Canada fishery.

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Yes Yes US Yes Canada Yes Justifi The U.S. and Canada fisheries meet the SG100 requirement of a high degree of cation confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

For the U.S. fishery, the information basis for the high level of confidence in fisher compliance is Trawl Rationalization Program (TRat) enforcement data reported annually to the PFMC by NOAA Fisheries OLE (PFMC 2013c; 2014; 2015; 2016c; NMFS OLE 2019). Personnel changes led to a gap in reporting between 2016- 2017, but in 2018 a TRAT compliance report was issued that covered the 2016- 2018 time period. From 2018 reports will again be issued on an annual basis. These reports are in a mixed aggregate/fishery-specific form. For the trawl rationalization program (TRAT) as a whole, no warnings or notices of violations were issued in 2018, consistent with oral reports from OLE that compliance levels are high in the whiting fishery. Because overall compliance within the TRAT program is so high, it can be logically concluded that the whiting fishery as a subset of TRAT is also high. The SG100 requirement is met.

The U.S. fishery meets the SG100 requirements.

The continued enforcement reporting coverage in the Canada hake fishery (Bussel 2018) results in a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. This has not changed since the previous re-assessment.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 145 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.

The Canada fishery meets the SG100 requirements. d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? US Yes Canada Yes Justifi Annual enforcement summaries of west coast fisheries present no evidence of cation systematic non-compliance. The requirement for SG80 is met.

Enforcement data for the Canada fishery shows no evidence of systematic non- compliance, and so the requirements for SG80 are met. Bussel 2018; DFO 2018a; Mann 2018; Petersen et al., 2017, 2018; Stern-Pirlot et References al., 2019; NMFS 2019; NOAA Fisheries OLE 2018, 2019; PFMC 2013c, 2014, 2015, 2016c, 2017d, 2017e

US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CAN 100 RECOMMENDATION: For the present re-assessment it is possible to infer high levels of compliance within the whiting sector from the high levels of compliance within TRAT as a whole. However, in the instance that violations were to be reported it would not be possible to conclude from the aggregate report whether the violations were occurring in the whiting fishery or in another sector of TRAT. We recommend that the clients continue to encourage OLE to present annual TRAT enforcement data disaggregated by fishery.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 146 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Both the U.S. and Canada fishery have mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts cation of their Pacific hake management systems.

The basic structure of evaluation through annual and biennial management actions remains unchanged since the previous re-assessment.

The U.S. fishery evaluation takes place through the following: • Biennial management processes as detailed in the groundfish FMP (PFMC 2016) • Ongoing groundfish FMP amendments in response to changing conditions (PFMC 2019d) • Annual enforcement post-season evaluations (NOAA 2017;2018) • Five-year review of the trawl catch shares program (PFMC and NMFS 2017) • Five-year review of the fishery ecosystem plan (PFMC 2018)

The Canada fishery evaluation process takes place through the following: • Annual management processes described in the groundfish IFMP (DFO 2018a) • Annual harvest adjustments as detailed in the Offshore Hake Management Plan (DFO 2018b) • Periodic formal and informal assessments of enforcement effectiveness (Bussel 2018)

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justifi Both the U.S. and Canada fishery have mechanisms in place to conduct regular cation internal and external reviews. The structure of the review process remains

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 147 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. unchanged since the previous re-assessment but reviews have been conducted in the interim.

Joint U.S. – Canada review of Pacific hake stock assessments take place through the following: • Annual stock assessments of the JTC (Edwards et al. 2018) • Annual SRG report (SRG 2018) • AC reports (AP 2017) • JMC reports (JMC 2016) • Occasional JTC reports (JTC 2013b)

Review of the U.S. fishery within the broader groundfish context take place through the following: • Reviews of groundfish management plan amendments by PFMC advisory committees SSC, GMT, GAP, ENGOs and public (PFMC 2018f; PFMC 2019d) • Evaluation of fishery performance in Fisheries. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports (PFMC 2018j) • Five-year review of the trawl catch share program (PFMC and NMFS 2017a; 2017b) • Five-year review of the fishery ecosystem plan (PFMC 2018g)

Review of the Canada fishery take place through the following: • Review of management objectives, research plans, decision processes through the GIAB, GTAC (DFO 2017a) • Setting of assessment priorities and review schedules as described in the groundfish IFMP and annual harvest management plan (DFO 2017a; 2017b).

