Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock : Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Surveillance Report Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Pollock Fishery Certificate No.: MML-FC-006 Moody Marine Ltd. May 2008 Author(s): J Rice, D Bowen, S Hanna, P Knapman

Moody Marine Ltd. Moody International 24900 Pitkin Road Suite 200 The Woodlands Houston Texas TX77386

Rev. 01 Page 1 of 1

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

Scope against which the surveillance is undertaken: MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable as applied to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery Species: Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Area: Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Method of capture: Pelagic trawl fishery

Date of Surveillance Visit: 8-10 April 2008

Initial Certification Date: 14 February 2005 Certificate Ref: MM-FC-006

Surveillance stage 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Surveillance team: Lead Assessor: Paul Knapman Assessor(s): Jake Rice, Don Bowen, Susan Hanna

Company Name: At-Sea Processors Association

Address: st 4039 21 West, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98199 USA

Jim Gilmore 1225 I Street, NW, Contact 1 Suite 600, Washington, DC 2005 Tel No: +1 202 712 9119

Fax No: +1 202 789 1116

E-mail address: [email protected]

Rev. 01 Page 2 of 2

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

2.0 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report contains the findings of the third surveillance cycle in relation to this fishery. As with the previous two surveillance reports, much of the discussion below relates to compliance with the Conditions of Certification set out in the certification report. Furthermore, at the beginning of the site visit we received representation from a number of stakeholders that highlighted issues and concerns with different aspects of these and their management (see appendix 1 for written submissions). These were specifically examined in the course of our audit and, where they are applicable to outstanding or closed conditions, are incorporated in the table below.

A significant increase in the of Chinook salmon was identified by stakeholders, managers, scientists and the client as being a particular concern for the 2007/08 fishing season. While the issue of bycatch of non target species cuts across a number of the Conditions and associated Performance Indicators (PIs) we have chosen to present the information we were provided with and our observations and conclusions in a separate section (see section 16).

Information has been collected principally from reports provided by the client, staff at the Alaska Center (AFSC) (National Marine Fisheries Service – NOAA Fisheries) and from written stakeholder submissions. Consultations have been undertaken with At-Sea Processors Association (APA), NOAA Fisheries and other stakeholders.

For each condition that remains open the report sets out the original assessment scoring guideposts and scoring commentary and the requirements of the original Condition (‘Activity assessed’). These identify the areas in which the fishery was determined to perform below the level required by the MSC standard during the initial assessment, and the required actions to address these issues. As required by the MSC assessment methodology, APA produced an Action Plan setting out the stages involved in addressing the Conditions raised (‘APA Action’). This Action Plan was deemed to be adequate by the original main assessment team. According to the terms of the Action Plan, the client has provided information on the work undertaken to date (the ‘APA Progress Report’). This progress report has now been evaluated by the Moody Marine assessment team (‘Observations’ and ‘Conclusion’) against a) the commitments made in the Action Plan, b) the intent of the original Condition and c) the original scoring indicator, guideposts and commentary. The influence of any overall legislative and management changes in the fishery are also taken into consideration.

Where conditions are judged to have been met, a re-evaluation of the scoring allocated to the relevant Performance Indicators in the original MSC assessment is included within the evaluation. Also, in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Manual (FCM v6) clear measurable outcome with timelines are specified.

The APA Action Plan is preceded by the following commentary, which is repeated here for completeness.

“The At-sea Processors Association (APA) submits this Action Plan for Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) pollock fishery. APA agrees to make a good faith effort to meet the intent of the Conditions set forth in the certifier’s July 2004 Final Report determining that the BS/AI Alaska pollock fishery is sustainably managed under the MSC Principles and Criteria. Furthermore, APA recognizes its responsibility as the Applicant/Licensee in the certified fishery to comply with annual surveillance audits by an accredited MSC certification body. APA has entered into a written agreement with Moody Marine Ltd. to perform the required audits, including monitoring implementation of Conditions set forth in this Action Plan.

Pursuant to an understanding between APA and the certification body, Scientific Certification

Rev. 01 Page 3 of 3

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Systems, Inc., and consistent with MSC policy, APA is willing to assign MSC logo and labeling rights to non-APA BS/AI pollock producers who agree to share the cost of maintaining the certification and to join in good faith efforts to meet the Conditions.

While APA agrees to undertake good faith efforts to meet the Conditions, the association is on record challenging the basis for certain Conditions, questioning the feasibility of the management authority to undertake certain actions, and asserting that some Conditions exceed the scope of the assessment process. Such concerns were transmitted to the certification body in writing by the Applicant, by participants in the BS/AI pollock fishery and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). APA appreciates the consideration provided by the assessment team and certifier to issues raised by all stakeholders in the process. However, we note that a number of concerns raised by Alaska pollock producers and NMFS with regard to the Conditions remain. In fulfilling our obligations, we intend to provide to the appropriate certification body relevant information developed subsequent to the drafting of Conditions. We seek a flexible and adaptive program that will permit us to meet the intent of the Conditions based on the best information available.

Some of the concerns expressed by APA relate to shortcomings in the structure and administration of the MSC program. On July 8, 2004, APA co-signed a letter to the MSC suggesting needed improvements in the program. At least two of the issues raised in that letter pertain to the development of Conditions for the BS/AI and GOA pollock fisheries. The first issue is that the MSC must establish consistency among assessments. In APA’s view, both the BS/AI and GOA pollock fisheries were held to a different and much higher standard than any other Applicant fishery, creating competitive disadvantages that should not be present in either a science-based or market based program.

A second issue is that APA, as a private sector Applicant, is not always in a position to effectuate the changes in management that the certification body may seek. Under such circumstances, the MSC certification methodology should require certification bodies to consult and cooperate fully with both the Applicant and the affected management authorities in drafting Conditions. Without such collaboration the assessment team is deprived of insight and expertise needed to propose improvements in candidate fisheries that best achieve conservation and management objectives in domestic law as well as the MSC’s sustainability standard.

APA’s Approach to Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification.

APA will establish the Alaska Pollock MSC Certification Committee to develop and direct a program to give effect to this Action Plan for meeting the Conditions for the BS/AI and GOA pollock fisheries. The Alaska Pollock MSC Certification Committee is composed of participants in the BS/AI and GOA pollock fishery, their representatives and APA staff. The Committee could also enlist outside experts to assist with tasks needed to meet obligations under the Action Plan.

The Alaska Pollock MSC Certification Committee will consider the range of resources available to assist in the task of responding to Conditions, including possible collaboration with the Pollock Conservation Cooperative’s (PCC’s) Research Committee. The PCC’s membership is substantially the same as the membership of APA. Among other responsibilities, the PCC Research Committee is the principal conduit between the PCC and the University of Alaska/Fairbanks (UAF), both of which entered into a partnership in 2000 to support a comprehensive marine research grants program. The UAF/PCC Research Center is funded by APA/PCC member companies and is reportedly the largest private sector marine research program in Alaska. To the extent that certain Conditions can be achieved through private sector initiatives, the UAF/PCC Research Center could be an important partner.

APA also works closely with other North Pacific marine research organizations, including the North Pacific Research Consortium, the North Pacific Research Board, the Alaska SeaLife Center and various other organizations committed to improving understanding of the GOA ecosystem.

Rev. 01 Page 4 of 4

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Many of the issues raised in the Conditions are being addressed by work conducted by, or sponsored by, the organizations identified above. APA will provide to the certifier information and findings developed by these respected organizations relevant to Conditions established for the BS/AI Alaska pollock fishery.

Most importantly, the Alaska Pollock MSC Certification Committee will coordinate with the NMFS Alaska Region office and Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council), and other participants in the management process, as necessary, in an effort to meet the Conditions established by the certification body.

Proposed APA Activities in Achieving the Conditions.

There is necessarily overlap among Performance Indicators, resulting in duplication of Conditions as well. After considering redundancies, the Final Report essentially sets out 15Conditions. The following details how APA will address each of these 15 Conditions. In the majority of instances, the conditions for the BS/AI pollock fishery are the same as those for the GoA pollock fishery. In each of these cases where the conditions are the same, APA will follow the same action plan as produced for the GoA fishery. For the few conditions that are different, APA has proposed additional steps to complete the GOA Pollock Action Plan.

Rev. 01 Page 5 of 5

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Item Comments 0 Update on Stock Status

Activity Assessed Moody Marine have asked APA to prepare an update on the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) pollock stock status over the last year. The intent of this section is to bring background information up to date and so to allow subsequent condition information to be evaluated in light of the current situation.

Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) scientists updated the assessments for eastern Bering Sea (EBS), Aleutian Islands (AI), and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pollock during November, 2007. The new assessments were presented to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and GOA groundfish “plan teams” for review and comment. The plan teams are convened by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). In December the assessments and plan-team recommendations were considered by the NPFMC Science and Statistical Committee (SSC). The SSC then provided its recommendations for (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) amounts for the 2008 fishing year. The discussion below summarizes the issues considered and the results obtained for Alaska pollock during this annual “harvest specifications” process. A description of the process as well as a summary of the 2008 results are provided by the NPFMC (2007 a,b). See also the summary at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ond2007/divrptsREFM7.htm.

Bering Sea Pollock

Assessment Model and Input Data

Several adjustments were made to the assessment model for 2007. The changes speed entry of fishery data into the model, refine the way that survey data is used to calibrate the model, and reduce the potential for fluctuations in the harvest rate due to variable recruitments to the age 3+ biomass. An age-length transition matrix was estimated so that current-year (2007) fishery length frequency data could be added to the model. The TIER 1 ABC estimation method was revised and now employs fishable biomass instead of age 3+ biomass (fishable biomass is the amount of pollock available to the fishery as determined by the selectivity-at-age estimates). And finally, age 2+ survey biomass estimates are now used to tune the model instead of age 1+ estimates.

All of the “standard” input-data updates were included in the revised model. These were biomass at age estimates from the bottom-trawl survey of the EBS shelf (Acuna and Lauth 2008) and pollock biomass at age estimates from the acoustic (echo-integrated trawl, EIT) survey. Both surveys take place over roughly the same grounds during the summer. The 2007 acoustic survey was an “extra” (out of cycle) survey devoted to the fishery in part to monitor changes in the location and spatial extent of pelagic food web development over the EBS shelf. The assessment again included bottom-trawl-survey data from the new-for-2006 northern shelf stations (strata 40 and 60). As noted above, the model also includes fishery-observer- generated length frequency data from the 2007 fishery. And finally, catch size and age composition and average weight at age estimates from the 2006 fishery were added to the model.

Stock Status

The biomass estimate from the bottom-trawl survey was 4.3 million tons, up about 40 percent from the 2006 estimate of 3.0 million tons. The new value is about 87 percent of the average of all estimates since 1982. Similarly, the acoustic-survey numbers-at-age estimates were higher than for 2006, and resulted in a biomass estimate of 1.88 million tons, which is about 55 percent of the average of all EIT estimates since 1979. The below-average estimate of water- column biomass reflects below-average stock recruitments during 2002-2005. Both surveys indicate that the 2006 year class is above average.

Maps illustrating the spatial extent of the survey biomass estimates 2005-2007 are shown in Figure 1.12 (Ianelli et al. 2007), and may be compared with prior years at: http://afscmaps.afsc.noaa.gov/website/gfebs/viewer.htm. As during 2004, the AFSC was

Rev. 01 Page 6 of 6

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

permitted to extend the acoustic survey into the Russian zone, and the 2007 survey covered a large part of the Navarin Basin. It is evident from the spatial pattern of the biomass estimates (Figure 1.19) that the EBS pollock stock did move into the Russian zone during the summer. The survey observations and the location of the summer (B-season) fishery (Figure 1.5) both indicate an EBS pollock biomass distributed to the northwest during the summer. Similar distributions were observed during the summers of 2005 and 2006.

The model biomass estimate is influenced both by the average weight at age of pollock observed in the fishery and the relative numbers at age of pollock observed in the resource surveys. Pollock average weight in the fishery is specified as a three-year rolling average of the most recent data, which for 2007 includes 2004-2006. The average weights for 2006 were lower than those used in the 2006 assessment (Table 1.15; average 2003-2005), but appear consistent with a pattern of low average weights every 4-5 years. Similar fluctuations in average weight at age appear in the resource survey data (e.g., see Figure 1.15, top panel). Data from the resource surveys shows that pollock average weight at age for 2007 seems to have moved back towards average values. However, unless the structure of the assessment model is changed, the low average weights of 2006 will continue to reduce exploitable biomass estimates during 2008 and 2009.

Table 1 summarizes the evolution of the biomass estimates from the assessment model since the APA submitted its application for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Alaska pollock fisheries. For 2007, lower-than-expected average weights from the 2006 fishery and a smaller-than-expected estimate of the 2000 year class in the bottom trawl survey (Figure 1.32) together caused a further decline in the estimate of exploitable biomass. This year the estimate for 2006 is about ten percent lower than estimated last year, and the estimate for 2007 is about 15 percent lower than projected last year (Table 1.22). For the future, the stock biomass is anticipated to decline through 2009, and then begin to increase in 2010 (Figure 1.43).

The EBS pollock biomass is managed using the TIER 1 harvest control rules, which set the FMSY harvest (arithmetic mean of the probability density function [PDF] of FMSY) as the OFL, and set the maximum ABC using the harmonic mean of the PDF of FMSY. Because the stock is estimated to be larger than one-half of the BMSY stock size, it is not considered overfished. Also, future projections of reproductive biomass indicate the stock is not approaching an overfished condition.

Table 1. Eastern Bering Sea Pollock Stock Status, 2002-2007.

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ------Thousands of Metric Tons ------Exploitation Benchmarks

maxABC 2,110 2,330 2,560 1,960 1,930 1,512 OFL 3,530 3,530 2,740 2,100 2,090 1,640 BMSY 4,586 4,936 4,452 4,244 4,120 3,752 B40% 5,382 5,670 5,290 5,190 5,104 5,254 ______Stock Status Begin-Year Biomass (age 3+) 11,118 12,688 9,894 9,277 7,950 5,363 Spawning Biomass (males and females) 7,362 8,182 6,446 6,438 5,674 3,892 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) 1,485 1,492 1,492 1,495 1,502 1,394 Total Catch 1,480 1,490 1,480 1,483 1,486 1,354 ______Source: Chapter 1, BSAI Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports 2002-2007.

Rev. 01 Page 7 of 7

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Harvest Specifications for 2008

The assessment projects a spawning biomass of 2.80 million tons for 2008, which is below the BMSY benchmark of 3.75 million tons. As such, the EBS pollock stock qualifies for management using the TIER 1b control rules. The TIER 1b rules incorporate an “automatic rebuilding” schedule which reduces harvest rates in proportion to lower levels of spawning biomass. For 2008, the model provides a TIER 1b maxABC of 1.17 million tons and an OFL of 1.44 million tons. The primary effect of the lower-than-expected fishery average weights was to reduce by about 100,000 tons the model estimate of maxABC for 2008 when compared to that estimated in the 2006 assessment (the 2008 maxABC in the 2006 assessment is 1.26 million tons [Ianelli et al. 2006a]). In contrast, the 2008 OFL (MSY harvest) provided in the 2007 assessment is about 80,000 tons larger than projected in the 2006 assessment. One reason for this latter result may be that model characterization of stock resiliency has increased (i.e., estimates of BMSY have trended downward slightly [Table 1]).

Last year was the first since EBS pollock has been managed as a TIER 1 stock where an ABC less than the maximum was adopted. The choice represented a middle ground between the maxABC harvest and one that would hold the exploitation rate on the spawning biomass steady at 20 percent. For 2008 the assessment authors again recommended holding spawning stock exploitation at 20 percent, which required an ABC no larger than 1.0 million tons. In contrast, harvesting at the maxABC of 1.17 million tons was expected to remove about 23 percent of the spawning biomass (Figure 1.44).

A range of ABC values from 0.56 – 1.17 million tons was discussed by the Plan Team, with arguments offered in support of values spanning the entire range (NPFMC 2007a, pp. 11-14). Reasons for recommending an ABC less than the maximum value included: 1) that fishing vessels needed to travel farther to catch pollock in 2007; 2) that larger numbers of pollock than expected were harvested due to lower average weight; and 3) that the abundance of arrowtooth flounder, an important predator of juvenile pollock, continued to increase (Wilderbuer and Nichol 2007). Ultimately, the plan team chose to accept the 1.0 million ton ABC recommendation without consensus, as some members recommended lower amounts. In December, the SSC considered the plan-team recommendations and selected an ABC of 1.0 million tons and an OFL of 1.44 million tons (SSC 2007). The NPFMC adopted these values, and set the EBS pollock TAC at 1.0 million tons for 2008.

Bogoslof Island Pollock

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Alaska pollock fishery in the US exclusive economic zone began to evolve from a primarily foreign fishery to a primarily domestic fishery. As a consequence, a large but transient pollock fishery was prosecuted within the international waters of the Central Bering Sea (CBS) by displaced vessels from Poland, Korea, Russia, Japan, and mainland China (Wespestad 1993). This “Donut Hole” fishery persisted until about 1991, and during the latter years is believed to have included some fishing on pre-spawning pollock in the vicinity of Bogoslof Island. During the eight-year period 1984-1991 fishing in these areas yielded at least eight million tons of pollock (Table 1.1, Ianelli et al. 2007). In 1992, Amendment 17 to the BSAI Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) established a statistical sub-area around Bogoslof Island (Bogoslof District, statistical area 518) to allow for the setting of a separate pollock TAC for the area. The rationale was to provide protection for spawning Aleutian Basin pollock and so rebuild the Aleutian Basin pollock stock (NOAA 2004).

In 1994, with the pollock resource in the CBS depleted, the nations with significant pollock catch history there entered into an agreement (Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea) that had as its primary objectives: (1) to establish an international regime for conservation, management, and optimum utilization of pollock resources in the convention area; and (2) to restore and maintain the pollock resources in the Bering Sea at levels which would permit their maximum sustainable yield. Part One of the Convention Annex specifies that an annual harvest limit (AHL) for the CBS shall be specified with reference to the pollock biomass within the Central

Rev. 01 Page 8 of 8

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Bering Sea Specific Area (SA). The SA was defined as the area north of the AI between the meridians 167°W and 170°W longitude, and south of a line which runs east-west at about 54°30’ N latitude (Figure 1, Honkalehto et al. 2008). The SA includes almost all of NMFS statistical area 518.

According to the Convention, the biomass found within the SA “shall be deemed to represent 60 percent of the Aleutian Basin pollock biomass.” The rationale for this provision was a belief among several Convention member-nations that the waters in the vicinity of Bogoslof Island constituted the spawning grounds of the Aleutian Basin pollock biomass. As a means to monitor the status of the pollock biomass in the Aleutian Basin, spawning pollock in the vicinity of Bogoslof Island are surveyed annually (e.g., see McKelvey et al. 2006, Honkalehto et al. 2008).

The Convention Annex further specifies that an AHL of zero shall be maintained until the Aleutian Basin biomass is estimated to exceed 1.67 million tons, which has not occurred since the adoption of the Convention. Within the scientific literature and the deliberations of the Scientific and Technical Committee established to determine the Aleutian Basin biomass, there is frequent reference to likely connections between the pollock biomass on the EBS shelf and the Aleutian Basin. For example, it has been observed that the decrease in pollock catches from the CBS in the late 1980s to early 1990s coincided with the estimated decrease in EBS pollock biomass over the same period (i.e., Figure 1.38, Ianelli et al. 2007). In addition, some have claimed that pollock harvested in the CBS move there from adjacent shelf populations, with the number moving proportional to year-class size in the shelf population. According to Wespestad (1993), the CBS fishery primarily harvested a strong 1978 EBS-shelf year class, and catches declined as this year class aged.

In 2005 the AFSC produced an age-structured assessment that included historic pollock catches in area 518 and the biomass and age composition estimates from the annual winter Bogoslof acoustic-trawl surveys 1988-2005 (Ianelli et al. 2005a). In 2006, the assessment was updated with biomass and age composition estimates from the EIT survey and the catch data was augmented to include 60 percent of the catches thought to have occurred within the CBS (Donut Hole). The age-structured assessment produced some interesting results, documenting in particular: 1) a virtual absence of younger than age five in the modeled biomass; 2) reasonably good fits to the survey age-composition data; and 3) a pattern of above-average year-classes that corresponds fairly closely to that estimated for the EBS pollock biomass (Ianelli et al. 2006b, Ianelli and Barbeaux 2007). The correspondence between the above- average year classes on the EBS shelf and the Bogoslof spawning biomass is also evidenced in the acoustic-trawl survey age-composition data (e.g., compare Figure 10, Honkalehto et al. 2008, and Figure 1.41 [top panel], Ianelli et al. 2007).

The Bogoslof management district was established because resource surveys and pollock fisheries conducted during the late 1980s consistently found discrete aggregations of spawning pollock in the area during winter. While some believe Bogoslof Island pollock are connected in some way with the historical abundance of pollock in the CBS, the degree to which this aggregation represents a unique, self-recruiting stock remains unknown (Ianelli et al. 2005a). However, the known primary spawning grounds for EBS pollock lie just to the north of Unimak Island, proximate to Bogoslof Island. In addition, the direction of the principal near shore currents in these areas suggests that larvae spawned near Bogoslof Island and north of Unimak Island are both likely to follow similar feeding migrations. This circumstance, plus the remarkable coherence between strong year classes spawning in the vicinity of Bogoslof Island and north of Unimak Island, leads to the possibility that Bogoslof Island represents an important spawning area for the EBS pollock stock, with age-zero pollock produced from both of these areas feeding on the EBS shelf during summer (Traynor and Smith 1996). As such, the prohibition on pollock fishing ostensibly established in 1992 to protect Aleutian Basin pollock most likely resulted in the creation of a spawning sanctuary for the EBS pollock stock. Such circumstances would also be consistent with the weight of evidence suggesting that the entire EBS population of pollock may be regarded as effectively a unit stock (Smith 1981). The results of the 2007 SA acoustic survey indicate that about 290,000 tons of pollock spawned in the area, with the 2000 and 2001 year classes providing about 60 percent of the biomass (Honkalehto et al. 2008).

Rev. 01 Page 9 of 9

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Ecosystem Considerations

A summary of recent Alaska ecosystem trends is given by Boldt (2007, pp. 17-18). The Bering Sea experienced a relatively cold winter and spring (2007) with pronounced warming in late spring resulting in above normal upper ocean temperatures by mid-summer. This and the presence of a substantial cold pool resulted in strong thermal stratification on the Bering Sea shelf. Following a cold winter, the number of days after March 15th with ice cover over the southeastern Bering Sea shelf is increased, and the spring transition occurs earlier (i.e., ice- edge bloom; Hunt et al. 2002). These data show recent increases in 2006 and 2007. In spring 2007, sea ice lasted for almost two months just to the north of the Pribilof Islands, contrasting with previous years since 2000. The presence of sea ice together with below normal ocean temperatures likely resulted in the first ice edge primary production bloom since 1999.

Along with cold air temperatures and extensive sea ice, ocean bottom temperatures in the southeastern Bering Sea were sharply lower in winter 2006 through winter 2007 compared with 2000-2005 (2005 was the warmest year on record). The cold pool, defined by bottom temperatures less than 2°C, influences not only near-bottom biological habitat, but also the overall thermal stratification and ultimately summer mixing of nutrient-rich water from depth into the euphotic zone. The extent of the cold pool for summer 2007 rivals 2006 as the most prominent since 1999 (Boldt 2007, Figure 36).

Recent comments on ecosystem conditions by the SSC concerned mainly the evidence of possible lower zooplankton abundance, especially the copepod Calanus marshallae, observed on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf, from the early 1990s through to the present (e.g., see Figure 56, Boldt 2006). The SSC noted that if zooplankton prey becomes scarce in the southeastern Bering Sea, then adult pollock may become more cannibalistic, perhaps affecting recruitment (Ianelli et al. 2006a). The “unusually low” level of water-column backscatter recorded during the 2006 and 2007 EIT surveys (Figure 1.46) is offered as additional evidence for possible recent changes in pelagic forage, although because these backscatter data were all produced during June-July, the changes may reflect mainly the timing of the spring bloom.

A significant update of ecosystem modeling studies was presented at the October Plan meetings (Aydin et al. 2007). The revised analysis is focused on the beginning of fully domestic fishery management in Alaska (1990-1996), and was constructed using improved analytical methods and mass-balance food-web (ECOPATH) models. The new analysis improves species and geographic resolution and provides a comparable modeling framework, including fishery definitions and biomass pools, for all three Alaska management regions. The results showed that the EBS ecosystem has a much larger benthic influence in its food web than either the GOA or the AI, but that all three regions shared the same apex predator — the Pacific halibut longline fishery.

One focus of the new analysis was comparisons of upper trophic-level consumption by predators and fisheries (i.e., fishery “footprint” comparisons). In the EBS, both northern fur seals and the pollock trawl fishery were identified as high consumers among the high-trophic- level ecosystem components. The results indicate that fur seals are major sinks for juvenile herring, sablefish, and salmon production. However, unlike the fur seal, the EBS pollock fishery removes a high percentage of production by a single species (about 35 percent of adult pollock production). And despite the extremely high percentage of the catch that is pollock, the fishery also depends indirectly on the production of many more species than just pollock. For example, the analysis estimates that nearly 20 percent of the production of forage species such as bathylagids and pandalid shrimp are required to support pollock fishery catches, as well as and more than 10 percent of the production of herring, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, myctophids, and most pelagic zooplankton (including euphausiids, mysids, and copepods; Figure 38, Aydin et al. 2007). For most zooplankton and phytoplankton groups, pollock fishery catches require more than double the production removed by fur seals.

The largest consumers of adult EBS pollock are other adult pollock (2-3 million tons annually). However, analysis of summer diet data shows that pollock cannibalism may have decreased since the late 1990s. Other significant adult-pollock consumers include Pacific cod,

Rev. 01 Page 10 of 10

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

skates, and pinnipeds, although the combined annual consumption by these ecosystem components is only 0.5-1.1 million tons. Trends in pollock predator biomass have been estimated, and are shown in Figure 4A of Boldt (2006). For juvenile pollock, the largest consumers are again adult pollock, at 0.75-2 million tons annually. Other consumers of juvenile pollock include arrowtooth flounder, small flatfish, pinnipeds, and baleen . Consumption estimates for all of these second-tier groups combined ranges from 0.5-1.5 million tons annually.

As for the diet of adult pollock, by far the largest components are copepods and euphausiids, estimated at between 3-18 million tons each annually. Second-tier diet components include other adult pollock (3-4.5 million tons), shrimp (1-2.5 million tons), pelagic zooplankton (0.5- 1.5 million tons), and benthic crustaceans (up to 1.5 million tons). With the exception of pollock cannibalism, the diet of EBS juvenile pollock is very similar to that of adult pollock. Annual copepods and euphausiids consumption is estimated at between 1 and 5 or 6 million tons each with consumption of pelagic zooplankton (0.5-2 million tons) and benthic crustaceans (up to 1 million tons) also important.

Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery

Input Data

The AI pollock stock assessment includes three categories of input data: (1) resource surveys; (2) fishery observer data; and (3) pollock life-history data. Resource surveys are conducted biennially using a bottom-trawl but sample only very limited portions of the AI habitat less than 500 meters in depth. The survey data are used to develop estimates of the length and age composition of the biomass as well as its distribution throughout the AI archipelago. There have been lags in the development of pollock age-length keys from the AI bottom-trawl survey, and age data from the 1994, 1997, and 2000 surveys only became available in time for the 2004 assessment.

Fishery-based observer data is collected in years when directed fishing occurs. Observer data provides estimates of: (1) length, age composition and total weight of the catch; (2) the fraction retained; and (3) pollock average weight at age. However, directed fishing for pollock was prohibited in the AI from 1999-2004 due to concerns about fishery impacts on Steller sea lion (SSL) foraging. During 2005 a directed pollock fishery was permitted outside of SSL critical habitat, but only about 200 tons were caught. As such, only about 1,200 fish lengths mainly from bycatch pollock are available for 1999-2005. For 2007 this data was augmented with an additional 2,945 lengths from a 2006 cooperative industry survey (Table 1A.8, Barbeaux et al. 2007).

Pollock life history data parameters include estimates of pollock natural mortality and maturity at age (ages 2+). The fraction-mature estimates used in the AI assessment are the same as those for the EBS stock assessment. For 2007, new input data includes the age-composition estimates from the 2006 AI bottom-trawl survey and fishery catches (including those which supported the cooperative survey) from 2006 and 2007.

Assessment Structure

The AI management area is dominated by the Aleutian Archipelago, a wide span of volcanic islands that rise steeply from basin depths and connect, like a long pier, back to the continent at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. The portion of eastern Bering Sea pollock found in the AI management area is influenced by the relative abundance of the age 5+ year classes on the EBS shelf and slope. The archipelago is banded by very narrow sections of continental shelf with few locations where it is possible to sample demersal fish resources with a bottom trawl. As such, the bottom-trawl survey is limited to areas inside the 500 meter isobath and, in particular, does not sample mid-water pollock. Past assessments based on age-structured models produced estimates of exploitable biomass much larger than estimated from the bottom-trawl survey data. And due to the relative scarcity of younger fish, model-estimated maximum harvest rates were higher than for the EBS management area.

Rev. 01 Page 11 of 11

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

During 1997-2006 the SSC chose to manage the AI pollock biomass using the TIER 5 harvest control rules, which put the maximum FABC at 75 percent of the natural mortality rate, and FOFL equal to the natural mortality rate. In practical terms, the AI biomass was considered a “stock” for management purposes with a bottom-trawl-survey-estimated biomass on the order of several hundred thousand tons. In this context, selection of the natural-mortality-based TIER 5 harvest strategy can be viewed as a precautionary approach which applies a natural mortality rate to a conservative biomass estimate, thus providing a conservative harvest-according-to- biomass strategy.

Nevertheless, as a means to synthesize all of the available information about the AI biomass within the framework of an age-structured model, in 2003 AFSC scientists re-evaluated the AI fishery information using a state-of-the-art, statistical model that included a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship. As such, the effort is responsive to MSC Condition One, Indicator 1.1.1.3, for the BSAI pollock fishery. In many respects, the model structure is similar to that used to assess the EBS biomass. The model employs estimates of pollock natural mortality, and length, weight, and maturity at age as parameters, and then minimizes a likelihood function constructed to match: (1) total catch; (2) stock abundance indices from resource surveys; (3) proportions at age from the fishery and the resource surveys; (4) fishery selectivities and survey catchabilities; and (5) the stock-recruitment relationship.

For 2004, the AI assessment investigated whether resource-survey catchability could best be estimated using the available data (resulting in very large biomass estimates) or should be held at a value close to 1.0. The assessment described five models — one for the entire AI area and four for the smaller area west of 174°W longitude. For the smaller area, the assumption is that the AI pollock biomass east of 174°W is pollock “drifting offshore” from the EBS shelf and slope, or associated with Bogoslof Island and the Aleutian Basin biomass. For the “west of 174°W” model with survey catchability fixed at 1.0, begin-year age 3+ biomass for 2005 was estimated at 164 thousand tons and the F40% harvest was about 31,000 tons. Looking at historic harvests, a survey catchability to 1.0 implies unrealistically high exploitation levels (unrealistically low biomass levels) during the peak years of the 1990s fisheries (e.g., the 1995 catch was over 58,000 tons yet the 1994 and 1995 biomass estimates were 48,000 and 58,000 tons, respectively). In contrast, estimating the survey catchability within the model resulted in begin-year age 3+ biomass estimates for 2005 ranging from 500-900 thousand tons for the area west of 174°W, and concomitant F40% harvests of 135-255 thousand tons. The survey catchability estimates ranged from 0.06-0.012, or an order of magnitude lower than with the parameter fixed at 1.0 (Barbeaux et al. 2004).

Interestingly, the model for the entire AI area provided the best fits to the survey age compositions even with catchability fixed at 1.0. However, a feature of this modeling strategy was a decision to not include the fishery data from east of 174°W within the model (i.e., just the survey data east of 174°W was included; the fishery data was assumed to be from a different stock). For the entire AI area, begin-year age 3+ biomass for 2005 was estimated at 344 thousand tons and the F40% harvest was estimated at about 95,000 tons. In the 2005 assessment, additional effort was allocated to specifying flexible forms for estimating resource-survey catchability and stock recruitment. Despite these model refinements, the effects of the pollock fishery on AI biomass dynamics was judged to be poorly determined given the available data. For the entire AI area, age 3+ biomass was estimated at about 350,000 tons in 2005, and the 2006 F40% catch at 115,000 tons. For the slightly smaller area west of 174°W, the 2005 biomass was estimated to be only about 150,000 tons, and the 2006 F40% catch about 40,000 tons (Barbeaux et al. 2005).

For the 2006 assessment, the analysis continued to focus on refinement of the age-structured model, and estimates of age-one pollock were dropped from the model, mainly because age- one pollock are not observed regularly and are poorly selected by the bottom-trawl survey. Three alternative models were developed and results were again presented only for configurations that excluded fishery catches east of 174°W longitude. The alternative models included two with resource survey data from the entire AI area, and one with survey data just from the smaller area west of 174°W. For the AI-area models, one was configured with instantaneous natural mortality fixed at 0.30, and the other allowed natural mortality to be estimated within the model. Based on model fits to the fishery and survey age-composition

Rev. 01 Page 12 of 12

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

data, the model of the entire AI area with natural mortality estimated endogenously was adopted as the reference model (Barbeaux et al. 2006). The same reference model was employed for 2007.

Aleutian Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Studies

In 2006 the Aleut Corporation, in partnership with the AFSC, Adak Fisheries LLC, and the owners and operators of the F/V Muir Milach, conducted the AI Cooperative Acoustic Survey Study (AI CASS) to evaluate the technical feasibility of conducting acoustic surveys of pollock in the AI using small (less than 32 meter) vessels (Barbeaux 2006). The study was conducted under an EFP that allowed directed pollock fishing within Steller sea lion (SSL) critical habitat. The project is intended to provide a first step in the development of a co-management and monitoring relationship among the Aleut Corporation (the Alaska native corporation that has been allocated the pollock quota in the AI area), local fishermen, and the NMFS. In the future, such a relationship could potentially allow for routine, limited pollock harvests inside SSL critical habitat that explicitly account for SSL foraging requirements. A total of 932 tons of pollock were harvested and biological data collected during the study are used in the stock assessment as proxy fishery data (Barbeaux 2006). The catch-at-age data from the AI CASS allowed for improved model stability with natural mortality estimated within the model (Barbeaux et al. 2006).

The AI CASS was repeated from March 17 to April 20, 2007. The survey covered the area between Seguam Island and Amchitka Pass (longitude 173°W to 179°W) on the north side of the Aleutian Islands archipelago. To verify the acoustic data and offset research costs, 1,300 metric tons of pollock were harvested within an area that included waters within 20 nm of SSL haul-outs and rookeries. Fishing within SSL critical habitat was necessary because pollock aggregations had to be found to offset survey costs, and historical information indicated that pollock aggregations were likely to occur inside SSL critical habitat. The 2007 harvest was also authorized under an EFP awarded to the Aleut Enterprise Corporation.

During 2008 AI CASS was expanded significantly due to increased funding provided by the North Pacific Research Board. The pollock survey was expanded to include a echo-integration trawl (EIT) survey by the R/V Oscar Dyson conducted from March 17 to April 20. This was followed by a survey of the Tanaga-Kanaga area to Great Sitkin by the F/V Muir Milach. In addition, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) will conduct an aerial SSL distribution study and a land-based scat study of SSL haul-outs timed to coincide with the fishery resource surveys (Barbeaux et al. 2008). The NMML component is designed to refine SSL monitoring and resource assessment methods such that small-scale experiments to assess the effects of fishing on SSL foraging could be carried out.

Stock Status

Table 5 summarizes the evolution of the status of the AI pollock stock since 2002. Although the development and refinement of an age-structured model for the AI biomass has been a focus of assessment activities since 2003, the AI pollock biomass was managed under the TIER 5 harvest control rules for 2002-2006. For TIER 5, the over-fishing mortality rate is set equal to the natural mortality rate, and this rate, combined with an estimate of exploitable (age 3+) biomass, provides an OFL tonnage. The maximum target-fishing rate, determined as 75 percent of the natural mortality rate, provides the maxABCs. With the age-structured model, the AI-area age 3+ biomass estimates have varied, with a high of about 350,000 tons in 2005, and an estimate of about 175,000 tons in 2006. These changes in estimated biomass result from alternative preferred assessment model structures and not fishing activity. The 2007 age- structured model now provides age 3+ biomass estimates similar to those for 2002 and 2003, which were generated solely from resource-survey expansions.

Exploitable biomass in the AI area is composed of mainly five, six, and seven year-old fish, including the strong 2000 year class. Pollock less than five years old are uncommon in the AI, thus leading to a large fraction of the age 3+ biomass which is mature. For 2007, spawning biomass is estimated to be above the B40% and B35% benchmarks. Because the stock is above one-half of its BMSY stock size, it is not considered to be overfished. In addition, future

Rev. 01 Page 13 of 13

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

projections of reproductive biomass indicate that the stock is not approaching an overfished condition (Barbeaux et al. 2007).

Harvest Specifications for 2008

The age structured model for AI pollock is limited by a paucity of fishery-dependent data recently as well as uncertainties including whether the AI pollock biomass may be considered independent from the EBS biomass. In addition, uncertainty about resource-survey catchability translates into uncertainty about resource abundance. The 2007 reference model was similar to that for 2006, and in particular estimated natural mortality (M) endogenously. This choice was motivated mainly by the improved fit of the model to the age composition data from both the survey and the fishery. For all models the fit to the survey abundance estimates continues to be poor. Compared to the model with M fixed at 0.30, the endogenous estimate of M is 0.235, which is similar to an estimate of M of 0.26 for Bogoslof area pollock (Ianelli et al. 2006b) and an estimate of M at 0.20 for Aleutian Basin pollock (Wespestad and Terry 1984).

Table 5. Aleutian Islands Pollock Stock Status, 2002-2007.

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ------Thousands of Metric Tons ------Exploitation Benchmarks maxABC 23,800 39,400 39,400 29,400 29,400 44,500 OFL 31,700 52,600 52,600 39,100 39,100 54,500 B35% — — 135,000 131,000 70,662 90,040 B40% — — 154,000 149,500 80,756 102,900 ______

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ------Thousands of Metric Tons ------a Stock Status

Begin-Year Biomass (Age 3+) 175,300 175,300 317,300 347,900 173,500 206,900 Spawning Biomass (males and females) — — 257,000 344,600 166,100 174,190 Total Allowable Catch 1,000 1,000 1,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 Total Catch 1,156 1,653 1,150 1,556 1,736 2,523 ______Source: Chapter 1 and Chapter 1a, BSAI Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports 2002-07. a Results are for the entire AI management district.

The reference model with M equal to 0.235 and survey catchability set equal to 1.0 provided a projected spawning biomass estimate for 2008 of 164,500 tons. The spawning biomass associated with the B40% benchmark is 102,900 tons. Hence, for 2008 the projected spawning biomass in the AI area is larger than the buffered-MSY biomass estimate, and so AI pollock qualifies for management under the TIER 3a harvest control rules. Under the TIER 3a rules, the model provides a maxABC of 28,200 tons and an OFL of 34,000 tons. The SSC agreed with these values, and this resulted in harvest specifications for 2008 based on an age- structured assessment model (SSC 2007). By US law, the AI-area TAC is limited to 19,000 tons if the ABC is equal to or greater than this amount. Compared to the EBS pollock fishery, which is managed under the TIER 1b control rules, the TIER 3a rules provide more conservative harvest specifications. And as noted above, the age structured assessment model developed for the AI pollock biomass is very similar to the model used to assess the EBS

Rev. 01 Page 14 of 14

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

pollock biomass.

Ecosystem Considerations

The Alaska Peninsula and AI experienced westerly wind anomalies during the winter of 2006- 2007 due to an anomalous sea level pressure dipole, and a reversal to easterly wind anomalies during the spring of 2007. Westerly winds act to suppress the poleward flow of warm Pacific water through the Aleutian passes (especially Unimak Pass), while easterly winds enhance these transports. This mechanism is apt to have played a role in the anomalously cold conditions that occurred in the southern Bering Sea from winter into early spring, and in the relatively strong warming from spring into summer that followed (Boldt 2007). Wind direction during AI pollock spawning is also thought to influence larval transport, with easterly winds favoring transport of AI larvae toward the EBS shelf.

Prior to 2004, the ecosystem considerations that routinely influenced the setting of the ABCs for AI pollock were not listed explicitly in the stock assessment under an ecosystem considerations heading. However, in 2004 a standard format for considering the linkages between the pollock fishery and the Aleutian Islands ecosystem was adopted, and an ecosystem-level trophic map is now included in the assessment. For the 2006 assessment, diet and consumption for juvenile pollock were estimated and reported, both in tons and as a percentage of total juvenile diet and total consumption of juvenile pollock. The largest consumers of AI pollock are Pacific cod, at 8,000-28,000 tons annually. Other principal consumers include other adult pollock (3,000-11,000 tons), skates (2,000-8,000 tons), Pacific halibut(2,000-8,000 tons), and pinnipeds (2,000-7,000 tons). AI pollock consume mainly euphausiids (150-800 thousand tons), mesopelagics (100-750 thousand tons), copepods (80- 600 thousand tons), and benthic crustaceans (50-225 thousand tons).

Item Comments 1 Condition of Certification 1: Harvest control rule results in appropriate reductions in exploitation rate at low stock sizes. Conclusion of This Condition relates principally to Performance Indicators (PI) 1.1.1.3. PI 1.1.1.4 and surveillance 1.1.2.3.1 also relate in part. This condition was considered closed at last year’s surveillance report 2 audit.

Observations Last year was the first since EBS pollock has been managed as a TIER 1 stock where an ABC less than the maximum was adopted. Reasons for recommending an ABC less than the maximum value included: 1) that fishing vessels needed to travel farther to catch pollock in 2007; 2) that larger numbers of pollock than expected were harvested due to lower average weight; and 3) that the abundance of arrowtooth flounder, an important predator of juvenile pollock, continued to increase.

The NPFMC adopted an ABC of 1.0 million tons, an OFL of 1.44 million tons and set the EBS pollock TAC at 1.0 million tons for 2008 – a decrease of 394,000 tons compared to 2007.

AI pollock qualifies for management under the TIER 3a harvest control rules. Under the TIER 3a rules, the model provides a maxABC of 28,200 tons and an OFL of 34,000 tons. By US law, the AI-area TAC is limited to 19,000 tons if the ABC is equal to or greater than this amount. The TIER 3a rules provide more conservative harvest specifications compared to TIER 1.

Rev. 01 Page 15 of 15

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

2 Condition of Certification 2. Harvest strategy to be shown to be precautionary

Activity Assessed This Condition relates principally to Indicator 1.1.1.5, but, in part, Indicator 1.1.2.3.1 also relates.

100 Scoring Guidepost

The harvest strategy or management procedure has been formally evaluated and demonstrated to be robust to known sources of uncertainty in data and model assumptions.

80 Scoring Guidepost

The harvest strategy has been demonstrated to be precautionary, based on past management decisions and responses to uncertainty.

60 Scoring Guidepost

While including some elements of precaution, the harvest strategy has not proved to be sufficiently precautionary.

SCORE 75

The score for this indicator is the same across all management units, and reflects an evaluation for the whole Tier system as applied to pollock. Despite an analytical study to show that Tier 1 is precautionary and Tiers 1 to 3 ought to be precautionary (Thompson, 1997), that study was based on a relatively simple model of population dynamics, which fails to account for some important complexities and uncertainties in stock dynamics (such as spatial structure in populations, and temporal changes in productivity due to regime shifts). Surprisingly, there has been no comprehensive simulation testing of the harvest strategies used for pollock management, nor attempts to test their robustness to a wide range of uncertainties and assumptions inherent in stock assessment and management (Goodman et al, 2002). Such methods are now widely used in developing and testing both generic and fishery-specific harvest strategies (Butterworth and Punt, 1999; Smith et al., 1999), and have even been proposed, and are starting to be implemented, to test broader ecosystem based management strategies (Sainsbury et al., 2000). Hilborn and Walters (1992) have argued that all harvest strategies should be tested in this way. The methods involved (management strategy evaluation or evaluation of management procedures) are well known and documented. Goodman et al (2002) recommend adoption of this approach to test the robustness of the NPFMC harvest strategies in general.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, SCS requires that formal evaluation and testing of the robustness of current and any proposed new harvest strategies used to manage EBS and AI pollock be undertaken, using methods similar to those recommended by Goodman et al. (2002). The SCS evaluation team requires that any plans to correct this deficiency lay out a step-wise plan with timelines such that at least three stages of work would be available for evaluation:

1. Prepare detailed specifications for the evaluation. 2. Undertake the evaluations. 3. Modify harvest strategies as appropriate from the results of the evaluations. (Uptake to follow NPFMC due process).