The U.S. and Canada fishery each meets the SG100 requirements. AP 2017; Bussel 2018; Edwards et al. 2018; DFO 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b; References JMC 2013b, 2016; NOAA 2017, 2018; PFMC 2016, 2018a, 2018f, 2018g, 2018j; PFMC and NMFS 2017a, 2017b; SRG 2018 US 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Can 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 148 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs The RBF has not been used in this re-assessment.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 149 Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table 1.3.1: Condition 1 PI 2.3.2. Scoring Issue C: There is an objective basis for confidence that the Performance measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the Indicator fishery and/or the species involved. Score 75 In general, the strategies achieve these guidelines and the interactions between the fishery and ETP species is minimal. However, for ETP rougheye rockfish types I and II, it is not yet possible to determine if the current TAC/quota management of this stock will work to allow rebuilding, as the results of the stock assessment and subsequent management review for this stock is not yet available (expected mid-2019; DFO 2018c). Hence the SG80 is not met for ETP rockfishes (rougheye). Rationale This condition is related to a condition raised relative to rougheye rockfish in the previous assessment but in PI 2.2.3, rather than under the ETP component. This condition was closed in year 4 of the previous assessment (Stern-Pirlot et. al. 2019) because the catch proportion of rougheye rockfish in the hake fishery is extremely low (<<1%) and as such, it cannot continue to be regarded as a main bycatch species (parlance for component 2.2 in the previous MSC assessment tree). However, it is now SARA listed, and thus an ETP species where the main vs minor designation does not matter. By the first surveillance audit (November 2020) there must be an objective Condition basis for confidence that the measures/strategy to protect/rebuild the rougheye rockfish types I and II stocks in Canada will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. By August 2019, the stock assessment for Rougheye rockfish types I and II will have undergone formal DFO CSAS peer review.

By May 2020, the stock assessment will have been considered at DFO fisheries management advisory processes and appropriate management changes Milestones recommended (if necessary).

By November 2020, any needed management changes will have been implemented, and there will be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place to rebuild the rougheye rockfish stocks in Canada will work based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. As excerpted from DFO 2018b: A draft assessment of the Black‐spotted/Rougheye rockfish complex has been done and a presentation of the draft results was made to the Technical Working Group in September 2018. Upon review of the draft, the Technical Working Group provided direction on components of the assessment. Specifically, 1. the addition of existing synoptic survey data to increase observations, Client action plan and improve depth and spatial coverage; 2. revising the size‐at‐age analysis to reconcile anomalies between combined and species‐specific analysis; and, 3. the choice of age composition data to include because fitting the model to length data alone may lead to bias due to differing growth rates between Rougheye type I and type II.

The Technical Working Group met again with the analysts in December 2018 to review progress on this additional work and review the changes, model fit and

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 150 performance, with the intention of scheduling a formal DFO CSAS peer review in mid-2019.

Once the science advice has been peer reviewed it is considered at DFO fisheries management advisory processes which meet regularly throughout the year. Fisheries managers and stakeholders consider the science advice received at these meetings and management changes are made, if needed.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada strives to align processes for delivery of science advice and implementation of management measures. This however does not preclude the implementation of interim advice or in‐season management measures when deemed necessary. For example, science advice on the Yelloweye Rockfish (Outside population) was received in September 2015 and, as a result, a rebuilding plan was implemented for the 2016 season. There have also been cases where, based on the advice received, in‐season changes have been made (e.g. Pacific cod). See DFO 2018b. In addition, the assessment team and client have confirmed that DFO has agreed to the timeframe for completing the work in time for the Consultation on Canadian industry to comply with the condition by the end of 2019. Recent condition communications with the assessment author (Sean Cox) indicates that the stock assessment is on track within the necessary timeframe.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 151 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports

There was a single peer review of this report because this is a reduced re-assessment. The peer reviewer comments and team responses are given in the tables below.

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers should included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery Yes Scoring is consistent with the MSC standard, and No response required consistent with the MSC the justifications clearly document the evidence standard, and clearly based for the scores assigned. on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Are the condition(s) raised Yes The single condition raised is appropriately No response required appropriately written to written to achieve the SG80 outcome in the achieve the SG80 outcome specified timeframe. The timeframe is notably within the specified short, but the explanation clear; progress is timeframe? already underway. [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear Yes Note: Include this row for assessments No response required and sufficient to close the completed against FCR v1.3 and v2.0, but not for conditions raised? FCP v2.1 (in which the client action plan is only [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- prepared at the same time as the peer review). 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Delete this text from the cell for FCR v1.3/v2.0 reviews or delete the whole row if FCP v2.1. Enhanced fisheries only: N/A N/A Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 152 Optional: General Comments N/A Editorial note: Replace all occurances of Corrections made, thank you! on the Peer Review Draft "Method" with "Methot" in citations, where Report (including comments appropriate. on the adequacy of the background information if necessary)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Perfor- Has all Does the Will the PRs should provide support for their answers CABs should summarise their response to See codes mance available information condition(s) in the left three columns by referring to the Peer Reviewer comments in the CAB page for Indica- relevant and/or raised specific scoring issues and/or scoring Response Code column and provide response tor (PI) information rationale improve the elements, and any relevant documentation justification for their response in this column. options been used to used to score fishery’s as appropriate. Additional rows should be score this PI? this PI performance inserted for any PIs where two or more Where multiple comments are raised by Peer support the to the SG80 discrete comments are raised e.g. for Reviewers with more than one row for a given score? level? different scoring issues, allowing CABs to single PI, the CAB response should relate to give a different answer in each case. each of the specific issues raised in each Paragraph breaks may also be made within row. cells using the Alt-return key combination. CAB responses should include details of Detailed justifications are only required where different changes have been made in where answers given are one of the ‘No’ the report (which section #, table etc). options. In other (Yes) cases, either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ or identify any places where weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores). 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Probabilities were used No response required Accepted to justify stock position wrt recruitment (no score impairment (SA 2.2.1); time period for change) fluctuation is appropriate (SA 2.2.2); B40% proxy for msy is appropriate (SA 2.2.3). 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA N/A. Stock is not depleted/rebuilding. No response required Accepted (no score change)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 153 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Requirements of SA No response required Accepted 2.2.2 are met. (no score change) 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Requirements of SA No response required Accepted 2.5.2-2.5.5 are met. (no score change) 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Requirements of SA No response required Accepted 2.6.2 and SA 2.6.3 are met. (no score change) 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Requirements of SA 3.4 No response required Accepted are met. (no score change) 2.1.2 Yes No (scoring NA Score for CAN in Justification Section Thank you, this has been reconciled. Accepted implications (90) does not agree with score in The score should be 95. (score unknown) Summary Table (95). increased) 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Note: In the Thank you, this has been fixed Accepted Justification Section, under "Met?" CAN (no score seabirds is blank. change) 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 154 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 155 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 156 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions

A verbal stakeholder submission was received from Dr Scott Wallace, senior research scientist representing the David Suzuki Foundation and Marine Conservation Caucus, summarized as follows.

Dr Wallace brought three issues of concern to the attention of the assessment team:

1. Rougheye rockfish: Dr Wallace noted that there are still no reference points and no completed stock assessment update for this species complex (rougheye types I and II; or rougheye and blackspotted rockfish) in Canadian waters. The view of Dr Wallace was that the current catch quota is not scientifically derived, and the species has no refuge in its life history from fishing impacts. In addition, it is inherently vulnerable to fishing impacts in that it is slow growing and long lived.

Rougheye is the subject of one open condition under the current assessment and an update on progress toward completion of a stock assessment and resulting biologically based reference points and TAC was provided to the assessment team by DFO in October of 2018. This update was shared with Dr Wallace following our meeting. In addition the team addressed the current situation with regard to Rougheye in the results table of this report.

2. Chinook salmon: Dr Wallace reported that in early December, 2018, COSEWIC designated eight new Fraser River chinook stocks as endangered and four as threatened. He noted that this is not just a concern for the Canadian fishery because genetic studies completed in 2010 for the US fishery indicated a proportion of the chinook bycatch in the US groundfish fisheries were of Fraser River origin and he questioned whether the US cap on Chinook bycatch in the hake fishery was set taking into account possible effects to Canada-bound Chinook. He also noted that although there had been a genetic analysis of the stock origin of bycaught Chinook in the US fishery, there had been no such study of Canadian Chinook bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. Lastly, although for the purposes of MSC assessment, COSEWIC-listed species are not considered under the ETP species component (in Canada, only SARA- listed species are), Dr Wallace indicated that a recent change to the process of SARA listing based on COSEWIC listing bears investigation by the assessment team, as it may result in more SARA listed Chinook stocks in the near future.