Notes related to tasks:

Designing and implementing a management strategy evaluation study is a complex task, and the SCS evaluation team does not seek to prescribe precisely how it should be done. Nevertheless, the SCS team sees this condition as the key one that will help overcome most of their concerns with regard to Principle 1, and wishes to maintain an active involvement in monitoring progress in meeting the condition. The SCS team also considers it prudent that there be suitable opportunity for input from key stakeholders in the fishery. (Where there is

Rev. 01 Page 16 of 16

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

substantial disagreement between stakeholders, the SCS team will be the final arbiters). Whoever is contracted to undertake the task would do well to consult and be guided by the fairly detailed proposal in sections 3.10 and 3.11 of Goodman et al (2002) as this will be used by the SCS team as a benchmark, noting that those specifications are for testing generic NPFMC harvest strategies, and will need to be adapted for the specific circumstances of EBS and AI pollock.

In general, task 1 will involve specifying the set of performance measures against which the harvest strategies will be judged, the set of robustness tests to be undertaken, the detailed specifications of the operating models to be used, and the range of harvest strategies to be evaluated. The latter should include monitoring and assessment models as well as harvest control laws, noting that some simplification of detailed assessment models may be required for computational efficiency in testing harvest strategies. The robustness tests should include, at a minimum, alternative but credible assumptions about spatial dynamics of pollock in the Bering Sea (including overlaps into the Russian fishing zone), and the impacts of regime shifts. They should deal explicitly with key issues and uncertainties identified elsewhere in this report and cross referenced to this condition. Consideration should be given to including operating models that go beyond single species dynamics, where these are available or can be developed in suitable timeframes, and performance measures should include consideration of impacts on predators. The detailed specifications and proposal for work should be presented and discussed at an open workshop as soon as practical following certification. The proposal should specify who would undertake the work, the timelines involved, and the resources allocated to the task. At least one member of the SCS evaluation team should attend the workshop.

The work program is to be agreed by the SCS evaluation team and the group undertaking the evaluations. The timelines cannot be pre-specified, but will depend on the nature and complexity of the agreed work program. To maintain certification, progress on agreed tasks will be checked during surveillance visits at the specified time frames, or at the annual audits required by MSC if the time frames coincide.

The results of the evaluations will be made available to NPFMC, and will be presented at a second open workshop. Appropriate responses to the evaluations, including suggested changes to current harvest strategies, will be discussed and agreed in principle. Uptake of changes will follow through the due process of NPFMC decision making.

Rev. 01 Page 17 of 17

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity The assessment of the Alaska pollock fisheries began in January 2001. In September 2003, the certification body issued a comprehensive Draft Report recommending certification of the BS/AI pollock fishery. A Final Report was published in June 2004, and the Objections process concluded on September 30, 2004 with a finding that a Further Objection to the sustainability determination was not warranted.

Necessarily, the assessment team had to conclude its consideration of new information pertaining to this dynamic and ever-improving fishery and make its determination about the fishery’s compliance with the MSC’s sustainability standard. With some exceptions, the certification is based on information available to the assessment team when the BS/AI fishery was scored in 2002. As a result, there is considerable new information to provide to the certification body on changes and improvements in fishery management practices.

Condition #2 is a good example of where substantial new information exists and should be considered by the certification body during the first annual audit.

APA will provide the contracted certification body with the final AFSC report relating to issues identified in the Goodman report within 1 month of its availability. If the AFSC report is not available within 6 months of the issuance of the MSC certificate, APA will request a meeting between APA, NMFS, and the certification body to discuss the status and progress of the AFSC report. If the AFSC report is available within 6 months of the issuance of the certificate, APA will request a meeting between APA, NMFS, and the certification body to discuss what actions will be taken in follow-up to the AFSC report and how these actions will correspond to the requirements of the condition.

Within 3 months after the meeting between APA, NMFS, and the certification body, APA will provide the certification body with a plan for meeting the remaining objectives of the condition.

Conclusion of The frustration of APA with this condition is apparent in some of their responses, and it is Surveillance certainly true that, even at the time of the initial certification assessment, many robustness tests Report 1 of the harvest control rules had been undertaken. It is important to bear in mind that evaluation of the robustness of management strategies to various sources of uncertainty can be a task without an end - imaginative critics can always raise new uncertainties. However, completion of this Ph.D. work would comprise a substantial and coherent body of work on this theme.

Progress to date is therefore considered to be wholly satisfactory. Completion of the studentship, concomitant progress with other initiatives outlined above, and adaptation of results to the BS/AI fishery with appropriate modifications to harvest strategies would provide a level of analysis and response, that would meet this Condition. Ongoing development will be monitored in future surveillance audits with reporting on the stages outlined above in annual surveillance reports. The next annual report is expected to indicate clear timeframes for completion of the requirements of this condition. This condition is expected to be adequately closed within the timescale of the current certificate.

Conclusion of Progress on this Condition is on target. Surveillance Report 2 Some of the key work testing that the control rule for pollock is precautionary is contained in the work done by Ms. A’mar as part of her dissertation research. Assuming that the examination of the dissertation, expected in Fall of 2007, finds the work to be of acceptable quality, then this Condition will have been met.

With regards to the anticipated timeline for achieving this condition, it is expected that the Performance Indicators relevant to this condition will be re-scored, and this condition closed, at the next annual surveillance audit.

Rev. 01 Page 18 of 18

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Progress The evaluation of fishery management strategies has been an ongoing research activity of the Report Alaska Fishery Science Center (AFSC) for years. Management strategy evaluation (MSE) activities during 2002-2007 are described in the 2007 Surveillance Report Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Pollock Fishery.

An update on recent MSE activities is planned for the 2008/09 MSC surveillance visit.

Observations Although examination and defence of Ms. A’mar’s thesis has been delayed, none of the delay was associated with any problems arising in the testing done of the harvest control rule for Pollock. The core of this work was presented to a major international scientific symposium. The paper was subjected to peer review and accepted with minor revisions. This publication in a peer reviewed symposium volume is considered sufficient to support the view of the evaluation panel that the work is of high scientific standard, and the control rule is accepted as being precautionary. Conclusion Although there are endless possible scenarios that can be imagined such that no control rule can be considered to have been demonstrated to be robust to every possible source of data and model uncertainty, testing of this control rule has been extensive and rigorous. Any reasonable standard for due diligence to test robustness to plausible worst-case scenarios can be considered to have been met or exceeded. The comprehensiveness of the model structure and rigour of the evaluation of standards are exceptionally high.

This Condition relates principally to Indicator 1.1.1.5, but indicator 1.1.2.3.1 also relates. Where a Performance Indicator is addressed by multiple conditions, a notional score of 80 will be required and applied to those elements of the Performance Indicator addressed by a condition being closed. The final score for the Performance Indicator will then be determined when the last relevant condition is closed.

On the basis of the above commentary the score associated with the Performance Indicator 1.1.1.5 is adjusted as follows:

80 Scoring Guidepost

The harvest strategy has been demonstrated to be precautionary, based on past management decisions and responses to uncertainty.

100 Scoring Guidepost

The harvest strategy or management procedure has been formally evaluated and demonstrated to be robust to known sources of uncertainty in data and model assumptions.

The performance of the fishery now clearly lies between 80 and 100; the harvest strategy has been tested extensively and been demonstrated to be precautionary and robust to known sources of uncertainty in data.

The score allocated to this Performance Indicator is now raised to 90.

This condition has now been closed.

Rev. 01 Page 19 of 19

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

3 Condition of Certification 3. Stock assessments explore sensitivities to assumptions, parameters and data, and key sensitivities are taken into account in the harvest strategy.

Conclusion of This Condition relates principally to PI 1.1.2.3.3. PI 1.1.2.3.5.1 also relates. surveillance report 2 This condition was considered closed at last year’s surveillance audit. It was also requested that the annual Surveillance Audit should continue to receive information about the performance of the fishery in the Russian zone, and the cooperation of the Russian Federation in sharing information needed to evaluate any impact fisheries in the Russian Zone might have on BS/AI Pollock.

Observations The AFSC was permitted to extend their acoustic survey into the Russian zone, and the 2007 survey covered a large part of the Navarin Basin. The survey observations and the location of the summer (B-season) fishery both indicate an EBS pollock biomass distributed to the northwest during the summer. Similar distributions were observed during the summers of 2005 and 2006.

Rev. 01 Page 20 of 20

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

4 Condition of Certification 4. There is a management plan with ecosystem considerations that identifies impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem and sets reasonable upper bounds for the identified impacts.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 1.1, but Principle 3 Indicator 1.2 also relates

Intent statement: Pollock has a lower caloric density than that of many other ‘food fish’. As a consequence, it may be a less suitable food where animals require a high energy density diet in order to promote rapid growth of their young or to increase their own energy reserves. This has led, for example, to the ‘junk food hypothesis’ that suggests that pollock are nutritionally inferior to alternatives such as herring or myctophids, and that populations of top predators might increase if able to feed on large stocks of herring but may decrease if the food web is dominated by pollock (as at present). But in the Eastern Bering Sea, pollock represent a high proportion of the overall food fish biomass, and form a large part of the diet of many ‘top predator’ marine mammals and . Given the importance of pollock as the primary food for many ‘top predators’ in this ecosystem, we consider that an ecosystem approach is especially important for this fishery (more so than for example in fisheries for other gadoid species that form a small part of the diet of wildlife where the ‘food fish’ of top predators tends to be gadoid prey rather than the gadoid stock itself). Thus despite the possible lower nutritional quality for food-stressed seabirds or marine mammals of pollock relative to herring, we consider the ecological role of pollock to be somewhat more similar to that of capelin in the Barents Sea, sandeel in the North Sea, krill in the Southern Ocean, than to the role of cod in the Barents Sea, cod, haddock, whiting and saithe in the North Sea, or hoki in New Zealand. Our aim with this indicator was therefore to identify whether management of the pollock fishery uses an ecosystem approach to management, based on a knowledge of the ecological relationships between the fishery, fish stock and other components of the ecosystem, and limits impacts of the fishery to below levels that can be identified as damaging to the wider ecosystem (as distinct from limits set on the basis of single stock management alone such as the need to maintain SSB to achieve adequate recruitment). In particular we were looking to see whether research had identified ecosystem effects of the fishery, whether these effects were taken into account in management decisions (such as setting ABCs and TACs), and whether a precautionary approach was used where information on impacts or the needs of other ecosystem components was poor. Therefore we developed the following scoring guideposts:

100 Scoring Guidepost

• There is a detailed ecosystem management plan based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and components of the ecosystem. • This forms the basis for a fishery management strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem within defined bounds such as using 90% confidence intervals for setting ABCs in the single species context, and establishing a decision rule in the multi-species context similar to that employed in CCAMLR for krill, which explicitly adjusts the single species fishing level downward to account for the needs of other krill consumers in the ecosystem. • These bounds are set at reasonable levels and are increasingly precautionary where uncertainty is high. They address risks associated with point estimates of ABCs and/or address the needs of dependent and related species explicitly.

80 Scoring Guidepost

• There is a management system with ecosystem components based on general knowledge of ecological relationships. This contains explicit management objectives to understand and control impacts on trophic relationships, community and habitat structure and biodiversity. • The management system assists fishery managers in making adjustments to reduce impacts on the ecosystem. • Where uncertainty is high, management to restrain impacts is precautionary.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Rev. 01 Page 21 of 21

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Despite attempts to develop a management system that includes ecosystem considerations, impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem have not yet been constrained within agreed and reasonable bounds.

SCORE 79

This score falls just below the 80 guidepost mainly because ecosystems considerations are not used in determining ABCs and have played rather inconsistent roles in determining the multiple amendments to specific detail of fishery management in terms of seasonal and spatial constraints on harvest.

As APA’s original submission indicated, the BS/AI pollock fishery incorporates numerous ecosystem-based elements into the management system. In addition to employing a precautionary approach in some aspects of the ABC and TAC setting processes, there is a comprehensive federal fishery observer program, an innovative rationalization system to limit effort and reduce fishery impacts, and extensive use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to avoid fishery impacts on marine mammals. Alaska pollock fishery managers have implemented numerous other progressive ecosystem-based management measures identified by the National Academy of Sciences.

The overall groundfish cap of 2 million t harvest in the EBS/AI results in pollock catches that are generally conservative in the context of traditional single-species management. However, for a fish that is a major component of the diet of many species of marine mammal, and predatory fish, the pollock fishery management must also account for the needs of predators in the ecosystem and for changes to food web structure that may be induced by removal of large quantities of pollock. What may be conservative in terms of avoiding depletion of spawning stock biomass and impacts on future recruitment may not necessarily be conservative in ensuring adequate densities of food fish for foraging dependent predators. Single species fishery management has a long history. We recognize that ecosystem based fishery management is an emerging concept, and a highly complex issue.

Stakeholders (Bernstein et al. 2002) provided the evaluation team with a report that highlights four aspects of pollock fishery management that currently limit the ability of managers to take ecosystem considerations into the fishery management plan. These are (1) ‘incomplete knowledge of environmental influences on stock dynamics and of the effects of fishing on ecosystem structure making it difficult for managers to clearly distinguish the relative effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on pollock stock dynamics and ecosystems, or to predict how changes in ocean climate will affect stocks and ecosystems in future’ (2) ‘incomplete knowledge about the trophic relationships among pollock and other species in the ecosystem, making it difficult to determine management strategies that are optimal for preserving critical relationships’ (3) ‘uncertainties regarding the impact of the pollock fishery on the protected Steller sea lion making it difficult to implement regulatory measures that are certain to protect this listed species and hence comply with U.S. environmental laws’ and (4) ‘in setting objectives for the fishery, managers have not until recently incorporated ecosystem objectives that encompass species and habitats beyond the target stock’.

The Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (1999) established by NMFS to develop concepts of ecosystem management in the context of the Alaska groundfish fisheries stated that an ecosystem-based management approach would require managers ‘to consider all interactions that a target fish stock has with predators, competitors, and prey species; the effects of weather and climate on fisheries biology and ecology; the complex interactions between and their habitat; and the effects of fishing on fish stocks and their habitat’. In line with these principles, the ‘Ecosystem Considerations’ chapter presented as an Appendix to Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the groundfish resources of the EBS/AI and GOA (Livingston 1999, 2000, 2001) is an extremely impressive synthesis of a huge quantity of data on components of the ecosystem that may be affected by the pollock fishery. Few major fisheries around the world (and even fewer small fisheries) have gathered such detailed reviews of possible ecosystem interactions with fisheries. Noting this excellent effort, the evaluation team felt the management of the fishery still fell slightly below the 80 scoring guidepost, as the pollock fishery has not yet used the Ecosystems Considerations chapter in

Rev. 01 Page 22 of 22

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

determining ABCs, an important step in setting the annual catch.

Although management sets a 2 million ton cap on the total harvest of groundfish, the management of the pollock fisheries has allowed the fishing mortality rate to increase as stock declines. When pollock stock is high (as is currently the case) the TAC has tended to be set well below the ABC, whereas with low stock the TAC has usually been set as high as the ABC permits. This could still be considered precautionary if the ABC already has taken into account the effects of the pollock fishery on other components of the ecosystem. However, ecosystem considerations are predominantly qualitative and therefore not used by the stock assessment in setting ABCs.

Increases in fishing mortality as stock declines, allows the fishery to remove an increasing (though still small) proportion of the stock at smaller stock size. Since this may also reduce availability of pollock to other predators under decreased stock biomass, this could make stock recovery increasingly less likely as stock falls.

The harvest control rule has changed from year to year, but has not limited the harvest to significantly lower fishing mortality rates at moderate to low stock size. Efforts to avoid possible local depletion in areas of particular importance for foraging marine mammals (fur seals and Steller sea lions in particular) have been of uncertain efficacy, and it appears have done rather little to reduce the very high proportion of pollock catch taken from defined ‘critical habitat’ of Steller sea lions. Given the potential influence of the pollock fishery on Steller sea lion prey fields, and the fact that ongoing studies have not yet provided a firm understanding, the management appears not to be as precautionary as one might expect in a position of continued uncertainty.

Continued high exploitation of pollock in SSL critical habitat is of concern. We are aware of ongoing studies looking at the effects of fishing on pollock distribution and density within SSL critical habitat. However, the effectiveness of constraints on fishing in areas close to Steller sea lion rookeries and haul-outs cannot yet be ascertained. Even the validity of the concept of ‘critical habitat’ for SSL is quite unclear. There is a lack of data on the extent to which SSL forage within ‘critical habitat’. Initial radio tracking studies have provided some interesting data on this as they show where SSL may occur, but do not clearly discriminate between foraging and non-foraging distribution and behaviour. More recent studies provide more detailed information, but there still appears to be significant uncertainty about the possible effects of fishing on foraging success by SSL inside and outside ‘critical habitat’. There remains an urgent need to determine whether prey abundance within SSLCH (or indeed in larger areas around rookeries and haul-outs) affects the SSL population trajectory at the level of individual rookeries/haul-outs, and if so, whether the high take of pollock within SSLCH affects prey abundance for foraging Steller sea lions.

The initial draft PSEIS (now being redone) reports ‘Conditionally significant adverse impacts on the three primary pinniped species (Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, harbor seals) due to harvest of prey species; Conditionally significant adverse impacts on the primary pinniped species are identified due to spatial/temporal concentration of the fishery’ and ‘Cumulative effects are identified for prey availability and spatial/temporal removal of prey for Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, and harbor seal. These effects are conditionally significant adverse based primarily on competition for prey’. This is reflected in the 3 December 1998 BiOp and the November 2000 BiOp determining that the BSAI and GOA pollock fisheries, as projected for 1999 through 2002, were likely to jeopardize the endangered western population of Steller sea lions and destroy or adversely modify critical habitat designated for this population (PSEIS p2.9-20). In contrast, the October 2001 BiOp using the initial telemetry data reversed the conclusion of jeopardy. Moreover, the draft addendum to the 2001 BiOp, prepared to meet the requirements cited by Judge Zilly continues to support the conclusion of no jeopardy.

In the draft PSEIS the agency reports ‘The 1990s may be viewed as a period of continual modification of measures to manage groundfish operations to minimize their impact on non- groundfish fisheries, on marine mammals and seabirds, and on habitat’. Even though the draft report proposes a different approach to management, Alternative 2 in the PSEIS describes a new policy framework that emphasizes increased protection to marine

Rev. 01 Page 23 of 23

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

mammals and seabirds, the current management emphasizes continues to maintain a stable high annual harvest rather than protection of the wider ecosystem.

Rather than the current emphasis in stock assessment and TAC setting on predicting the most likely outcome, management might incorporate ecosystem considerations more readily by adapting a scenario planning approach, in order to seek management strategies that would provide suitable yields of pollock without major impacts on the wider ecosystem under a diverse range of assumptions regarding relationships between the fishery and ecosystem components and functions.

Regarding specific points in the 80 Guidepost, we accept that the management system could assist fishery managers in making adjustments to reduce impacts on the ecosystem, through the qualitative approach of annual ‘Ecosystem considerations’ chapters, and that aspects of management are precautionary (for example the 2 million tonne groundfish cap). However, we feel that the fishery falls marginally below the 80 guidepost for the variety of broad reasons outlined in the paragraphs above, and specifically because it remains unclear whether a lower limit reference point of B20 provides an adequate limit to stock exploitation to ensure an adequate biomass of pollock for natural predators.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery is required to specifically and explicitly develop and implement a plan for using the information contained in the Ecosystem Chapter of the SAFE document to develop ABCs for the pollock fisheries.

Fisheries science is still developing methodologies for introducing environmental parameters into fisheries models and the state of current scientific knowledge remains insufficient to accommodate the conditions required under this indicator without further such development, and so some time is required to allow the necessary developments (see below).

The plan must show how the authors of the ‘Ecosystem Considerations’ chapter explicit recommendations will be used in setting limits on ABCs based on each of the ecosystem data sets under review in the chapter where the data indicate that a constraint on pollock harvest may be an appropriate response to the pattern displayed by the data set. The evaluation team would request consideration of introducing more use of scenario planning in developing management strategies that are robust under several possible futures.

Rev. 01 Page 24 of 24

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity The certification report notes that the “state of current scientific knowledge remains insufficient to accommodate the conditions required under this indicator without further…development (of fisheries science)”. Importantly, the Final Report also notes repeatedly that management in the North Pacific is widely viewed as progressive and precautionary. Recognizing that the AFSC is consistently recognized for its leading edge practices, APA proposes this step-wise approach to meeting the Condition.

APA will have a qualified individual, including contracting with an outside expert if necessary, review the literature to evaluate what constitutes state of the art practices in incorporating ecological indices into estimation of ABCs. Furthermore, APA will assess the extent to which AFSC incorporates such information into its annual SAFE report recommendations for groundfish fisheries, including recommendations on the pollock ABC. Based on its review of existing knowledge and methodologies, APA will identify in what areas, if any, AFSC’s analysis could be enhanced. APA will have the report peer reviewed by at least one expert chosen in consultation with the certification body. APA will present its findings to the certifier at the first annual audit, and if the certifier agrees that the report is appropriate, APA will share its findings with AFSC and urge the agency to consider including such revisions in its annual SAFE reports. Furthermore, prior to the first annual audit APA will meet with AFSC staff to better understand the resources available to the agency and developments in ecological theory and provide to the certifier an assessment of the AFSC’s long-term plan for further incorporating ecological indices in the ABC setting process.

Conclusion of Progress to date is satisfactory and is clearly moving towards the objective of including Surveillance ecosystem considerations in the setting of ABC’s. In light of the comments above, the Report 1 assessment team would propose to carry out specific discussions with relevant NMFS and APA staff during the second surveillance audit to determine further progress in 2006 and the latest status of current plans to achieve this objective. The audit team would then review Timescales relevant to this condition.

Conclusion of Progress on this condition is excellent. If the results of ecosystem modelling completed to this Surveillance point can be assembled into quantitative upper limits for impacts of the fishery on the Report 2 ecosystem, and these limits entrenched as far as possible in the science advisory and management process, with their use transparent to all stakeholders, then this condition would be met. The annual surveillance audit would then be expected to evaluate the fishery management and operations relative to these ecosystem limits, as well as limits based on properties of the Pollock stock itself.

Compliance with this condition remains on-target and the condition is expected to be closed within the term of the present MSC certification.

APA Progress The Ecosystem Considerations portions of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Report Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports (SAFEs) provide an ecosystem assessment within the context of measurements on a diverse array of oceanographic-conditions indicators over time. The foundation of the assessment is a set of measurements on the abundance and functioning of a diverse array of biological components. These ecosystem components run from bottom to top in the trophic pyramid — from nutrients and productivity, to habitat and forage fish, to the commercial fisheries species, and finally, to a constellation of higher-level organisms, the marine mammals and seabirds. A final section shows how the measurements that have been collected match up to policy goals for ecosystem conservation (Livingston et al. 2005, Boldt 2007).