3. Offal discharge from freezer vessels: Dr Wallace noted an uptick in the number of hake vessels heading, gutting and freezing at sea vs delivering to shoreside processors. He raised questions concerning the regulations for at-sea discharge of offal from these operations, particularly in the context of possible whale and bird interactions. The principle concern was regarding possible impact to seabirds in and around Scott Islands, a newly designated protected area, noting that there is fishing for arrowtooth flounder in that area, though the amount of hake-directed fishing was unknown to him.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 157 MRAG Americas received Technical Oversight comments from MSC during the Public Comment phase of the assessment process. The table below presents the comments together with the assessment team responses.

Page Grade Requirement Oversight Description Pi CAB Response Version 51 Minor FCR_7.12.1.3 Table 17 Row 1 only captures risks for the US part of the π Table 17 Row 1 has been updated to capture the risks v2.0 fishery. Further, Row 2’s claim that vessels don’t fish outside for both the US and Canadian portions of the fishery the UoC on the same trip appears to be contradicted by section with respect to the possibility of vessels participating in 5.2 paragraph 1 and Table 17 Row 5. Please clarify the risks outside and within UoC activities. Regarding the and mitigation systems in place for both the US and Canadian assertion in row 2, this is not contradicted by the activities of the UoC. discussion of the Gulf of Georgia vs offshore hake fishery, because these fisheries do not overlap in fishing season thus there are never single trips in both areas. Nonetheless, this has been clarified both in paragraph 1 of section 5.2 and in row 2 of Table 17. In general, the descriptions of the systems, risks and mitigation throughout section 5 have been revised to provide more clarity. 52-53 Minor FCR-7.12.2.1 The UoC is quite complex, representing vessels and π Descriptions in section 5 have been rewritten for clarity v2.0 management systems across two countries, a range of and completeness, hopefully eliminating some of the activities from fishing to transshipment to at-sea processing, confusion created. A link has been provided to eligible and a certificate sharing agreement that restricts eligibility of Canadian companies. As to the specific question about product to be sold as certified. Section 5.3 clearly describes the mothership owning companies, etc, hopefully it all clear different points at which CoC may begin but it is recommended now in the text that fish is handled in one of three ways: to clarify how this interacts with the two countries and the list of Caught by a catcher vessel and then delivered to shore parties eligible to use the fishery certificate. For example, are for processing, caught by a catcher vessel then US mothership owning companies that require CoC eligible to delivered to a mothership for processing, or caught by a sell product into the market as MSC certified or do they need to catcher-processor (US) or freezer trawler (Canada) and go through one of the ‘U.S. Shoreside Vessels, Processing processed on board. The change of ownership situation Companies and Locations’? Will a link be provided to the list of is not very easy to describe and is somewhat of a case Canadian client group members as described in the final by case basis, but that should not matter anymore paragraph of Section 5.3 on p53? It is also recommended to because the beginning of the CoC does not depend on confirm when change of ownership takes place as per FCR 2.0 change of ownership in any of the situations described. 7.12.1.5.b.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 158

Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1: Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors 1 Remote audit 3 all remote This fishery has been certified for 10 years and has one open condition on the Canadian UoC only, which is due for close out at audit 1. All information can be obtained remotely.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 Expected November 2020 At anniversary date November 2020

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 1 Remote audit Remote review of Remote review of On-site audit with information information reassessment (subject to condition closure in year 1)

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 159 Appendix 5. Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

Pacific Hake Fishery Reassessment Public Certification Report 2019 160

Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative

American Seafoods  Glacier Fish Co.  Trident Seafoods A Partnership to Promote Responsible Fishing

October 25, 2019

Amanda Stern-Pirlot MRAG Americas, Inc. 8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg FL 33702

Re: US Pacific Hake Fishery Client Acceptance of Final Public Certification Report

Dear Ms. Stern-Pirlot:

I write on behalf of the Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, who serves as the US Pacific hake fishery client representative. The US Pacific hake fishery client has reviewed the Public Certification Report. The client accepts the report, including its findings and recommendations. The client wishes to thank you and the MRAG-Americas certification assessment team for your thorough analysis as well as the open and transparent process used in your evaluation of the Pacific hake fishery.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Waldeck Executive Director

Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative 4039 21st Ave. West, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98199 www.PacificWhiting.org