An effort to advance the development of predictive multi-species models has been on-going for several years at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and some of the results of this effort are reported in the 2007 edition of Ecosystem Considerations. Progress has been made on two fronts — (1) multispecies stock population-dynamics models, and (2) ecosystem mass-balance, food-web models. Predictive models are important because they generate the “raw material” for hypothesis testing and assessing ecosystem features likely to be important for management strategy evaluation (MSE). Both modeling approaches are useful because both can be “compared with” and “calibrated to” outputs from the single-species models used to assess pollock biomass in the eastern Bering Sea (EBS), Aleutian Islands (AI), and GOA. A review

Rev. 01 Page 25 of 25

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

of the 2007 Considerations reveals a continuing focus on employing the food-web models to assess whether the strategic assumption of single-species “surplus production” is valid, or whether ecosystems are better thought of as “strongly connected” predator-prey systems with all energy used within the system (e.g., see “Ecosystem Assessment: Results,” Boldt 2007, pp. 26-42) This work compares estimates of current total fishing and predation on Alaska pollock with estimates of stock production in the BSAI and GOA areas.

Recent developments in ecosystem mass-balance, food-web models are also presented by Aydin et al. (2007), which provides results concerning: 1) ecosystem models for single species indicators and statistics, with cross system comparisons; and 2) ecosystem level indicators and comparative statistics. The results show that the EBS ecosystem has a much larger benthic influence in its food web than either the GOA or the AI. Conversely, the AI ecosystem has the strongest pelagic influence in its food web relative to the other two systems. The GOA ecosystem appears balanced between benthic and pelagic pathways, but is notable in having a smaller fisheries catch relative to the other two systems, and a high biomass of fish predators above trophic level four (arrowtooth flounder and halibut).

One focus of the revised analysis was comparisons of upper trophic-level consumption by predators and fisheries (i.e., fishery “footprint” comparisons). In the EBS, both northern fur seals and the pollock trawl fishery were identified as high consumers among the high-trophic- level ecosystem components. The results indicate that fur seals are major sinks for juvenile herring, sablefish, and salmon production. However, unlike the fur seal, the EBS pollock fishery removes a high percentage of production by a single species (about 35 percent of adult pollock production). And despite the extremely high percentage of the catch that is pollock, the fishery also depends indirectly on the production of many more species than just pollock. For example, the analysis estimates that nearly 20 percent of the production of forage species such as bathylagids and pandalid shrimp are required to support pollock fishery catches, as well as and more than 10 percent of the production of herring, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, myctophids, and most pelagic zooplankton (including euphausiids, mysids, and copepods; Figure 38, Aydin et al. 2007). For most zooplankton and phytoplankton groups, pollock fishery catches require more than double the production removed by fur seals.

In the AI, both Pacific cod and the Atka mackerel trawl fishery were identified as important consumers above trophic level four. As predators with high consumption and a diverse diet, cod remove substantial proportions of the production of several species in the AI ecosystem: 20 percent of tanner , eelpout, and other sculpin production, 30 percent of greenling production, and up to 40 percent of rex sole, juvenile sablefish, and juvenile arrowtooth production. The footprint of Pacific cod in the AI affects many species in the ecosystem from fish through benthic invertebrates; in particular , shrimp, sea stars, and benthic worms are large taxonomic aggregates which have 10-15 percent of annual production removed by cod alone. In comparison, the AI Atka mackerel fishery removes more than 20 percent of the production of its target species. The fishery also retains incidentally caught rockfish, resulting in high levels of production removal for several species: 18 percent for northern rockfish, 25 percent for rougheye rockfish, and 38 percent for dusky rockfish. The highest removals attributed to the AI Atka mackerel fishery are for flatfish (55% for Alaska plaice and 73% for yellowfin sole), which are low biomass groups in this ecosystem.

A comparison of high-trophic-level consumers in the GOA identified arrowtooth flounder and the Pacific halibut fishery as important high-level consumers. Arrowtooth flounder remove a high proportion of the production of many groups in the ecosystem, including about 25 percent of adult pollock, herring, and Atka mackerel production; 30-35 percent of capelin and eel pout production, and 40-55 percent of juvenile pollock, herring, sablefish, and Atka mackerel production. In addition, between 10 and 20 percent of the production of other forage fish, shrimp, benthic invertebrates and half the zooplankton groups are removed by arrowtooth flounder in this ecosystem. As such, it is clear that arrowtooth flounder require a considerable amount of production in this ecosystem to maintain their high biomass.

In comparison, the GOA halibut fishery is estimated to remove 30 percent of its target species’ production, as well as a substantial proportion of the production of other high trophic-level consumers, such as sleeper (58%) and dogfish (48%). In addition, depending on the

Rev. 01 Page 26 of 26

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

species, the GOA halibut fishery removes 17-34 percent of skate production. Rex sole is the next largest production removal at 15 percent (this is an indirect effect of fishery bycatch because rex sole are a primary prey of longnose skates in the GOA). Other consumption by halibut caught in the GOA includes 10 percent of pollock and herring production. Despite removing a majority of the production of several high trophic-level predators, the GOA halibut fishery has a smaller footprint for all zooplankton and phytoplankton groups than arrowtooth flounder.

Finally, all of the Alaska pollock stock assessments now include a standard-format ecosystem considerations section that identifies explicitly the factors that are taken into consideration in recommending over-fishing tonnages (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABCs). In addition, each assessment also includes a mass-balance, food-web-based “energy map” of the ecosystem which illustrates the nature of the trophic linkages between pollock and the EBS, AI, and GOA ecosystems. Stock-assessment authors are encouraged to incorporate ecosystem considerations into recommendations for OFLs and ABCs. For 2007, the EBS pollock assessment identified suspected changes in ecosystem productivity over the southeastern Bering Sea shelf and decreases in spawning biomass as issues which motivated an ABC recommendation for 2008 reduced by 15 percent from the maxABC of the reference-model (Ianelli et al. 2007). In the GOA pollock assessment, continued concerns over a downward trending and relatively low pollock biomass as well as a very large biomass of arrowtooth flounder, a known pollock predator, resulted in a recommended ABC for 2008 reduced by 14 percent from the maxABC (Dorn et al. 2007). This recommendation was also a decrease of 14 percent from the 2007 ABC.

Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan

In December 2007 the NPFMC produced a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) for the AI. The development of the FEP was motivated by findings and recommendations of the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (NOAA 1999). The goal of the FEP is to provide enhanced scientific information and measurable indicators to evaluate and promote ecosystem health, sustainable fisheries, and vibrant communities in the AI. This FEP is intended to be an educational tool and resource that can provide the NPFMC with both an ‘early warning system’, and an ecosystem context to fishery management decisions affecting the AI. As such, the FEP should help the NPFMC respond to changing conditions in a proactive rather than reactive mode.

The scope of the FEP encompasses all federal fisheries within the area, and considers the interactions of federal and state fisheries with each other, and with other components of the ecosystem. The role of the FEP is to provide an understanding of the ecosystem context in which the fishery management plans (FMPs) regulate, thereby assisting the Council to better integrate ecosystem principles into management regulations. Because the FEP evaluates relationships among components of the ecosystem that are typically managed separately, this geographically-based ecosystem perspective may suggest areas for changes and improvements. Any such changes would be implemented through the normal FMP amendment process. The FEP is intended to be a guidance document for the NPFMC and so does not authorize management measures or changes to fishery regulations.

Observations NOAA Fisheries has invested significant effort in the development and testing of Indicators of the status of exploited marine ecosystems, and the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems. Although these efforts are national and international in scope, the scientific community working in the Bering sea and Gulf of Alaska have played leadership roles in this work. Moreover progress and relevance of this work to the North Pacific was evaluated in depth by PICES in 2007 (ref -), where this work was found to be state of the art at the international level. Note only was this a well coordinated research effort by NOAA, but the Alaska Fisheries Science Centre has shown an on-going commitment to this work through investment in new scientific research staff to focus specifically on ecosystem indicators and ecosystem effects of the North Pacific fisheries.

There is also clear evidence that the results of ecosystem studies and indicators are making their way directly into management. Ecosystem considerations form a core part of the annual

Rev. 01 Page 27 of 27

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

SAFE report, which constitutes the scientific information used in management of the fishery, and in the direct scientific advice on management. In particular, the TAC advice annually is precautionary relative to the uncertainties about environmental forcing on stock dynamics and about the impacts of harvests on predators of Pollock. The harvest control rules do not have these factors explicitly in the rule. However, an emerging international scientific consensus supports the strategy adopted in the Pollock control rule, that selection of the target and limit exploitation rates accommodate the ecosystem considerations, rather than develop complex control rules with many environmental variables in the rule.

Conclusion This Condition, taken as written, is sufficiently inclusive that it might never be satisfied. There is always more that can be studied about ecosystem structure and function, and direct and indirect interactions of ecosystem components are sufficiently numerous and complex that there will always pathways of potential detrimental impacts of a fishery that are not well understood and not well quantified. However, it is legitimate to approach the Condition in the context of asking if enough is known to management the fishery with a low risk of serious adverse impacts on ecosystem dynamics, and is there evidence that the knowledge is being used appropriately in management.

Compared to the Condition and the audit report last year, the outstanding incomplete item is to have scientifically determined limit reference points on the ecosystem indicators. However, at least two different international workshops in 2007 have concluded that aside from rare and exceptional circumstances, the scientific community is not yet in a position to provide consensus guidance on how limit reference points should be positioned on many types of ecosystem indicators. This is not an issue of lack of data but one of lack of clarity about the ecological conditions that should be reflected in a limit reference point for indicators of tropho- dynamic status, community structure, etc. Hence the absence of limit reference points for ecosystem indicators used in association with the Pollock assessment, advice, and management is reflecting the state of the scientific discipline and not an inadequacy in this particular case. Rather, the range of “typical” conditions for the BSAI and GOA are reasonably known for the most important ecosystem indicators, and the NOAA assessments suggest that the ecosystems are within their normal range of variation. Hence the ecological condition supported by this condition can be considered to be met. The Condition itself can be closed. The regular review of the SAFE report, the scientific advice, and the management plan should include particular attention to the Ecosystem Considerations component, as part of the annual audit of the fishery.

On the basis of the above commentary the score associated with the Performance Indicator 1.1 is adjusted as follows:

80 Scoring Guidepost

• There is a management system with ecosystem components based on general knowledge of ecological relationships. This contains explicit management objectives to understand and control impacts on trophic relationships, community and habitat structure and biodiversity. • The management system assists fishery managers in making adjustments to reduce impacts on the ecosystem. • Where uncertainty is high, management to restrain impacts is precautionary.

100 Scoring Guidepost

• There is a detailed ecosystem management plan based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and components of the ecosystem. • This forms the basis for a fishery management strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem within defined bounds such as using 90% confidence intervals for setting ABCs in the single species context, and establishing a decision rule in the multi-species context similar to that employed in CCAMLR for krill, which explicitly adjusts the single species fishing level downward to account for the needs of other krill consumers in the ecosystem. • These bounds are set at reasonable levels and are increasingly precautionary where

Rev. 01 Page 28 of 28

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

uncertainty is high. They address risks associated with point estimates of ABCs and/or address the needs of dependent and related species explicitly.

We consider that the performance of the fishery now lies between 80 and 100: Alaska pollock stock assessments now identify ecosystem considerations that are taken into consideration in recommending over-fishing tonnages (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABCs); the management system is reactive to ecosystem information and assists managers in making adjustments to reduce the impact on the ecosystem as evidenced by the reduction in 15% of the ABC in the EBS and, where uncertainty is high, management to restrain impacts is precautionary.

The score allocated to this Performance Indicator is now raised to 80.

This condition has now been closed and the outcomes of ongoing associated work will be reviewed as a function of annual surveillance audits.

Rev. 01 Page 29 of 29

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

5 Condition of Certification 5. Assessments are conducted to identify and estimate impacts of the fishery on habitats, especially on essential fish habitat (EFH) or critical habitat for protected, endangered, threatened or icon species, which are necessary to manage the fishery to minimize identified impacts.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 1.2.1.

The intention of this performance indicator is to evaluate the extent to which the fishery demonstrates that it does not have unacceptable impacts on important habitats that might be vulnerable to alteration by the fishery.

Elements considered in scoring include: • The effects of fishing on the habitat structure and productivity in fished areas, especially in areas used for spawning by fish. • The effects of fishing on foraging economics of predators utilizing the fished area • The effects of bycatch and discards/discharges on habitat structure and productivity in fished areas. • Information on the extent of lost fishing gear and any physical damage caused to habitats. • Information on the discharge of processing wastes, and their effects on the physical environment. • Management response to these collected data.

100 Scoring Guidepost

• Important adverse effects of on benthic and pelagic habitats are measured at intervals on a programmatic basis. • Particular attention is given to effects of trawling on vulnerable habitats such as those inhabited by corals, and essential fish habitat or fish spawning areas. • Impacts of fishing on food-fish abundance and distribution are measured, in particular as they affect availability of food for consumers such as endangered, threatened, protected, or icon species. • Effects of discards and waste discharges on habitats are measured at intervals on a programmatic basis. • Quantities of gear lost are recorded, and the impact of lost gear on habitats is measured. • This information is presented in documents that are made available to stakeholders. • Responsive management changes occur as a direct result of assessment findings.

80 Scoring Guidepost

• The effects of trawling on benthic and pelagic habitats have been assessed and the results presented in documents available to stakeholders. • Particular attention is given to vulnerable habitats such as those inhabited by corals and those providing essential fish habitat. • Impacts of fishing on food-fish abundance and distribution have been considered and presented in documents available to stakeholders. • Effects of discards and waste discharges have been considered and presented in documents available to stakeholders. • Gear loss has been reviewed and impacts on habitats considered and presented in documents available to stakeholders.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Adverse effects of trawling on habitats, especially on essential habitat for fish or critical habitat for protected, endangered, threatened or icon species, are documented by sporadic investigations, but many of these are not in the public domain. Coverage of topics is incomplete. Quantitative estimation of impacts is therefore subject to much uncertainty.

Rev. 01 Page 30 of 30

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

SCORE 79

The score is very close to the 80 guidepost. The effects of trawling on benthic and pelagic habitats have been assessed and the results presented to stakeholders, for example in the PSEIS, and attention has been given to vulnerable habitats. Impacts of fishing on food fish abundance and distribution, on discards and waste discharges and on gear loss have been subjected to assessment, but we feel that these assessments fall slightly short of the required level.

As the APA submission on Principle 2 points out, there is an extensive body of information documenting BSAI ecosystem features, both physical and biological. Extensive monitoring programs also exist to update key data series and research programs on ecosystem characteristics, and these monitoring programs extend back various periods in time, thereby allowing for some developments in ‘historical science’ or the inclusion of past patterns of ecosystem change into analyses of present conditions. APA also provides details of assessments of the impact of the groundfish fisheries on habitats. The vast majority of the pollock catch is taken mid-water. Occasionally, however, mid-water trawls may hit the bottom, and this can contribute to trawl damage to benthic habitats and communities. Such impacts are very much greater where a fishery is using a bottom trawl, but the very size of the pollock fishery does raise the question of how frequently pollock trawls drag on the bottom. Analysis of the frequency of benthic items in pollock catches indicates that this is infrequent.

Many aspects of these assessments meet or exceed the 80 scoring guidepost, but the state of knowledge of the impact of pollock fishing on Steller sea lion critical habitat (SSLCH) falls short of this. Even with ongoing studies to assess pollock prey fields in SSLCH more fully, the effects of harvesting from SSL ‘critical habitat’ on fish prey fields are not yet known.

One of the major hypotheses set up to explain the decline in numbers of Steller sea lions is the ‘localized depletion hypothesis’ The localized depletion hypothesis suggests ‘that the pollock fishery (and the Atka mackerel and cod fisheries) cause localized depressions in the prey field around Steller sea lion rookeries, haulouts, and other critical habitat’ (DeMaster and Fritz, 2001; Livingston, 2001 page 104-105). There is some evidence for this hypothesis reviewed in NRC (1996) and NMFS (2001a,d), but the evidence is either incomplete or inconsistent with other data. The recent NRC panel (Committee on the Alaska groundfish fishery and Steller sea lions, 2002) found that reduced prey availability could not be ruled out, but was a less likely hypothesis than others such as climate change or killer predation on SSLs. This lack of understanding makes it impossible to say what effect pollock fishing has on SSLCH.

The frequent alterations to RPAs intended to reduce the impact of pollock fishing within SSLCH is consistent with this lack of knowledge; However, scientific data evaluating the efficacy of each RPA were lacking at the time of this report, and therefore it seems impossible to assess whether any one set of RPA conditions is more successful than another in mitigating impacts. Empirical evidence from catches taken within SSLCH shows that the various RPAs have not significantly reduced the proportion of the pollock catch taken from SSLCH (see Figure 2).

The analysis of telemetry data by NMFS summarized in the addendum to the 2001 BiOp led NMFS to conclude that all of SSL critical habitat (0-20 nm) is not used equally. Instead, NMFS draws the conclusion that 0-3 nm and 3-10 nm are used significantly more than 10-20 nm, so that fishing inside SSLCH can be allowed using a zonal approach. However, this view was based on preliminary and incomplete analysis of new telemetry data and the scientific basis for this conclusion has not been subject to peer review. Subsequently, NMFS has revised its interpretation of the telemetry data in the light of findings by Judge Zilly that ‘NMFS’s determination that the near shore zone of critical habitat (3nm to 10 nm) is 3 times more important to the foraging needs of Steller sea lions than the offshore critical habitat (10 nm to 20 nm) was not supported by the filtered telemetry data cited by NMFS’ (NMFS, 2003).

NOAA Fisheries did use “filtered” telemetry data in the 2001 Biological Opinion as well as in the Supplemental Analysis that the agency submitted to the Court on 19 June 2003 (the

Rev. 01 Page 31 of 31

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

“Supplement”). The filtering technique utilized in the Supplement, however, was more refined than that utilized in the 2001 BiOp.

In the 2001 BiOp, the agency attempted to eliminate potential bias in the telemetry data by simply eliminating “90% of the locations which occurred between 0 and 2 nm from shore.” This technique was designed as a precautionary method to minimize the possibility of overestimating “the dependence of juveniles and adult females on the inner 10 nm of critical habitat.” But the choice of 90% elimination of data was arbitrary and that specific filter could not be justified. The Supplement used a different and somewhat more refined approach—one that was based on a new telemetry analysis that “integrat[ed] dive depth with locations”. According to the Supplement, “[t]he new dive-related telemetry data identifies more specifically the mechanism that sea lions use to forage (i.e., diving).” (Supplement, p. 14). The restriction of analysis to devices that indicate diving behaviour will presumably remove much of the biased data from animals resting at haul-outs or sleeping rather than foraging. However, no validation of the depth selected to indicate ‘foraging’ was presented and this depth limit appears to be arbitrary and selected from the limited depth bins into which data are collected. It still seems uncertain how effective and reliable a filter this represents.

A further concern about the telemetry data that still remains after the new approach to filtering locations to reduce bias, is that much data from the PTTs comes from instruments deployed on SSL juveniles that may not be weaned, and so would have been remaining at rookeries or haul- outs to be fed by their mother. It is unlikely that the telemetry data can provide an accurate measure of how much SSLs feed within SSLCH, given that a high proportion of the data simply indicates that SSL pups waiting to be fed tend to stay close to home. This point is also made by NMFS when it states ‘there has been a disproportionate number of pups instrumented vs. juveniles (2 and 3 year olds), which may bias the information on sea lion geographic distribution with data on animals that are still nursing and may not be foraging’ and ‘to date, researchers have inadequate telemetry information on animals from 2-4 years of age, the time period which may be crucial to their survival’ (NMFS, 2003). The supplement reports on analyses completed in January and February 2003 “based on juvenile dive locations derived from satellite transmitters during the three-year period from 2000-2002.” Pages 15-19 of the Supplement provide information derived from satellite dive recorders for 63 juvenile Steller sea lions. Of note, the analysis indicates that, “In summer, juvenile sea lions predominately use the 0-10 nm zone of critical habitat (88.9%)…In the winter the pattern is similar with 90.3% inside 0-10 nm, and 7% in 10-20 n.m.” (See p. 18 of Supplement.)

Figure 2 (a). BSAI pollock catch in SSLCH 1991-2002 (from NMFS, 2003).

Judge Zilly also found that ‘NMFS failed to adequately analyse the likely effects of fishing under the Steller sea lion protection measures on Steller sea lions, their prey, and their critical habitat. In this part of the Order, Judge Zilly concluded that even if NMFS had correctly evaluated the differing importance of the zones of critical habitat, the 2001 BiOp failed to evaluate “the differing effect of the current and proposed level of fishing on those zones of critical habitat and Steller sea lions.” (NMFS, 2003).

Analyses of fishery patterns in 2002 indicate that the present RPA fishery mitigation plan allows catches in critical habitat to remain high or to rise to formerly high levels that existed

Rev. 01 Page 32 of 32

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

prior to the determinations of jeopardy and adverse modification in the 1998 and 2000 biological opinions. (NMFS 2003 Supplement to the Supplemental October 2001 BiOp, pp. 23-24; Tables III-2,3,4,5,9; Figures III-1,2,3). EBS pollock catches in critical habitat increased from less than 20% of the annual TAC in 2000 to 50% in 2002, rising 255% in the 10-20 nm zone of critical habitat due to the displacement of fishery catches from 0-10 nm and representing 15% of the total catch in 2002. Total catch in critical habitat rose 49% from 1999 (329,095 tons) to 2002 (738,383 tons) (NMFS 2003 Supplement to the Supplemental October 2001 BiOp. p. 24; Tables III-2,4). Given that the competing hypotheses associated with availability of pollock in SSLCH cannot be sorted, the continued high harvest from SSLCH has attracted criticism from several environmental groups as being less precautionary than they consider appropriate, and provides a strong case for more and continued detailed research to test these hypotheses.

As with SSLCH, the knowledge of impacts of pollock fishing on northern fur seal habitat is very limited. Recent increases in pollock fishing at the Pribilof Islands are of concern to stakeholders, with Bernstein at al. (2002) raising concerns about ‘a conditional significant negative effect on fur seals’. Lactating female fur seals from different rookeries in the Pribilof Islands forage in rookery-specific sea areas, and due to the constraint of central place foraging they will be dependent on food resources within these limited areas adjacent to the rookeries. This raises questions concerning local depletion of pollock abundance within these zones that are crucial for foraging by breeding fur seals. Assessment of whether the pollock fishery has a harmful impact on fur seals in this situation is limited by the small amount of research into this specific question.

The Pribilof Islands fur seal rookeries are the reproductive centre for approximately three- quarters of the range-wide population of northern fur seals in the North Pacific. These islands also support some of the largest seabird colonies in the Pacific Ocean, and supported large numbers of Steller sea lions and harbor seals as recently as the 1960s. Stabeno et al. (1999) described a system of frontal zones around the Pribilof Islands, shoreward of the shelf break on the eastern Bering Sea “greenbelt” (Springer et al. 1996), influencing the distribution of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and higher trophic level predators. Brodeur et al. (1997) found that densities of plankton and age-0 walleye pollock were highest at these fronts 12-20 km offshore of the Pribilof Islands, and the concentrated prey in these boundaries of water masses are known to attract many mobile predators. Fiscus et al. (1962) concluded that walleye pollock has consistently comprised a large percentage of fur seal diets during the breeding and pupping season (June-October) on the Pribilofs Islands since observations began in the 19th century. Kajimura (1984) showed distinct differences in prey consumption depending the area and time of year sampled, and noted that walleye pollock was the leading prey when fur seal specimens were collected on the shelf or near the shelf edge in the eastern Bering Sea. In studies from the early 1970s, during the peak years of the foreign pollock fishery, sampling within 100 miles of the Pribilof Islands indicated that pollock was the principal prey, contributing 67-74% of the total stomach content of individual animals collected by researchers, and the size of pollock eaten varied depending on depth and distance from the islands (Kajimura 1984). Robson (2001) reported that pollock was the dominant prey species in the diet of lactating female fur seals studied in 1995 and 1996 on the Pribilof Islands, occurring in 61% of scats or enemas sampled from St. George Island in 1995 and 100% of the scats sampled from Northeast St. Paul Island in 1995.

The northern fur seal population reached peak levels for the 20th century in the 1950s following several decades of sustained population growth from the harvest-depleted levels of the early 1920s, which prompted complaints by Japan that fur seals were too numerous and interfering with its developing factory fisheries; these concerns lead to a re-initiation of female culling from 1956-1968, during which time approximately 300,000 females were removed from the population (York and Hartley 1981). With the end of the culling program, fur seal numbers briefly began to rise again but that trend turned sharply downward beginning in the mid-1970s. From the mid-1970s to early 1980s, the fur seal population on the Pribilof Islands declined steeply by more than half from 1950s levels of 1.8-2.1 million to <1 million, resulting in the eventual designation of the population as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1988. Despite an apparent levelling off in the overall decline at this lower level in the 1980s, the smaller fur seal colonies on the southernmost island of St. George continued to decline for

Rev. 01 Page 33 of 33

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

unknown reasons. Even more mysterious is why fur seal numbers have not rebounded toward the historic levels of the 1950s as they did in the decades following the cessation of the at-sea commercial harvest under the international Treaty for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters in 1911.

The estimate of total fur seal pups born in 2000 was 158,736 (SE = 17,284) on St. Paul Island and 20,760 (SE = 271) on St. George Island. The estimate for 2002 was 145,701 (SE = 1,629) pups on St. Paul Island and 17,593 (SE = 52.6.6) on St. George Island. This compares with estimates of production up to 530,000 pups per year during the 1940s and 1950s.

Studies in northern and southern hemisphere fur seal species show strong links between food availability and reproductive success (Costa et al. 1989). Studies of fur seals generally indicate that food shortages in one season may affect the pregnancy status of females in subsequent seasons, blocking estrus, terminating pregnancy, and preventing lactation (Lunn and Boyd 1993). The National Research Council (NRC 1996) noted that growth and survival of fur seal and Steller sea lion pups "is likely to be affected by the foraging success of females during the lactation period." The pattern of population decline underscores the importance of maintaining adequate food supplies to support robust populations of fur seals. However, at present the prey field densities required by fur seals in waters around the Pribilofs in order to achieve adequate prey capture rates to support breeding are not known.

Apparently there is a lack of assessment of impacts of lost gear on habitat. According to the APA submission to the evaluation team (p16), ‘no formal programs exists (sic!) at present to assess fishing gear loss and its concomitant direct and indirect effects on habitats in Alaska’.

Although rates of discarding from the pollock fisheries are low compared to those in many other fisheries (Alverson et al., 1994), and can reasonably be assumed to have a negligible effect on benthic habitats and communities, the extent to which the provision of discards as a novel food supply for scavenging seabirds alters their habitat, behaviour and spatial distribution, has apparently not been assessed in either the EBS/AI or GOA regions. While a discarding rate of only ca 1% of total catch is exemplary, this represented over 10,000 t of fish discarded each year 1998-2000 year according to the stakeholder report provided to the evaluation team (Bernstein et al., 2002, Table 7). This is not a small amount of food to be providing to scavenging marine animals. In other parts of the world, there is strong evidence that discards and offal provide an important food supply for a variety of species of scavenging seabirds (Furness et al., 1992; Blaber et al., 1995; Thompson and Riddy, 1995; Garthe et al., 1996) and this feeding opportunity affects not only distributions of seabirds (Ryan and Moloney, 1988; Arcos and Oro, 1996; Freeman, 1997) but also their body condition (Hüppop and Wurm, 2000), breeding success (Oro et al., 1995; Oro et al., 1996a), contaminant accumulation (Arcos et al., 2002), interspecific interactions (Heubeck et al., 1999; Oro and Furness, 2002), population size (Oro et al., 1996b; Chapdelaine and Rail, 1997) and demography (Furness, 2003). In the pSEIS and Ecosystem Considerations, these issues are discussed and it is evident that effects are being assessed by ‘expert guesswork’ rather than from a basis of scientific knowledge.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery must improve assessments of impacts on habitats as follows:

1. Provide the certification body with information on ongoing research projects to determine the impact of pollock fishing, if any, on SSL critical habitat with particular emphasis on the effects of fishing, if any, on foraging sea lions. 2. Meet Condition 3.1 (Condition 11) – thus provide a thorough written review of gear loss from pollock fishers and its impacts on habitats, including those habitats used by fur seals. 3. Provide a thorough written review of discarding from pollock fishing as a food supply affecting scavenging seabirds. We require that the certification body be provided a summary of the current state of knowledge on the identified issue areas of concern and that targeted, clearly defined research programs be undertaken, if necessary, after consultation between the certification body and the fishery based on the findings of the written reviews.

Rev. 01 Page 34 of 34

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity Within 12 months, APA will provide to the certification body a comprehensive report documenting research completed since summer 2002 on the effects of pollock fishing, if any, on SSL critical habitat as well as discussion of ongoing research projects relating to the impact of pollock fishing, if any, on foraging sea lions. AFSC informs APA that the agency conducted research in 2004 (the so-called Chiniak study) on this specific issue. The report will include also discussion of research results reported in 2004 indicating that localized depletion of Pacific cod was not evident in an AFSC experiment that included control areas and areas in which cod trawling occurred.

APA believes that it would be beneficial also to provide to the certifier an update on research on competing, and perhaps more salient, hypotheses relating to SSL populations, including effects of “regime shifts” and killer whale predation on SSL populations.

The provision of this Condition pertaining to effects of gear loss, if any, on northern fur seal populations is addressed under comments on Condition #11.

APA will also provide a written review prior to the first annual audit by the certifier of the effects, if any, of the de minimis amount of fish discarded by BS/AI pollock fishing vessels on scavenging seabirds. AFSC reports that a post doctoral fellow will be conducting relevant research on this topic. APA will provide to the certifier progress reports prepared by the researcher as well as the project’s findings. Additionally, APA is participating in a seabird study that will include an inquiry into seabird foraging activities and potential interactions with pollock catcher/processor vessels. This study is partially funded through a grant by NOAA Fisheries. APA will present the results of this NOAA Fisheries-funded research program to the certifier prior to the first annual audit.

Conclusion of The first part of this condition, providing an update on ongoing research re possible impacts of Surveillance pollock fishing on SSL critical habitat, has been reasonably met. Current research on the Report 1 possible effects of pollock fishing on SSL prey should provide valuable guidance on the likelihood of negative impacts and serve to improve future studies of possible impacts. A review of this issue (among others) by Professor I. Boyd will be presented in the second surveillance report to complement the work presented above. Other conditions are also relevant to this issue (Conditions 6 and 10) in terms of outcomes following from such research and this part of the Condition is therefore considered to be closed

Condition 11 (Indicator 3.1) is considered in full elsewhere in this report.

For the third part of the condition, current research on the importance of discards in the diet of seabirds should provide a basis for making decisions about probable impacts on some seabird species. The research by Dr Edwards addresses several of the concerns of the initial assessment with respect to the impact of discards on seabirds. This work is due for completion in 2006 and will be discussed in full in the second surveillance report. Any further requirements in this regard will then be determined as part of the second surveillance report.

Conclusion of As indicated in the first surveillance report, the first condition has been reasonably met. This Surveillance has been further enhanced with Professor Boyd’s reports on the possible impacts of the pollock Report 2 fishery on regional abundance of SSL food and the consequences of such effects on SSL recovery.

Condition 11 (Performance Indicator 3.1) is considered later in this report.

A review of Dr. Edward’s findings will be important to our evaluation of the extent to which the third outstanding condition has been met.

Compliance with this condition remains on-target and the condition is expected to be closed within the term of the present MSC certification.

APA Progress The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed a revised “Recovery Plan for the Report Steller Sea Lion” in March, 2008. Recovery plans are claimed to delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species. Plans are developed by the NMFS with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies and others. Recovery plans are

Rev. 01 Page 35 of 35

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements.

In a list of threats to the recovery of Steller sea lions (SSLs), the Recovery Plan characterizes competition with fisheries as “potentially high.” The Plan also characterizes the threats from predation by killer whales and environmental variability as potentially high. The Plan includes a “potential reduction in the competitive interactions between Steller sea lions and commercial fisheries for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod in Alaska” in a list of completed recovery actions.

The Plan identifies 78 new substantive actions needed to achieve recovery of the western distinct population segment (DPS) of SSLs. The Plan highlights four actions considered especially important to recovery. These are: (1) continue population monitoring and research on threats potentially impeding sea lion recovery; (2) maintain current or equivalent level of fishery conservation measures; (3) design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation measures; and (4) develop an implementation plan (NMFS 2008).

The Plan states that current information on the primary threats is insufficient to assess their impact on recovery, and that focused research is needed on how these threats impact sea lion population growth and how they may be mitigated in order to facilitate recovery. Thus, population monitoring and research in the context of an adaptive management program are suggested. The rationale for the adaptive management program is as follows:

Due to the uncertainty as to how fisheries affect Steller sea lions and their habitat, and the difficulty in extrapolating from individual scientific experiments, a properly designed adaptive management program should be implemented. This type of program has the potential to assess the relative impact of commercial fisheries and to better distinguish the impacts of other threats (including killer whale predation). This program will require a robust experimental design with replication at the proper temporal and spatial scales with the appropriate levels of commercial fishing as experimental treatments. It will be a challenge to construct an adaptive management plan that meets the requirements of the ESA, is statistically sufficient, and can be implemented by the commercial fisheries. Acknowledging these hurdles, a significant effort must be made to determine the feasibility of such a program (NMFS 2008).

Schedule for Revised Biological Opinion

The SSL Mitigation Committee of the NPFMC is considering changes to the reasonable and prudent alternative management regulations (RPAs) that were adopted in 2002 to protect the western DPS of SSLs. A two-stage process has been suggested. In stage one, a Biological Opinion (BiOp) assessing only the existing regulations would be produced. This would provide a context within which the NPFMC could consider changes to the regulations. In stage two, any changes proposed by the NPFMC would be assessed. Using this approach, a draft stage-one BiOp is anticipated by June, 2008. It is also possibile that a CIE review of the stage-one BiOp would be requested. As such, the first opportunity for the NPFMC to comment on an assessment of the existing regulations is not expected to occur before October, 2008. The revised SLL Recovery Plan includes “maintain current or equivalent level of fishery conservation measures” as one of its four principle actions.

Research on Steller Sea Lion Population Dynamics

During June 2007, an aerial survey of the western distinct population segment of SSLs was conducted. As in 2004 and 2006, the 2007 survey was conducted using medium format (5- inch film), vertically-oriented photography with forward motion compensation. The 2007 survey also employed simultaneous digital, vertically-oriented photography with forward motion compensation. Both cameras were mounted side-by-side in a single belly port of a NOAA Twin Otter aircraft. The 2007 survey was the first test of a digital camera (Canon EOS-1DS Mark II) in the aerial survey for adult and juvenile Steller sea lions (Fritz et al. 2007).

Rev. 01 Page 36 of 36

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

The primary objective in 2007 was to survey all terrestrial rookery and haul-out sites within the Alaskan range of the western DPS from Cape St. Elias (145°W) to Attu Island (172°E). However, due to lost survey days caused by weather and maintenance requirements of the aircraft, the survey did not result in a complete assessment of numbers at trend sites across the Alaskan range of the wDPS of SSLs. There was no survey effort in the western Aleutian Islands (AI) while in the central AI survey effort was limited to the eastern portion between Yunaska and Tanaga Islands (170.5°-178°W), with very little effort occurring west of Amchitka Pass. The survey covered 65 of the 87 trend sites from the 1970s, and 124 of the 161 trend sites from the 1990s. Because of the incomplete nature of the 2006 and 2007 aerial surveys, there is insufficient information to update the non-pup abundance trend for the entire western stock of Steller sea lions in Alaska (Fritz et al. 2007).

Counts of non-pup SSLs in the central and western GOA increased by 540 (13%) and 431 (8%) between 2004 and 2007 respectively, and by 163 (3%) in the eastern AI. The 2007 count in the central GOA is the first showing an increase since the beginning of the time series, and is similar in magnitude to the 2000 and 2002 counts. The western GOA and eastern AI increases continue the increasing trends observed in both sub-areas between 2000 and 2004, although at lower rates. The 2007 count of non-pups in the eastern GOA was 264 animals lower (-8%) than the 2004 count, which is opposite of the increasing trend observed here between 2000 and 2006.

In the eastern portion of the central AI the non-pup count was 858 lower (-20%) than the 2004 count. Counts in the eastern portion of the central AI had increased 49 percent between 1996 and 2004. Because counts in the western portion of the central AI declined steadily between 1991 and 2002, increasing counts in the eastern portion of the central AI were responsible for the relatively stable counts observed in the sub-area as a whole since the mid-1990s. Counts in 2004 and 2006 in the western portion of the central AI and the western AI suggest that the number of animals between Amchitka Pass and Attu Island continues to decline.

Although counts at some trend sites are missing for both 2006 and 2007, available data indicate that the size of the adult and juvenile portion of the western DPS throughout much of its range (Cape St. Elias to Tanaga Island, 145°-178° W) in Alaska has remained largely unchanged between 2004 (23,107) and 2007 (23,118). This conclusion was also reached following the incomplete survey of 2006. Recent trends (through 2004 and 2006) in the western portion of the central AI and the western AI have been negative, suggesting that the overall trend for the western DPS in Alaska (through 2007) is either stable or declining slightly.

Table 1. Counts of adult and juvenile (non-pup) SSLs at 1990s trend sites, 2004-2007. Area 2004 2006 2007 ______

Eastern GOA 3,129 3,218 2,865 Central GOA a 4,180 — 4,688 Western GOA b 5,414 — 5,845 Eastern AI c 6,098 6,186 6,261 Central AI d 4,318 — 3,460 Western AI e 1,227 997 — ______a Missing Long Island. b Missing Kak. c Missing Umnak/Cape Aslik. d Yunaska-Tanaga, but missing Chagulak. e Missing Buldir in 2006.

During June and July 2007, using the chartered R/V Norseman II and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge R/V Tiglax, the Alaska Ecosystems Program conducted its annual cruise to survey SSL pups from the western AI through the central GOA. To assess pup condition and health status, morphometrics (weight, girth, length) and tissue samples (blood, tissue, fecal) were collected from 50 randomly selected pups according to a biennial sampling

Rev. 01 Page 37 of 37

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

schedule. Necropsies were conducted on freshly-dead pups at seven sites, and tissue samples of the dead pups were saved for histology, contaminants, and parasite studies. In addition, 59 scats were collected from the eastern and central GOA and 121 scats were collected from the central and western AI for dietary analysis.

Aleutians Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Studies

In 2006 the Aleut Corporation, in partnership with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska Fishery Science Center, Adak Fisheries LLC, and the owners and operators of the F/V Muir Milach, conducted the Aleutian Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Study (AI CASS) to test the technical feasibility of conducting acoustic surveys of pollock in the AI using small (less than 32 meter) commercial fishing vessels (Barbeaux 2006). The study was conducted under an exempted fishing permit (EFP) that allowed directed pollock fishing within SSL critical habitat. The CASS is intended to provide a first step in the development of a co-management and monitoring relationship among the Aleut Corporation (the Alaska native corporation that has been allocated the pollock quota in the AI area), local fishermen, and the NMFS. In the future, such a relationship could potentially allow for routine, limited pollock harvests inside SSL critical habitat that explicitly account for SSL foraging requirements.

The AI CASS was repeated from March 17 to April 20, 2007. The survey covered the area between Seguam Island and Amchitka Pass (longitude 173°W to 179°W) on the north side of the Aleutian Islands archipelago. To verify the acoustic data and offset research costs, 1,300 metric tons of pollock were harvested within an area that included waters within 20 nm of SSL haul-outs and rookeries. Fishing within SSL critical habitat was necessary because pollock aggregations had to be found to offset costs, and historical information about the occurrence of pollock indicated that pollock aggregations were likely to occur inside SSL critical habitat. The harvest was permitted under an EFP awarded to the Aleut Enterprise Corporation.

The 2008 AI CASS was expanded significantly due to increased funding provided by the North Pacific Research Board. The pollock assessment survey was expanded to include a echo-integration trawl (EIT) survey by the R/V Oscar Dyson conducted from March 17 to April 20. This will be followed by a survey of the Tanaga-Kanaga area to Great Sitkin by the F/V Muir Milach. In addition, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) will conduct an aerial distribution study and a land-based scat study of SSL haul-outs timed to coincide with the fishery resource surveys (Barbeaux et al. 2008). The NMML component is designed to refine SSL monitoring and resource assessment methods such that small-scale experiments to assess the effects of fishing on SSL foraging could be carried out.

Observations Although part 1 of this Condition has been met, further evaluation of possible impacts of the pollock fishery on regional abundance of SSL food and the consequences of such effects on SSL recovery is contained in the recently released (March 2008) revised SSL recovery plan.

Condition 2 relating to gear loss from the pollock fishery is dealt with under Condition 11.

In reference to part 3 of this Condition, analysis of data on the potential effects of offal discharge on scavenging seabirds continued during the past year. The surveillance team was given a verbal presentation of the results of research lead by Ann Edward’s on seabird dependence on offal discharged by the pollock fishery. Some of this research will be published in a paper, currently in draft form, entitled “Birds eye view of offal and discard management in North America’s largest fishery, Bering Sea pollock”. Based on this research, it is estimated that <1% of energy discharged by the fishery is used by seabirds. Nevertheless, there is evidence from Edward’s research that birds sampled near fishing boats had elevated levels the stable isotope of nitrogen in their feathers indicating that there is use of offal by an unknown, but presumably small fraction of the population. Establishing the demographic consequences of this food supplemental will be difficult, but research is being pursued along this line.

Conclusion As indicated in the previous surveillance report, part 1 of this Condition has been reasonably met and can be consider closed, although ongoing research and new findings will continued to be reviewed by the surveillance team. Part 2 of the Condition remains open (see Condition 11), as does Condition 3 pending the surveillance team’s review of the published results of the

Rev. 01 Page 38 of 38

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

extensive research on the effects of offal discharge on seabirds.

Progress in meeting this condition is satisfactory, albeit the pace at which this research is becoming available for detailed review could be accelerated.

Rev. 01 Page 39 of 39

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

6 Condition of Certification 6. Research is carried out to allow impacts of the fishery on the biodiversity and structure of invertebrate and vertebrate communities in relevant habitats to be identified, measured, and understood in terms of functional relationships.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 1.2.3. Indicator 3.2 also relates in part.

The intention of this performance indicator is to evaluate the extent to which a body of knowledge exists to permit the impacts of the fishery to be identified, and discriminated from impacts due to other factors such as natural variations in environmental conditions. This involves both a research plan and an implementation strategy.

100 Scoring Guidepost

• There is detailed information on mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on habitats. • There is detailed information on mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on invertebrate biodiversity, community structure and population dynamics. • There is detailed information on mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on vertebrate biodiversity, community structure and population dynamics. • There is a coordinated research plan to understand fishery impacts on habitats, biodiversity, structure of invertebrate communities, food webs, predator-prey dynamics and population dynamics. • The results of research findings are made directly available to management authorities and the public on a programmatic basis.

80 Scoring Guidepost

• There is a continuing research program aimed at understanding mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on habitats. • There is a continuing research program aimed at understanding mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on invertebrate biodiversity, community structure and population dynamics. • There is a continuing research program aimed at understanding mechanisms through which the fishery causes adverse effects on vertebrate biodiversity, community structure and population dynamics. • A coordinated research plan is being developed to understand fishery impacts on habitats, biodiversity, structure of invertebrate communities, food webs, predator-prey dynamics and population dynamics. • As research proceeds and new information is learned, it is made available to management authorities and the public in a timely manner.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Research into the effects of the fishery on habitats, animal communities, populations, food webs, and ecological functional relationships is carried out in sporadic projects with little strategic planning or coordination. Results therefore provide only a weak basis for adjusting fishery management to reduce impacts.

SCORE 79

There is a very considerable research effort into many aspects of the ecology of the eastern Bering Sea. This high quality research is internationally respected as of a very high quality, and much of the research is directly relevant to the position of pollock within the ecosystem and to interactions between the pollock fishery and ecosystem processes. Some aspects of Pacific ecosystem research are not only directly relevant but also outstanding science (for example the Resource Ecology and Ecosystem Modelling Task (REEM) located within REFM at NMFS AFSC, which provides a continuing research program aimed at understanding mechanisms through which the Alaska fisheries may cause adverse effects on vertebrate and

Rev. 01 Page 40 of 40

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

invertebrate biodiversity, community structure and population dynamics.

Budgeting for research into key questions concerning the effects of the pollock fishery on the ecosystem seems weaker than might be expected knowing that a large fishery is occurring in and around the critical habitats occupied by an endangered species. While there is a research strategy, topics of highest importance in fishery-ecosystem impacts do not appear to receive adequate attention. Testing of key hypotheses have not been aggressively pursued in detail. For example there are many leading questions that continue to be unanswered such as, functional relationship between Steller sea lion foraging and pollock prey densities; extent to which northern fur seal mortality rate is increased by entanglement; the hypothesis that removal of pollock from SSLCH has no effect on food availability to SSL.

The following are relevant quotations from the Supplement to the Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement of October 2001 (June 2003: pp 57-58).

“The analyses in the preceding sections of this biological opinion forms the basis for conclusions as to whether the proposed action, the ongoing fisheries for Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, and Pollock in the BSAI and GOA as modified by amendments 61/61 and 70/70 satisfy the standards of the ESA Section 7(a)(2).”

“The supplement further explores the rationale of the 2001 Biop, the telemetry information and the performance of the fisheries in relation to the requirement in order to remove jeopardy and adverse modification found in the FMP Biop. On the basis of this information and the analysis (2001 Biop and the supplement), NOAA Fisheries draws its conclusions about the effects of the pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel fisheries on the survival and recovery of the two listed populations of Steller sea lions.”

“In this section NOAA Fisheries must determine whether the species can be expected to survive with an adequate potential for recovery under the effects of the proposed action, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects. The information available to NOAA Fisheries is both quantitative and qualitative. For Steller sea lions, although significant research has been funded over the past few years and new information is being developed on the habitat requirements of the species, as well as various reviews (e.g., Bowen et al., 2001; NRC 2003) the cause of the current decline of the species is still unknown. NOAA Fisheries expects that over the next 3-5 years a significant amount of new information will be available for future decision making, however, much of the available data today is based on the professional judgment of knowledgeable scientists.”

“After reviewing the current status of the endangered western population of Steller sea lions, the environmental baseline for the action area, the proposed action for Alaska Groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska, and the cumulative effects, it …. is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of Steller sea lions.”

The enormous increase in spending on SSL research for the past 2 years have occurred as a result of political negotiations rather than a sensible long-term research strategy. The fact that the set of RPA regulations have been altered on an almost annual basis means that it is very difficult to look at data sets for potentially impacted wildlife in relation to the management of the fishery, since impacts on population trajectories will likely be occurring over decadal scales.

We recognize that no evidence has been provided that the U.S. pollock fishing fleet is the source of the fishing gear, or other fishing-related material, relating to northern fur seal entanglement. We also recognize that there remains a possibility that the U.S. pollock fishing fleet might be the source of part of the fishing gear, or other fishing-related material, relating to northern fur seal entanglement.

Although many aspects of this Indicator exceed the 80 guidepost, these weaknesses in focus of research on key issues relating to the impact of pollock fishing lead us to score this Indicator below the 80 threshold.

Rev. 01 Page 41 of 41

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, research must be implemented to describe:

1. Relationships between Steller sea lion and fur seal foraging behaviour (especially as this relates to foraging economics or sea lion/fur seal foraging distribution) and pollock prey abundance at the regional scale related to stock size and stock geographical distribution; 2. Relationships between Steller sea lion and fur seal foraging behaviour (especially as this relates to foraging economics or sea lion/fur seal foraging distribution) and pollock prey abundance at the local scale related to putative fish school disruption in localized areas caused by trawling; 3. Meet Condition for 3.1

If new research has become available between the time of this report and the first surveillance, the client shall provide that research for the certification body’s review. If the questions listed above are adequately answered, then the certification body may alter the condition. Where research is still required, the action plan should ensure that this research is begun by 2006.

Where research leads to new information relevant to management, appropriate changes in management will be required.

Rev. 01 Page 42 of 42

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity APA will provide a thorough written report to the certification body within 6 months of the issuance of the certificate on the status of research relating to SSL and northern fur seal foraging behavior and pollock prey abundance at the regional and local scales. While the Condition calls for research to be “implemented,” APA believes that the accounting of NOAA Fisheries’ research program provided under APA’s responses to Conditions #6 and #10 will satisfy this Condition.

APA will include in its report an assessment of work on this issue funded by the FY 2005 appropriations bill for NOAA, which was enacted in late November 2004. APA proposes that the certifier focus on this issue at the first annual audit. APA will request a meeting with relevant AFSC staff, the certifier and APA so that the certifier can understand fully the agency’s program with regard to this issue.

In addition, APA will consult with the certifier about the utility of the certifier or an appropriate designee attending the scheduled January 2005 scientific conference, Alaska Marine Science Symposium, in Anchorage where researchers will convene to share findings on a range of issues pertaining to, among other things, North Pacific marine mammal populations and fishing activities.

Tasks performed under Condition #5 and Condition #10 will be coordinated with the response to Condition #6.

Conclusion of The APA has contracted Prof. I. Boyd to address two tasks that are relevant to meeting this Surveillance condition. The first task is to assess the relationships between Steller sea lion and Northern fur Report 1 seal foraging behaviour and pollock-as-prey abundance at the regional scale (related to pollock stock size and geographical distribution); and the relationships between SSL and NFS foraging behaviour and pollock-as-prey abundance at the local scale related to putative fish school disruption caused by trawling in localized areas. The second task is to assess recent research concerning alternative hypotheses about the cause of the decline of the western stock of SSL’s. Issues concerning Northern fur seals are also considered under Condition 7.

Professor Boyd’s report is expected in February 2006 and will be based on the literature provided, plus ancillary information if required. This review will be presented, and discussed, in the second surveillance report.

Requirements of the Condition relating to Indicator 3.1, Condition 11, are discussed elsewhere in this report.

Progress to date is satisfactory.

Conclusion of Compliance with this condition remains on-target and the condition is expected to be closed within Surveillance the term of the present MSC certification. Report 2 Nevertheless, APA is encouraged to work with NMFS to further understand the effects of the pollock fishery on pollock behaviour at local and regional scales.

APA Progress Several northern fur seal (NFS) projects were conducted by the Alaska Ecosystems Program Report (AEP) on St. Paul Island, Alaska, during October and November 2007. In addition to continued satellite-tracking studies investigating the winter distribution of both juvenile and adult female fur seals, two studies measuring the vital rates of northern fur seals were initiated. These studies followed recommendations from the Conservation Plan for the Eastern Pacific Stock of NFS and the NFS Tagging and Census Workshop held in September 2005. The main objective of the first study is to determine whether the survival of fur seals, particularly juvenile fur seals, is a factor in the observed population decline. The first phase of this study intends to evaluate both the field and statistical methodology that will be required to successfully make such estimates, particularly the difficult problem of estimating tag loss rates to avoid bias in survival estimates. Additional information about these studies is reported at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ond2007/divrptsNMML2.htm

The population of NFS pups on Bogoslof Island was estimated using shear-sampling, a mark-

Rev. 01 Page 43 of 43

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

recapture method, in August 2007. A preliminary analysis indicates a continued increase in pup production on Bogoslof Island since the last estimate in 2005. Some of the increase in pup production may be a result of emigration of adults from rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands, where pup numbers have been declining. While on Bogoslof Island, AEP staff instrumented 10 adult female NFS with satellite tracking devices to continue investigations on summer foraging behavior and winter migration.

Data are still being received from satellite telemetry tags deployed on adult female, pup, and juvenile northern fur seals during fieldwork conducted in October-November 2006. Similar to previous years, the majority of the 19 tagged adult females headed south to the North Pacific Transition Zone. Although most of the tags deployed on females in fall 2006 had stopped transmitting by the end of March 2007, transmissions were still being received from one tagged female off the southern of Vancouver Island in mid-June.

Of 30 tags deployed on juveniles, two instruments are still transmitting as of this writing. Both of these tags are on females that were just west of the Queen Charlotte Islands (~52°N, 132°W) in mid-June. A third tagged juvenile, a male, was in the north central Pacific (~42°N, 160°W) when last heard from in mid-June.

Seventeen of 47 satellite tags deployed on fur seal pups were also still transmitting as of mid- June, 2007. At that time, the majority of the tagged pups were scattered across the North Pacific from longitude 150° to 180°W, between lattitude 40° and 50°N. However, three other pups were farther a field: one was still in the Bering Sea after spending the winter there, another was in the Gulf of Alaska, and the third was just southeast of the Kuril Islands in the northwestern Pacific. A summary of recent Alaska Fishery Science Center research into the relationships between NFS foraging and pollock-as-prey is provided by Testa (2007).

Observations As noted in the second audit, the APA commissioned reports by Professor Boyd address part 1 and 2 of this Condition with respect to evidence that the pollock fishery causes local or regional changes in foraging economics of SSL and NFS. Since then NMFS has released the revised SSL recovery plan and conservation plan for NFS both of which contain further evaluation of the fishery effects on pinniped prey at local and regional scales. These thorough reviews and the body of continued research into the effects of variation in food supply on SSL foraging, diets and demography go a long way to addressing the deficiencies in this Condition. However, in a similar way, this Condition is rather open ended, as the effects of the pollock fishery at regional and local scales on SSL may well differ depending on the absolute abundance of pollock, the relative abundance of other prey species, and other changes in the marine ecosystem that might mediate the influence of the pollock fishery on SSL.

Considerable research effort has been directed by NMFS and researchers from a number of institutions to understand the effects of the pollock fishery on SSL. Although much has been learned convincing evidence of negative effects remains illusive. We may never know how the pollock fishery affected SSL. What we do know is that there have been extensive measure taken to reduce impacts of the pollock fishery on SSL and the demography of the western Stock of SSL has shown positive signs of change. We do not know if the former caused the later.

Condition 3.1 is discussed under Condition 11. Conclusion The open ended nature of this Condition means that despite all that has been done to address deficiencies, Conditions 1 and 2 remain open. Nevertheless, progress continues to be satisfactory. Condition 3.1 remains open (see Condition 11).

Rev. 01 Page 44 of 44

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

7 Condition of Certification 7. Data on spatial and temporal variations in abundances of animal populations and communities have been synthesized into a set of internally consistent explanatory hypotheses that can provide the basis for making predictions about future system states and consequences of management actions.

Assessed Activity The intention of this performance indicator is to evaluate how well data collected under 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 have been compiled and reviewed to enable intelligent choices among management actions.

100 Scoring Guidepost

• There is sufficient understanding of the information collected on functional relationships between fisheries actions and responses of animal populations and communities such that management decisions can be made to mitigate effects from fishing. • Information on changes in the status of animal populations and communities is provided in a timely fashion such that management decisions can be made, where appropriate, to mitigate the effects of fishing.

80 Scoring Guidepost

• At a minimum, estimates of empirical relationships between fisheries actions and responses of animal populations and communities have been made and provided to management for consideration in reducing the effects of fishing on animal species and communities and for informing research decisions. • Where it seems to be appropriate, management decisions respond to changes in the status of animal populations and communities, on a precautionary basis.

60 Scoring Guidepost

For species that have been identified as effected by fishing, there is insufficient knowledge to estimate spatial and temporal variations in abundances of animal populations and communities adequate to permit management decisions to be made in response to changes in the status of animal populations and communities.

SCORE 79

Research on the functional relationships between predators and pollock abundance and/or distribution has largely failed to determine whether or not predator populations are being affected by the pollock fishery. Too little is known to determine whether changes in abundances of predatory fish such as arrowtooth flounder or of potential replacement species for planktivorous (smaller) pollock (e.g. jellyfish) are likely to be due to reductions in pollock biomass consequent on fishing.

However, in the AI the fishery was closed as a precautionary measure that was intended to remove any (putative) impacts of the fishery on SSLs and the wider ecosystem of that area. Although this closure represents precautionary management exceeding the expectations enumerated by the 80 scoring criteria, the score for EBS/AI as a whole is based in part on the fact that there is not a systematic management approach that has been used in similar circumstances such as the prolonged decline in northern fur seal numbers.

There is some conflict in the literature concerning the likely causes of the fur seal decline. While some studies implicate entanglement in netting and packing bands (Fowler, 2002), others make no mention of this entanglement issue but emphasize possible indirect effects of the fishery through reduction of pollock availability to foraging fur seals (Livingston, 2001). According to NMFS, the Fowler 2002 paper was intended inter alia to update the available data reported in the Fowler (1987) report in the Bulletin. However, due to significant changes in the way data on at the Pribilofs are currently collected relative to the data reported in Fowler (1987), Fowler was not able to use data collected after 1992. Fowler believes considerable additional research is needed to calibrate the current

Rev. 01 Page 45 of 45

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

protocol used for investigating the impact of marine debris on northern fur seals with the data he has previously reported on. Therefore, in the view of NMFS, at present the best available scientific advice is based on the expert opinion of NMFS and is reflected in the 2002 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report for Alaska (Angliss and Lodge 2002). The following quote is from this report:

“Mortality resulting from entanglement in marine debris has been implicated as a contributing factor in the decline observed in the northern fur seal population on the Pribilof Islands during the 1970s and early 1980s...Surveys conducted from 1995 to 1997 on St. Paul Island indicate a rate of entanglement among sub adult males comparable to the 0.2% rate observed from 1988 to 1992...which is lower than the rate of entanglement (0.4%) observed during the 1976-85..." The team notes that this quote does not provide an opinion as to the contribution of this entanglement rate to fur seal decline.

Also, annual alterations in RPAs related to reducing impacts of the fishery on SSLCH appear to be rather arbitrary and based on inadequate scientific understanding to provide clear justification for actions taken. Nor have these measures been demonstrated to indeed mitigate putative impacts of the fishery on SSL. It is anticipated that this will change at the completion of the PSEIS if the management follows through on the information compiled and the results of the analyses.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery must:

1. Write a report examining if there are significant issues of concern related to the effect of pollock fishing on northern fur seals. (Concerns regarding the relationship between the pollock fisheries and SSL are dealt with under Indicator 2.3.1). 2. Meet Condition 3.1.

It is our impression that the data necessary to carry out the review are already available, though not necessarily yet brought together in the appropriate format.

If the report identifies that the fishery is probably contributing to fur seal population decrease, appropriate management responses will be made.

Rev. 01 Page 46 of 46

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity APA will provide a written report by the first annual audit examining whether there are significant issues of concern related to the effect of pollock fishing on northern fur seals. APA’s planned response to Condition #5;Condition #6 and Condition #11 will be coordinated with APA’s response under this Condition. The report is expected to include a discussion about NOAA Fisheries undertaking development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2005 to analyzethe impacts, if any, of Alaska groundfish fisheries and the recovery of northern fur seals.

Conclusion of APA will provide a written report examining whether there are significant issues of concern Surveillance related to the effect of pollock fishing on northern fur seals. APA’s planned response to Report 1 Condition #5 and Condition #11 will also fulfil APA’s obligation under this Condition.

Conclusion of With the delivery of Professor Boyd’s report, the first condition has been met. Progress on the Surveillance remaining part of this condition (3.1) is satisfactory (see Condition 11). Report 2 Compliance with this condition remains on-target and the condition is expected to be closed within the term of the present MSC certification.

APA Progress Several northern fur seal (NFS) projects were conducted by the Alaska Ecosystems Program Report (AEP) on St. Paul Island, Alaska, during October and November 2007. In addition to continued satellite-tracking studies investigating the winter distribution of both juvenile and adult female fur seals, two studies measuring the vital rates of northern fur seals were initiated. These studies followed recommendations from the Conservation Plan for the Eastern Pacific Stock of NFS and the NFS Tagging and Census Workshop held in September 2005. The main objective of the first study is to determine whether the survival of fur seals, particularly juvenile fur seals, is a factor in the observed population decline. The first phase of this study intends to evaluate both the field and statistical methodology that will be required to successfully make such estimates, particularly the difficult problem of estimating tag loss rates to avoid bias in survival estimates. Additional information about these studies is reported at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ond2007/divrptsNMML2.htm

The population of NFS pups on Bogoslof Island was estimated using shear-sampling, a mark- recapture method, in August 2007. A preliminary analysis indicates a continued increase in pup production on Bogoslof Island since the last estimate in 2005. Some of the increase in pup production may be a result of emigration of adults from rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands, where pup numbers have been declining. While on Bogoslof Island, AEP staff instrumented 10 adult female NFS with satellite tracking devices to continue investigations on summer foraging behavior and winter migration.

Data are still being received from satellite telemetry tags deployed on adult female, pup, and juvenile northern fur seals during fieldwork conducted in October-November 2006. Similar to previous years, the majority of the 19 tagged adult females headed south to the North Pacific Transition Zone. Although most of the tags deployed on females in fall 2006 had stopped transmitting by the end of March 2007, transmissions were still being received from one tagged female off the southern coast of Vancouver Island in mid-June.

Of 30 tags deployed on juveniles, two instruments are still transmitting as of this writing. Both of these tags are on females that were just west of the Queen Charlotte Islands (~52°N, 132°W) in mid-June. A third tagged juvenile, a male, was in the north central Pacific (~42°N, 160°W) when last heard from in mid-June.

Seventeen of 47 satellite tags deployed on fur seal pups were also still transmitting as of mid- June, 2007. At that time, the majority of the tagged pups were scattered across the North Pacific from longitude 150° to 180°W, between lattitude 40° and 50°N. However, three other pups were farther a field: one was still in the Bering Sea after spending the winter there, another was in the Gulf of Alaska, and the third was just southeast of the Kuril Islands in the northwestern Pacific. A summary of recent Alaska Fishery Science Center research into the relationships between NFS foraging and pollock-as-prey is provided by Testa (2007).

Observations Recently a number of studies have been undertaken to better understand the foraging ecology

Rev. 01 Page 47 of 47

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

of NFS and the consequences of environmental variation on survival and reproductive success. Although some have been published, many of these studies are in the analysis and write-up. Over the next few years we can expect to have a considerably improved understanding of how NFS cope with and respond to variation in their food supply. These studies should help to clarify the factors affecting the dynamics of NFS.

In addition to this research, PCC has recently funded a review of the factors, including commercial fishing that may be negatively affecting the dynamics of fur seals.

Requirements of the Condition relating to Indicator 3.1, Condition 11, are discussed elsewhere in this report. Conclusion The first part of this Condition has been met. Progress on the remaining condition (3.1) is satisfactory (see Condition 11).

Rev. 01 Page 48 of 48

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

8 Condition of Certification 8. The fishery is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on biological diversity at the genetic, species or population level of endangered, threatened or protected species.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 2.1.

100 Scoring Guidepost

An ecological risk assessment has been conducted, based on knowledge of functional relationships, to determine the potential impacts of the fishery on the genetic, species and population level biodiversity endangered, threatened or protected species. Fishery management is constrained to minimize impacts on the basis of this risk assessment. Impacts are held below levels that would be unacceptable.

80 Scoring Guidepost

An assessment has been conducted to estimate the potential impacts of the fishery on the genetic, species and population level biodiversity for endangered, threatened or protected species. Fisheries management has shown itself to be responsive to this risk assessment and attempts to minimize impacts.

60 Scoring Guidepost

There is inadequate knowledge of endangered, threatened or protected species such that important impacts of the fishery on their biodiversity cannot be identified and it is impossible to adjust management to confidently expect reductions in these impacts.

SCORE 79

According to stakeholder reports submitted to the evaluation team (Bernstein et al., 2002), ‘bycatch reduction and monitoring programs are effective. But bycatch reporting could be improved’. However, the main reason why the EBS/AI pollock fisheries fell below the 80 guidepost score derives from the fact that the impact of the fisheries on protected pollock predators is largely unknown. In the presence of this uncertainty, given the general lack of knowledge as to whether pollock fishing affects populations of pollock predators (especially Steller sea lions, harbor seals, northern fur seals) a precautionary approach to fishery management would be expected. Although closure of the AI fishery was a precautionary response to possible impacts on SSL, there is little evidence of precaution to avoid possible impacts on fur seals or harbor seals despite some evidence suggesting an impact. RPAs have been rather ineffective in reducing harvest of pollock from SSLCH, and there does not appear to be a systematic approach to understanding or mitigating effects on other protected species such as fur seals or harbor seals. In the absence of a better understanding about the effects of the fishery on these species, a more precautionary approach to constraining harvest from critical areas for predators would seem warranted. Setting TAC below the ABC is one way to be precautionary, but empirical evidence from these fisheries is that the TAC is only set significantly below the ABC when the stock size is exceptionally large (so that precaution is not a key issue). Another way to be precautionary would be to set ABCs using an approach that better incorporates ecosystem considerations.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery must: 1. Adjust management as described in the Conditions under Indicator 1.1. 2. Improve published reports by management agency on bycatch taken by the pollock fishery by structuring the reports to show data by species, vessel type, location of hauls, time of hauls, relationship to SSLCH, and by quarters, while protecting the rights afforded fishers under the law to protect against the release of certain proprietary information.

Rev. 01 Page 49 of 49

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity Item #1 of this Condition is discussed in Condition #4 in the Action Plan. Item #2 above contains an apparent contradiction by requesting that NOAA Fisheries publish information on bycatch in the pollock fishery on a vessel-by-vessel basis while noting that such action would violate confidentiality rights provided to fishers under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The reports correctly note the de minimis discard levels in the BS/AI pollock fishery and note that the agency maintains an excellent pollock catch data programs as part of NOAA Fisheries’ precautionary approach to minimizing the impacts of fishing on the environment.

In February 2005, APA will provide the certification body with the detailed pollock bycatch information contained in the annual report of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative to the North Pacific Council. This information is provided at a greater level of detail than information protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s confidentiality provision and should be responsive to the certifier’s request. If necessary, APA will consult with the catcher vessel sector to inquire about the availability of such data and that sector’s willingness to make it available.

In addition, APA suggests that if the certification body can identify specific areas of concern relating to the effects of such de minimis catch on the environment, APA will investigate the possibility of engaging SeaState, Inc., a private firm that conducts various voluntary industry bycatch reduction programs and has access to federal observer data collected from harvests in the BS/AI directed pollock fishery. APA will work with member and non-member companies that authorize SeaState, Inc. to access confidential data in efforts to address discrete, substantive issues of concern to the certifier.

Finally, along with providing information from the PCC Annual Report to the North Pacific Council, APA will report on the “skipper reward” program, an annual competition among captains of BS/AI pollock catcher/processor vessels to achieve low bycatch amounts as well as the PCC’s involvement in an inter-cooperative effort to minimize the bycatch of salmon in the BS/AI pollock fishery—an effort that is being coordinated through SeaState.

Conclusion of Progress on the first part of this condition is reported under comments on Conditions 1 to 4 and Surveillance so this part of Condition 8 is considered elsewhere, to avoid unnecessary duplication. Report 1 There is evidence of progress on the bycatch reporting part of this Condition, but the web- based system for public access to bycatch data, being developed by Seastate and NMFS, is not yet fully operational. It is understood that a beta-version of the website page and associated software has been sent to industry representatives and Oceana representatives for their preliminary use and evaluation. Following comment from these trial users, public access is to be provided. This system will be reviewed and reported on in the second surveillance report in relation to the requirements of this Condition.

Conclusion of Progress on the first part of this condition is reported under comments on Conditions 1 to 4 and so Surveillance this part of Condition 8 is considered elsewhere, to avoid unnecessary duplication. Report 2 Compliance with the second part of this condition has been met.

Where a Performance Indicator is addressed by multiple conditions, a notional score of 80 will be required and applied to those elements of the Performance Indicator addressed by a condition being closed. The final score for the Performance Indicator will then be determined when the last relevant condition is closed. These Indicators will therefore be subject to total or partial re-scoring following confirmation of the requirements above.

Observations As noted in previous reports, the first part of this Condition is addressed fully in Conditions 1 to 4 (particularly Condition 4) – all of which have now been closed.

A great deal of ecological modelling and related analyses and field studies have been conducted to investigate the possible impacts of the Pollock fishery on the food supply of predators, including those protected under US legislation. It is noted that the independent review by Professor Boyd also has relevance to this issue.

Rev. 01 Page 50 of 50

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Nevertheless, evidence that the Pollock fishery may negatively affect SSL through changes in food availability remains inconclusive despite considerable research on this issue and exploration of possible effects through ecosystem modelling. There is no evidence directly linking the demography of SLL with the pollock fishery.

With regard to bycatch reporting, the level of observer coverage is sufficient to be confident that bycatch estimates are reliable. Although these data are only made publicly available after some degree of aggregation, the spatial and temporal level of the disaggregation is sufficient to assess sustainability of the bycatches. This level of public release of the bycatch information is supported by release of annual lists of the “dirty ships” with regard to bycatches of various species, and by provision of detailed information on bycatches to the Surveillance Panel. The information is sufficient to support the conclusion that although there is bycatch in these fisheries, the level and distribution of bycatch is such that the fishery does not threaten any species protected under US legislation.

In the 2007 there was significant increase in the bycatch of salmon, particularly Chinook salmon, some of which are protected. This issue is dealt with in more depth in section 16 of this report. In the 2008 ‘A’ fishery some combination of changing spatial distribution of salmon, proactive industry responses to the previously increasing salmon bycatch, or a reduction in salmon stocks have brought the salmon bycatches down to a level that is well below most values in the longest time series available. As a result the risk to Chinook or other salmon stocks – including protected salmon stocks – is considered to be quite low.

Conclusion With the closure of Conditions 1 – 4 the first part of this Condition has now been met. There has been an evaluation of risk to protected species, and the fishery has shown itself to be highly responsive to the results of those evaluations.

Part 2 of the Condition was considered to have been met last year. However, we note that careful and timely monitoring of salmon bycatch needs to continue throughout the rest of 2008 and beyond, and the fleet needs to continue to take near-real-time actions to avoid bycatches of salmon. The situation will be monitored over the ‘B’ fishery and the issue will be re-visited at the next surveillance audit.

On the basis of the above commentary the score associated with the Performance Indicator 2.1 is adjusted as follows:

80 Scoring Guidepost • An assessment has been conducted to estimate the potential impacts of the fishery on the genetic, species and population level biodiversity for endangered, threatened or protected species. Fisheries management has shown itself to be responsive to this risk assessment and attempts to minimize impacts.

100 Scoring Guidepost • An ecological risk assessment has been conducted, based on knowledge of functional relationships, to determine the potential impacts of the fishery on the genetic, species and population level biodiversity endangered, threatened or protected species. Fishery management is constrained to minimize impacts on the basis of this risk assessment. Impacts are held below levels that would be unacceptable.

We consider that the performance of the fishery now clearly lies between 80 and 100: various studies have been undertaken to monitor and estimate the potential impact of the fishery on the genetic, species and population level for endangered, threatened and protected species; a transparent industry based solution to reducing bycatch has been implemented and is responsive to the results of the monitoring and research and has reacted to minimise the impacts.

The score allocated to this Performance Indicator is now raised to 80.

This condition has now been closed and the outcomes of ongoing associated work will be reviewed as a function of annual surveillance audits. In particular, the on-going work and measures that have been implemented to reduce salmon bycatch will be reviewed at the next annual audit.

Rev. 01 Page 51 of 51

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

9 Condition of Certification 9. The management system keeps impacts of the fishery on protected species within agreed and reasonable bounds, and keeps impacts on threatened or endangered species within the limits set by the Endangered Species Act.

Conclusion of Parts 9.1 and 9.2 of this Condition have been met and were closed in the first year of Surveillance certification. Report 1 Part 9.3 of this Condition is discussed under Condition 11 in this report and so is considered elsewhere to avoid unnecessary duplication.

This condition is now closed.

Rev. 01 Page 52 of 52

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

10 Condition of Certification 10. Assessments are conducted to identify and estimate impacts of the fishery on protected, endangered, threatened or icon species.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 2.3.1, but Indicators 2.3.3; 3.2 and Principle 3 Indicators 1.2 and 4.1.8 also relate.

The intention of this performance indicator is to evaluate the extent to which the fishery can demonstrate that it does not have unacceptable impacts on protected, endangered, threatened or icon species, and particularly those identified for protection under United States legislation.

Elements considered in scoring include: • Information on the direct interactions of the fishery with protected, endangered, threatened or icon species, such as through by-catch, entanglement with lost fishing gear, effects on behaviour, or physical disruption of seabird and sea mammal populations is available, and management strategies have put in place systems to reduce direct impacts to minimum levels. • Information on the indirect interactions of the fishery with protected, endangered, threatened or icon species, such as through alterations to their foraging opportunities, is available, and management strategies have put in place systems to reduce indirect impacts to minimum levels. • Levels of impacts on protected, endangered, threatened or icon species do not have detrimental effects on their populations.

100 Scoring Guidepost

Direct and indirect impacts of fishing on all protected, endangered, threatened and icon species are measured and are known to be below levels that harm population size (defined as causing a significant decrease in population size or a significant risk of local extinction).

80 Scoring Guidepost

• Direct impacts of fishing on all protected, endangered, threatened and icon species are measured and are known to be below levels that harm population size. • Indirect impacts of fishing (including food competition, changes in foraging behaviour, disruption to animals and prey fields) on all protected, endangered, threatened and icon species have been examined and the evidence suggests that these impacts are below levels that harm population size. • Research needed to measure indirect impacts of fishing on all protected, endangered, threatened, and icon species is being carried out.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Knowledge of direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on protected, endangered, threatened and icon species is fragmented, incomplete and inadequate to permit management to develop methods to limit these impacts to within agreed and reasonable bounds. Research being carried out is not adequately focused to provide the missing information.

SCORE 79

Direct impacts of the fishery are generally well known, monitored, and mostly held at levels that do not harm populations (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001a). A possible exception to this may be the impact of entanglement on fur seals, which appears to be a likely major contributor to the population decline of that species (Fowler et al., 1994; Fowler, 2002). This is considered further under Indicator 3.1.1, so is not discussed in more detail here.

Some concern was also expressed by the recent NRC review panel that entanglement might be contributing significantly to the decline of the Steller sea lion, suggesting that further assessment of that hypothesis is required (Committee on the Alaska Groundfish Fishery and Steller sea lions, 2002). Indirect impacts are even more difficult to assess.

Rev. 01 Page 53 of 53

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

An experimental approach would be required to test the key hypothesis that Steller sea lion foraging is affected by harvest of pollock from SSL critical habitat. Although such an approach has been proposed by NMFS, it has not yet been carried out. In the absence of conclusions from research into the effects of the fishery on prey fields for dependent predators such as Steller sea lion, management cannot take these interactions into account except by precautionary limits to the fishery.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery must design and carry out experiment(s) to test the possible impact of the pollock fishery on Steller sea lions by comparing outcomes of regulated levels of fishing in experimental and control areas on SSL behaviour, breeding and population trends. The NRC report (Committee on the Alaska Groundfish Fishery and Steller sea lions, 2002) recommends that the fishery should design and carry out an experimental test of the hypothesis that fishing influences SSL population dynamics. We support the goals and objectives of the NRC's prescribed action, but appreciate that it would be inappropriate to suggest increasing pollock fishing intensity to levels that increase jeopardy (in the legal sense) to SSL populations and that there are complex scientific and legal issues involved. Therefore, it will be necessary to design this experiment in such a way that comparison can be made between areas where fishing intensity is reduced with areas where it is maintained at levels comparable to those in the recent past (but perhaps within this limit still increased by as much as the decrease in harvest lost to industry from reduced fishing areas). The hypothesis to test would then be that SSL numbers or productivity in reduced fishing areas would show a positive deviation relative to values in fished areas, and the null hypothesis that performance of SSL would be no different between areas. Such an experiment should be underway no later than 2006.

Rev. 01 Page 54 of 54

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

APA Activity The Final Report on BS/AI Alaska pollock recognizes the legal and practical impediments identified by fishery management authorities and scientists to conducting the controlled area experiments proposed by the National Research Council (NRC) in 2002. In addition, NOAA Fisheries’ scientists have provided fishery management authorities with a detailed analysis of the substantial cost of such experiments, the decades-long commitment required for such a program and the likely prospect that the findings would be inconclusive.

Notwithstanding the issues identified above, APA is aware that AFSC is in itsfourth year of research testing the localized depletion hypothesis and will continue with its program if FY 2005 funding is available through Congressional appropriation. (See discussion under Condition #5 above.) NOAA Fisheries’ previous work on possible fishing effects on SSLs has examined fisheries for Alaska pollock, Pacific cod and Atka mackerel. APA will request a meeting with AFSC and the certifier within six months to review research results to date and to discuss ongoing research. APA will consult with the certifier and AFSC prior to the meeting to ensure all issues relevant to both groups are addressed at the meeting. In addition, APA will propose that the meeting include a thorough discussion on the current state of research on hypotheses relating to possible effects of pollock fishing on foraging sea lions, including agency-sponsored research and research projects conducted under the auspices of the Alaska SeaLife Center, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center, the North Pacific Research Consortium, and other noted authorities.

By the first annual audit, APA will prepare and provide a report to the certification body detailing actions and timelines for meeting the objectives of this condition should the results of the meeting between APA, NMFS and the certification body identify continuing research needs to meet the condition.

Tasks performed under this Condition will be coordinated with the responses to Condition #5, Condition #6 and Condition #7.

Conclusion of Progress to date is satisfactory. Relevant experiments have been designed and begun, Surveillance complemented by modelling studies. Given the timescales over which such work is necessarily Report 1 undertaken, and the clear commitment of NMFS to carry out such work, future reports will monitor continuing progress in this area, including any opportunities for participation by the membership of the certified fishery.

Conclusion of Given the difficulty embodied in this Condition, and the differences in scientific opinion as to the Surveillance value of conducting a large-scale field experiment, the surveillance team feels that progress has Report 2 been satisfactory. This conclusion is based on the findings of the Boyd report and the promising work involving the simultaneous testing of alternative hypotheses for the decline using multiple sources of data.

With the aforementioned difficulties, providing an absolute timeline for meeting this Condition presents a challenge. That said, APA continues to progress toward meeting this Condition by facilitating meetings, contributing to detailed discussions and ensuring that research continues in a targeted way.

APA Progress Since Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Alaska Pollock Fisheries, several Report recommendations have been offered as concerns the best means to further evaluate the potential for competition for pollock-as-prey between the pollock fishery and the western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions (SSLs). These are summarized below in the context of the nature and feasibility of an experiment to assess the potential for interactions between SSLs and the commercial fisheries.

National Research Council

The National Research Council (NRC 2003) review of the causes of the Steller sea Lion (SSL) decline suggested five options to evaluate the efficacy of management actions placed on the commercial fisheries to reduce their potential impacts on SSL. Their favoured option was to establish spatial management units consisting of two sets of closed and open areas where each treatment area is centred on a rookery. They suggested that the western population of the SSL

Rev. 01 Page 55 of 55

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

should be divided into management regions and that at least two “closed” and “open” rookeries would be monitored in each region. They reasoned that, because most monitoring activities are conducted at rookeries and that SSL were thought to be more vulnerable close to rookeries, the rookeries should be the focus of the study. They further stated that, under this option, the most critical monitoring needs would be detailed local SSL censuses and spatial analyses of fish population changes for each experimental unit in the overall design.

Suggestion of Dr. Boyd Concerning a Statistical Modeling Experiment

During 2006, the At-sea Processors Association requested that Dr. Ian Boyd of the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews summarize recent research on the evidence for local effects of the pollock fishery upon pollock distribution and abundance, and the potential this may have to affect the SSL (Boyd 2006). The assessment focused on what can be said about the relationships between SSL foraging behavior and pollock-as-prey abundance at the local scale related to putative fish-school disruption caused by trawling in localized areas.

Dr. Boyd considered the scientific basis for this potential threat to the SSL within a risk assessment framework, and recommended that additional resources be devoted to evaluating the “fishery competition hypothesis” by exploiting a diverse range of evidence using statistical maximum likelihood modeling experiments. For example, existing analyses (see e.g., Pascual and Adkison 1994, Wolf and Mangel 2004) could be extended to incorporate state-space (or hidden process) models and other fitting methods such as Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis. These analyses were thought better suited to the diversity of data types available and have the advantage that they can provide a rigorous framework for statistically-valid decision making with all the available data, not just a small subset that would be created from the kind of experimental approach recommended by the NRC. It was argued that this approach is also better aligned with the risk assessment structure now being used, albeit implicitly and informally, to assess the potential causes of the SSL decline.

Aleutians Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Studies

In 2006 the Aleut Corporation, in partnership with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Alaska Fishery Science Center, Adak Fisheries LLC, and the owners and operators of the F/V Muir Milach, conducted the Aleutian Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Study (AI CASS) to test the technical feasibility of conducting acoustic surveys of pollock in the AI using small (less than 32 meter) commercial fishing vessels (Barbeaux 2006). The study was conducted under an exempted fishing permit (EFP) that allowed directed pollock fishing within SSL critical habitat. The CASS is intended to provide a first step in the development of a co-management and monitoring relationship among the Aleut Corporation (the Alaska native corporation that has been allocated the pollock quota in the AI area), local fishermen, and the NMFS. In the future, such a relationship could potentially allow for routine, limited pollock harvests inside SSL critical habitat that explicitly account for SSL foraging requirements.

The AI CASS was repeated from March 17 to April 20, 2007. The survey covered the area between Seguam Island and Amchitka Pass (longitude 173°W to 179°W) on the north side of the Aleutian Islands archipelago. To verify the acoustic data and offset research costs, 1,300 metric tons of pollock were harvested within an area that included waters within 20 nm of SSL haul-outs and rookeries. Fishing within SSL critical habitat was necessary because pollock aggregations had to be found to offset costs, and historical information about the occurrence of pollock indicated that pollock aggregations were likely to occur inside SSL critical habitat. The harvest was permitted under an EFP awarded to the Aleut Enterprise Corporation.

The 2008 AI CASS was expanded significantly due to increased funding provided by the North Pacific Research Board. The pollock assessment survey was expanded to include a echo-integration trawl (EIT) survey by the R/V Oscar Dyson conducted from March 17 to April 20. This will be followed by a survey of the Tanaga-Kanaga area to Great Sitkin by the F/V Muir Milach. In addition, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) will conduct an aerial distribution study and a land-based scat study of SSL haul-outs timed to coincide with the fishery resource surveys (Barbeaux et al. 2008). The NMML component is

Rev. 01 Page 56 of 56

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

designed to refine SSL monitoring and resource assessment methods such that small-scale experiments to assess the effects of fishing on SSL foraging could be carried out.

Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan

The NMFS completed a revised “Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion” in March, 2008. The Plan identifies 78 new substantive actions needed to achieve recovery of the western distinct population segment (DPS). The Plan highlights four actions considered especially important to the recovery program. These are: (1) continue population monitoring and research on threats potentially impeding sea lion recovery; (2) maintain current or equivalent level of fishery conservation measures; (3) design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation measures; and (4) develop an implementation plan (NMFS 2008).

The Plan states that current information on the primary threats is insufficient to assess their impact on recovery, and that focused research is needed on how these threats impact sea lion population growth and how they may be mitigated in order to facilitate recovery. Thus, population monitoring and research in the context of an adaptive management program are suggested. The rationale for the adaptive management program is as follows:

Due to the uncertainty as to how fisheries affect Steller sea lions and their habitat, and the difficulty in extrapolating from individual scientific experiments, a properly designed adaptive management program should be implemented. This type of program has the potential to assess the relative impact of commercial fisheries and to better distinguish the impacts of other threats (including killer whale predation). This program will require a robust experimental design with replication at the proper temporal and spatial scales with the appropriate levels of commercial fishing as experimental treatments. It will be a challenge to construct an adaptive management plan that meets the requirements of the ESA, is statistically sufficient, and can be implemented by the commercial fisheries. Acknowledging these hurdles, a significant effort must be made to determine the feasibility of such a program (NMFS 2008).

A large portion of the effort to develop recovery criteria for the SSL was allocated to the development of a population viability analysis (NMFS 2008, Appendix). The PVA model may be useful in further developing the statistical modeling experiments recommended by Dr. Boyd.

Next Steps and Timelines for Additional Work

The Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center issued a request for proposals for 2008 with a focus area “Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Marine Mammal Populations.” The request included the specific desire of an assessment of the feasibility of adaptive management experiments to test the efficacy of Steller sea lion mitigation measures, including non-traditional modeling methods such as those of Wolf and Mengel (2004). Unfortunately, this request received no responses. As such, it is suggested that the 2008 MSC surveillance visit include a discussion with NMML researchers about the plans of the NMFS for further evaluation of potential interactions between SSLs and the commercial fisheries. As the NMML will play a pivotal role in any attempt to construct an experimental approach to assessing interactions that meets the requirements of the US Endangered Species Act, increased knowledge of their future plans would be useful to allow the Certification Team and the At-sea Processors Association to decide on an appropriate course of action (next steps and associated timelines) to address this condition.

Observations As noted in the first two surveillance audits, large-scale field experiments to determine the effects of the pollock fishery on the dynamics of SSL have not been conducted despite the fact that several groups have called for such experiments. Support for this approach is also evident in the March 2008 revised SSL recovery plan, although the nature of such an experiment is not developed in any detail in the plan. We have noted previously that several small-scale and short-term experiments have been conducted to investigate the effects of fishing on pollock behaviour. The results of these experiments are summarized in the revised SSL recovery plan. These experiments have yielded inconsistent results, underscoring the difficultly in conducting

Rev. 01 Page 57 of 57

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

this kind of research in the open ocean. This experience, debate about the merits of a large- scale field experiment, and the lack of an explicit design for moving forward, no doubt all contribute to the lack of progress.

Although a planned experiment to manipulate the levels of pollock fishing in SSL habitat has not been conducted, extensive management measures taken to reduce the levels of pollock fishing near SSL rookeries and haulouts can be viewed as one or a series of unplanned experiments. One recent analysis concluded that these unplanned experiments may have contributed to the change in the rate of decline in the western stock of SSL (Hennen 2006). This research is suggestive, but it cannot be considered conclusive as alternative hypotheses were not formally considered in that study. Statistical modelling, using available data from multiple sources, has also been conducted (Wolf and Mangel 2004 and Wolf et al. 2006) to evaluate the influence of the pollock fishery and alternative hypotheses on the dynamics of Steller sea lions. Those preliminary analyses evaluated the fishery-effects hypothesis by assuming that the survival of pups or non-pups was a declining function of the local encounter rate with groundfish trawling. There was strong support for total prey availability affecting Steller sea lion fecundity and for the pollock fraction in the environment affecting pup recruitment. No evidence was found for the hypothesized fishery effects. An RFP to initiate further analyses using the approach of Wolf and Mangel was put out by the PCC in 2007, however, no proposal to undertake the research were received. PCC did fund a literature review aimed at comparing and contrasting the population trends in SSL and NFS with the goal of directing future research on the causes of the population declines of these two species. While this may be valuable, it does not reduce the need to press forward with formal statistical testing of alternative hypotheses using available data.

Extensive ecosystem modelling has also been used to gain insight as to the effects of the pollock fishery and alternative hypotheses on Steller sea lions (NRC 2003, Aydin et al. 2007). The NRC committee was unable to find sets of model parameters that would predict the rapid decline of Steller sea lions related only to changes in trophic interaction caused by fisheries. Aydin et al (2007) extended previous analyses by including uncertainly in model parameters. This analysis provided a comprehensive accounting of fisheries impacts beyond the target species and therefore can contribute to an ecosystem based objective of maintaining ecological relationships.

Although the impact of these unplanned experiments on SSL dynamics remains uncertain, it is clear that there has been a marked change in the demography of the western stock of SSL during the last decade or more resulting in the first signs of positive population growth in multiple areas that were declining rapidly in previous decades. Nevertheless, other areas in the western stock are still declining, albeit at a reduced rate, and so there is still a need to determine the factors that are currently affecting dynamics.

Conclusion Any large-scale manipulative experiment with a reasonable chance of testing hypotheses about the effects of pollock fishing on SSL would required 5-10 years to conduct. Thus, even if such an experiment had been planned when the fishery was certified, it is unlikely that the results of the experiment would have been available during the life of the first certification. In this sense, this condition really could not reasonably have been closed during the first certification.

Nevertheless, the analyses unplanned experiments resulting from Steller sea lion management measures, statistical modelling to test alternative hypotheses, ecosystem modelling of the effects of the pollock fishery on dependent species, and new research identified in the new Steller sea lion Recovery Plan go some way to meeting this condition. The 2007 RFP for further development of the Wolf and Mangel approach was an additional welcome step, but future RFP’s should recognize that several years of research will be needed to make this happen. Taken together, we feel that progress on this condition is satisfactory.

Rev. 01 Page 58 of 58

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Rev. 01 Page 59 of 59

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

11 Condition of Certification 11. Management strategies include provision for restrictions to the fishery to enable recovery of populations of impacted species that have been depleted by previous actions of this fishery.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 3.1.

100 Scoring Guidepost

The ecosystem components of the management plan include mechanisms to reduce fishing in locations or ways that remove impacts on depleted species to the extent necessary to permit the impacted species’ populations to recover and rebuild.

80 Scoring Guidepost

The ecosystem components of the management plan are being improved to provide a framework for decisions about ways to modify fishing to reduce impacts on depleted species, to allow them to recover and rebuild.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Management takes account of statutory requirements to protect endangered and threatened species but contains little or no provision for recovery of populations of other impacted species that do not enjoy ESA protection.

SCORE 79

Depleted species include some stocks of herring, salmon and crabs, Steller sea lions, northern fur seals and possibly harbour seals. The northern fur seal was designated as depleted in 1988 because population levels had declined to less than 50% of those observed in the late 1950s (despite reduced harvesting of fur seals) and no compelling evidence existed to suggest that carrying capacity had been reduced (APA 2002; p103).

The MMPA was developed to manage incidental mortality of marine mammals in fisheries, and provides NMFS with authority to place observers on vessels to assess marine mammal bycatch. Management has been responsive to the need to minimize marine mammal bycatch, and the pollock fishery meets standards set for this.

In the BSAI, FMP Amendment 16a, implemented in 1991, established savings areas for herring such that these areas could be closed when herring bycatches were high. Similar restrictions apply to crab bycatch, though this should not be an issue in the (midwater) pollock fishery. Savings-area programs require the closure of areas of the BSAI to fishing if salmon bycatch reaches predetermined ’trigger’ points. The timing and locations of savings areas are related to migration and reproduction of the protected species. Most relevant in the pollock fishery are restrictions on Chinook salmon catch; in practice, vessels respond rapidly to move away from locations where too high a catch of salmon is being taken. These are all very positive features of the fishery.

However, in the eastern Bering Sea the management system appears to take no account of the fur seal entanglement problem that seems to be a possible cause, or at least a contributor, to the decline in fur seal numbers (Fowler et al., 1994; Fowler, 2002). There are, as far as we could ascertain, no measures to reduce the amount of waste packing bands and fragments of netting that are lost by the fishery and no measures to clean up this waste, despite the observation by NMFS staff that the decline in fur seals is entirely consistent with demographic predictions based on models incorporating the observed rates of fur seal entanglement and likely increased mortality due to that (Fowler, 2002). This led us to our score for the EBS/AI, reflecting the fact that the management system is continually being improved to provide a framework for decisions to modify fishing to reduce impacts on depleted species, but which so far is not clearly succeeding in allowing fur seal numbers to recover and cannot exclude the possibility that the fishery is contributing to the continuing fur seal population decline

Rev. 01 Page 60 of 60

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

The sources of plastic causing entanglement of fur seals have not yet been identified. We consider that the first step should be to ascertain where this plastic waste comes from, and that the pollock fishery should not be held accountable for waste derived from other fisheries or other industries. However, the first step must be to investigate whether waste includes material from the pollock fishery.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, the fishery must assess the link, if any, between the declines in fur seals and the loss of pollock fishing gear and fishing related wastes. To accomplish this requirement, several steps are required:

1. An assessment of the significance, if any, of gear loss and at-sea fishery processing waste of plastics. This assessment should be performed by the industry, who will consult with the certification body on the findings of such assessment. If the assessment suggests that losses from the U.S. pollock fishery may significantly contribute to the risk of fur seal entanglement, this should result in development of an action plan based on points 3 and 4 below. 2. Implement a beach-cleaning program in the Pribilof Islands and any other location where fishing gear is known to cause extensive entanglements. The clean-up program will be used to identify the amounts of different types of debris that are collected, and the likely origins of the fishing related debris in order to identify how much, if any, comes from the U.S. pollock fishery fleet. This will permit a better assessment of the extent to which fishery and non-fishery sources contribute to this problem, and which fisheries are responsible. If this operation indicates that the waste is not derived from the U.S. Pollock fishery, then this condition should immediately be lifted. Otherwise, the clean-up should continue on a regular basis if it is found that pollock fishery waste is a major component of the waste. 3. If the U.S. Pollock fishery is implicated as a major contributor of the waste either as a result of 1 or 2 above, the fishery will develop and implement a program for improved monitoring and data collection regarding gear loss and at-sea wastes from individual pollock fishers, and a plan for reducing gear loss and other at-sea wastes. 4. If the study of waste and fur seal entanglement shows that the pollock fishery is a major contributor to this problem, then entanglement rates of fur seals and other marine mammals must be monitored using statistically valid strategies to analyse the effect of entanglement on populations of affected species.

Rev. 01 Page 61 of 61

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Conclusion of The requirements of this condition have not yet been fully met. Accordingly, it is required that Surveillance for Condition 11.1, APA carry out a systematic survey of members to determine incidents of Report 1 gear loss and garbage disposal which could include plastic waste, a summary report of the results of this survey should be provided. A supporting report from the NMFS Observer programme should also be requested. These two reports should be presented to the assessment team prior to the second surveillance audit.

Notwithstanding logistical difficulties, the inventory of lost gear from St Paul Island should also be completed early in 2006. The report on this inventory should also be presented to the assessment team prior to the second surveillance audit.

Conditions 3 and 4 will be addressed pending the outcome of the above.

Conclusion of Compliance with this condition remains on-target. Surveillance Report 2 Part 2 of the Condition has been met.

Available evidence indicates that marine debris loss from the pollock fishery is not a threat to NFS and therefore part 3 and 4 of the Condition seem also to be satisfied. However, final decision on this condition awaits the results of the APA survey of its members with respect to gear loss. Survey results should be available prior to the next surveillance audit.

The condition is expected to be closed within the term of the present MSC certification.

APA Progress The Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation in Juneau has conducted marine debris Report assessment and cleanup programs in various parts of Alaska since 2002. As part of the 2006 program, small samples were taken from most of the derelict fishing gear collected (trawl and other nets were removed from Prince William Sound, Unalaska Island and St. Paul Island). Samples were also taken from previously collected derelict gear stored on St. Paul Island. All net samples were numbered, characterized for color and type, measured for mesh size and twine width, and photographed using methods similar to those of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Ghost Net Identification project. In December 2006 at United Catcher Boats (UCB) office at Fishermen’s Terminal in Seattle, Washington, 187 samples were examined by individuals with experience in the Alaska commercial fisheries. These experts included Mike Stone, who has owned and managed net shops in the Seattle area (he is now fleet manager for the Fury Group), and Steven Patterson, who has worked for 26 years at NET Systems of Bainbridge Island, Washington, a manufacturer and vendor of trawl nets.

Analysis of the samples revealed that most of the derelict gear came from trawl fisheries, it was mostly of foreign manufacture, and generally of a type not currently used by the US pollock fleet (Stone et al. 2007). A considerable fraction of the samples was thought to have originated from foreign fishing operations that worked in Alaska prior to the Magnuson Stevens Act (1976) and the joint venture fisheries which followed during “Americanization.” No evidence was found to indicate that the current pollock trawl fishery in the eastern Bering Sea (EBS) is a significant source of derelict gear or should be considered an entanglement threat to Northern fur seals or other marine mammals.

In January 2008, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative (PCC) distributed a lost gear survey to groups of skippers of catcher-processor vessels and shore-plant and mother-ship catcher vessels. The survey was distributed to catcher-processor skippers at the annual PCC Skippers Meeting in Seattle, and catcher-vessel skippers received the survey at a Skippers Meeting hosted by UCB in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Survey responses were limited to one per vessel and responses were received from 14 catcher-processor skippers with 310 years experience in the EBS pollock fishery and 20 catcher-vessel skippers with 466 years of experience (Table 1).

The survey (Table 2) included questions to allow estimation of the frequency at which two types of gear are lost: 1) a net fragment greater than 25 square feet; and 2) an entire pelagic trawl net. A net fragment greater than 25 square feet was thought of a size sufficient to present an entanglement threat to a Northern fur seal. Additional questions explored the frequency at which trawl nets are damaged but no net fragments lost, and how lost gear is reported and disposed of.

Rev. 01 Page 62 of 62

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

About 75 vessels may be expected to participate full-time in the EBS pollock fishery in any given year (15 catcher-processors and 60 catcher vessels). It is customary for each catcher- processor vessel and about 60-75 percent of catcher vessels to have two skippers available (Gruver 2008). As such, the population of skippers who work in the fishery is likely about 115. For the catcher-processor fleet, responses covered about half of the population while for catcher vessels survey coverage was closer to 25 percent.

Just under ten percent of the respondents (three skippers) indicated it was common to examine a damaged net and find that a piece of the trawl net would be missing and so remain in the ocean. As such, the loss of a net fragment appears as an uncommon event. Several skippers reported that in such cases they suspected the lost net fragment likely remained on “whatever it snagged up on.” For catcher-processor vessels, the average rate at which net fragments larger than 25 square feet are lost is estimated as 0.44 per year, and with 15 vessels fishing the total number of these fragments lost is estimated to be 6.7 per year. To put this loss in perspective, these 15 catcher-processors harvest about 45 percent of the EBS pollock total allowable catch (TAC) each year. With a TAC in the vicinity of 1.4 million tons, each catcher-processor vessel will deploy and retrieve its trawl nets more than 500 times per year. About 60 catcher vessels harvest the other 55 percent of the TAC, and these vessels are estimated to lose about 60 net fragments per year. Thus for all vessels, about 67 net fragments larger than 25 square feet are estimated lost each year in the EBS pollock fishery.

Compared to the loss of a net fragment, the loss of an entire pelagic trawl is a rare event. It is also an expensive event, with pelagic trawls today costing $100,000 to $150,000 and the associated electronic devices mounted on the trawl costing perhaps another $30,000 to $50,000. Of the 34 respondents, 47 percent (16 skippers) reported losing an entire pelagic trawl on at least one occasion during their career in the EBS pollock fishery. For catcher vessels, the average rate at which an entire trawl is lost is estimated at 0.034 per year, and with 60 vessels fishing the total number of trawls lost each year is estimated to be 2.1. For catcher- processor vessels, the average rate is estimated at 0.074 per year, or about twice as high as for catcher vessels. With 15 vessels fishing, about one trawl net is estimated lost annually by catcher-processors, and for all vessels just over three pelagic trawls are estimated lost each year in the fishery.

Table 1. Annual Lost-Fishing-Gear Estimates for the EBS Pollock Fishery. ______Catcher Catcher-Processor All Item Vessels Vessels Vessels ______

Vessel Survey Responses 20 14 34

Vessels Fishing Pollock 60 15 75

Respondent Experience (years) Average 23 22 Total 466 310 776

Net-Fragment Lost (per year) a Vessel Average 0.998 0.445 All Vessels Fishing 59.9 6.7 66.6

Trawl-Net Lost (per year) Vessel Average 0.034 0.074 All Vessels Fishing 2.1 1.0 3.1 ______a Net fragment larger than 25 square feet.

Examination of the survey responses led to the notion that the estimate of the number of entire pelagic trawls lost each year could be biased slightly to the high side. That is to say, one

Rev. 01 Page 63 of 63

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

respondent indicated that he lost a trawl net but managed to retrieve the entire trawl with a grapple-hook the next day. Due to the way the question was posed (Table 2, question six), in hindsight it is not certain whether all respondents would have interpreted a lost trawl as only one which could not be recovered. It was also clear from the responses to the reporting questions that reports of lost trawls were generally made immediately to other vessels by radio, both to warn of the “hang” location as well as to favor recovery. In contrast, lost net fragments were generally not reported to other fishermen but instead recorded in the vessel operations log or the skipper’s fishing log.

About 56 percent of respondents (19 skippers) indicated that is was common to tear, rip, or otherwise damage a pelagic trawl during a fishing trip, and about 82 percent of respondents (28 skippers) indicated that it was common to tear or otherwise damage a pelagic trawl during a fishing season. As such, in contrast to lost gear events, a damaged trawl net appears as a common event in the EBS pollock fishery. Several skippers reported that most net damage (some estimated as high as 90 percent) is caused by derelict crab gear. In the Bering Sea, several species of large spider crabs are fished using large, steel-frame pots or traps that typically weigh 275-350 kilograms. In the pollock A-season, fishing takes place in a relatively small portion of the southeastern Bering Sea over areas not traditionally fished by crab boats. In contrast, the B-season fishery occurs more on the northern portions of the outer continental shelf in areas traditionally fished by crab boats. Catcher vessel skippers indicated that scrap pieces of net webbing generated by the repair of damaged trawl nets are disposed of on land. For catcher-processors, net-scrap is either incinerated at sea, disposed of on land, or if possible, reused during the course of repairs.

Just over half of respondents (18 skippers) indicated that it was common to report net damage, and about three-quarters (25 skippers) indicated it was common to report a lost trawl net. As noted above, the most common form of lost-trawl-net reporting was an immediate report over the radio to other fishermen. In addition, the location would often be entered in the vessel “snag” log or fishing log, and several respondents noted reporting a lost trawl to the owners of the company such that it would be replaced quickly. For net damage, about half of the respondents indicated it was not common to report it, and the half that did note reporting net damage indicated that the report would very likely take the form of entries in vessel plotter and “hang” files.

Perhaps the most difficult question to answer was that which requested an estimate of the number of times that a net is damaged during a fishing season (Question 3). Responses that were received ranged from three to about 60 times (i.e., as often as daily in some areas in certain seasons). As noted above, most of this damage is caused by derelict crab gear, and in the B-season on historic crab fishing grounds net damage due to crab gear can be very frequent but the damage is slight (significant snow and tanner crab fisheries have been on-going on the northern part of the Bering Sea outer continental shelf since the 1970s). As such, trawl-net damage caused by derelict crab gear is not commonly reported or recorded.

Table 2. Eastern Bering Sea Pollock Fishery Lost Fishing Gear Survey 2007. ______

1. Is it common to tear or rip or otherwise damage a pollock pelagic trawl net during a fishing TRIP?

Yes No

2. Is it common to tear or rip or otherwise damage a pollock pelagic trawl net during a fishing SEASON (A-season or B-season)?

Yes No If Yes, about how many times in a season ______

3. After a net is damaged while fishing, is it common to find that a piece of the net is missing and so would presumably remain in the ocean?

Rev. 01 Page 64 of 64

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Yes No

4. How often would you estimate that a piece of the net webbing larger than about 25 square feet would be lost overboard during pollock fishing operations?

About once every ______

Never About ______times per year ______times each season

5. For the case where a net is damaged while fishing and is repaired on board, how are any scrap pieces of the net that may result disposed of?

On land Incinerated at sea In the ocean Other

6. Has it ever been the case while you have been fishing that most if not all of a pollock pelagic trawl has been lost?

Yes No

If yes, in your career as a Bering Sea pollock fishermen, about how often has this happened?

Once Twice Three times

About once every ______

How long fishing for Bering Sea pollock? ______years

7. If a net is torn or ripped or damaged during pollock fishing, is it common to record or report that the net was damaged?

Yes No If Yes, then how/where ______

8. If a net is LOST during pollock fishing, is it common to report that the net was LOST?

Yes No If Yes, then how/where ______

Observations APA as a member of the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation of Juneau, Alaska has continued to support the removal of marine debris form the Pribilof Islands. In 2006, this effort was extended to determine the source of this debris from a sample to the collect material. The analysis determined the current pollock fishery was unlikely to be a significant contributor of marine debris given that much of the recovered trawl material was generally of a type not currently used by the US pollock fleet and considerable fraction of the samples was thought to have originated from foreign fishing operations that worked in Alaska prior to the Magnuson Stevens Act.

As request by the surveillance team, APA conducted a questionnaire survey of its members to determine the incidence of gear loss and plastic garbage disposal which could entangle seabirds or pinnipeds. The Pollock Conservation Cooperative (PCC) distributed a lost-gear survey to groups of skippers of catcher-processor vessels and shore-plant and mother-ship catcher vessels in January 2008. Responses (one per vessel) were received from 14 catcher- processor skippers and 20 catcher-vessel skippers. For the catcher-processor fleet, responses covered about 50% of the fleet whereas for catcher vessels survey coverage was closer to 25 %. Based on the results of this survey, it is estimated that less about 70 net fragments larger than 25 square feet are lost each year in the EBS pollock fishery. Loss of an entire pelagic trawl is a rare event given their high cost, but of the 34 respondents, 47 % reported losing an entire pelagic trawl on at least one occasion during their career in the EBS pollock fishery. For both fleets, the results of the survey indicate that several entire nets may be lost each year. Because nets are so expensive, it is normal practice to attempt to recovery lost nets. Unfortunately, it is not clear if recovered nets were considered lost in the context of the questionnaire. Thus, the survey may overestimate the rate at which entire nets are lost and

Rev. 01 Page 65 of 65

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

remain in the sea.

NMFS regularly monitors the incidence of northern fur seals entangled in marine debris on the Pribilof Islands. These data indicate that entanglement rates are very low. Beach-recovered trawl fragments and the recent fleet net-loss survey indicate that the pollock fishery likely contributes relatively little material that could entangle fur seals. However, as noted by stakeholders, the type of trawl removed from entangled fur seals at the Pribilof Islands would be a more direct means of determining if pollock trawl is contributing to fur seal entanglement. Thus to the extent possible, the identification of the fishery origin of those trawl fragment should be undertaken. Conclusion With the completion of the gear-loss survey, part 1 of this Condition has been met. Part 2 of the Condition also has been met. Available evidence indicates that marine debris loss from the pollock fishery is not a threat to NFS and therefore parts 3 and 4 of the Condition seem also to be satisfied. However, it seems prudent to await results of the identification of trawl fragments removed from fur seals before closing these final two conditions. Progress is satisfactory.

Rev. 01 Page 66 of 66

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

12 Condition of Certification 12. There are sufficient data, and understanding of functional relationships, to determine what changes in fishery management are necessary to recover depleted populations of impacted species.

Assessed Activity This Condition relates principally to Indicator 3.3.

100 Scoring Guidepost

Alterations to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species are based on a sound understanding of functional relationships between the impacted population and the fishery. This includes understanding predator-prey dynamics, species interactions, prey abundance/spatial distribution, foraging behaviour, food web requirements and habitat needs.

80 Scoring Guidepost

Alterations to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species are based on incomplete data and understanding, but take a precautionary approach to reduce impacts.

60 Scoring Guidepost

Alterations to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species are based on incomplete data, and are of largely unknown efficacy.

SCORE 79

The score is better for fish stocks than it is for marine mammal populations, while less is known about interaction between the fishery and depleted populations of seabirds. Alterations to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species are based on very incomplete data and understanding. Closure of the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery was clearly a precautionary approach to reduce impacts. However, in the EBS it is difficult to make a strong case that management to recover populations of depleted marine mammals has been precautionary, since the quantities of pollock removed from SSLCH have hardly been reduced from their previous high levels despite the series of different restrictions placed on fishing close to SSL rookeries and haul outs in recent years. Bernstein et al. (2002) suggest ‘Where the knowledge payoff would be great, leading to better conservation and management of the ecosystem, ways should be found to carry out meaningful field experiments using the fishery’.

The fact that it is unclear whether the fishery is the cause of declines in SSL and fur seal populations is not a satisfactory reason for lack of action. The uncertainty over impact should have led to research to identify whether or not the fishery is the cause, and management should have responded in a timely manner and to introduce precautionary management until the cause-effect relationship had been resolved. According to APA (APA 2002; p106) ‘As the hypothesized interactions between the Alaska groundfish fisheries and the vulnerable pinnipeds involve indirect ecosystem effects that are thought manifest via a localized depletion of prey resources, and thus intense competition for these resources, an appropriate research and monitoring program would be one that investigates and monitors the effect of the groundfish fisheries on the SSL prey field’. It is surprising that this research, identified as key to understanding by APA, has only just begun to be tackled and that no clear information on this question can yet be reported.

Furthermore, this is but one specific hypothesis relating to effects of the fishery on SSL prey fields; given the satellite tracking data indicating that SSLs may range over very large areas in search of food (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001d), there are equally important questions yet to be tackled concerning how SSLs respond to reductions in pollock stock biomass, both at a local ‘prey-field’ scale and at a larger ecosystem scale.

For the relationships between the pollock fishery and depleted populations of fur seals, harbor seals, kittiwakes and murres, very little is known, and so it is difficult to prescribe management of the pollock fishery that should help to recover these populations. There is, therefore, a need for research to determine what pollock biomass or density is required by populations of these

Rev. 01 Page 67 of 67

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

species in order to permit them to forage at rates that support healthy populations and reproduction.

CONDITION: To improve the deficiencies in performance for this indicator, it is important that the fishery be able to determine the effects of pollock fishing on other species in the area other than Steller Sea Lions. Specifically, SCS is requiring that the fishery also collect data on fur seals, harbor seals, kittiwakes and murres, when conducting the work required under Condition 2.3.1.

Rev. 01 Page 68 of 68

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Conclusion of Relevant experiments have been designed and begun, but research should more clearly seek to Surveillance identify the linkages between the dynamics of these species and the pollock fishery. This may Report 1 build on successful experience with current studies on Steller sea lion.

As for Condition 10, given the timescales over which such work is necessarily undertaken, and the clear commitment of NMFS to carry out such work, future reports will monitor continuing progress in this area, including any opportunities for participation by the certified fishery.

Progress on this condition is satisfactory.

Conclusion of The surveillance team is satisfied with the level of commitment and ‘active management’ to better Surveillance understand the effects of the pollock fishery and pollock abundance on dependent species other than Report 2 SSL. This is not an easy task and thus we expect that progress in the area (as with Condition 10) will be slow and incremental.

APA Progress In 2002 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) obtained new genetic information on Report harbor seals in Alaska which indicated that the current boundaries between the Southeast Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea stocks need to be reassessed. NMFS, in cooperation with the Alaskan Native community, is evaluating the new genetic information and planned to make a recommendation regarding stock structure in 2007 (Angliss and Outlaw 2007). As such, a complete revision of the Alaska harbor seal assessment has been postponed until the new stock boundaries are defined. However, the draft Alaska marine mammal stock assessment for 2007 does report new information on harbor seal abundance and mortality trends in the context of the existing stock structure. This information updates that from the 2001 assessments provided in the Atsea Processors Association application for Marine Stewardship Council certification of the BSAI and GOA pollock fisheries.

As noted, harbor seals in Alaska are managed as three stocks: Bering Sea; Gulf of Alaska, and Southeast Alaska. The GOA stock includes seals in the AI. The updated harbor seal abundance estimates resulted from improved methods to derive estimates of population size from aerial surveys which document the number of seals hauled out on shore. Many factors influence the propensity of seals to haul out, including tides, weather, time of day, and date in the seals’ annual life history cycle. A statistical model defining the relationship between these factors and the number of seals hauled out was developed for each survey region. Based on those models, the survey counts for each year were adjusted to the number of seals that would have been ashore during a hypothetical survey conducted under ideal conditions for hauling out. A separate analysis of radio-tagged seals and a similar model-based estimate of the proportion of seals hauled out under ideal conditions were used to verify the method (Angliss and Outlaw 2007).

A second change in the assessment concerns how incidental takes in the commercial fisheries are monitored. For example, in the previous stock assessment, the commercial trawl fisheries were monitored as a single fishery. In the current assessment, the commercial fisheries are separated based on gear type and the target species. For the GOA stock, the change resulted in the tracking of incidental takes for 22 separate fisheries based on both gear type and target species. For the Bering Sea stock, the change resulted in the monitoring of incidental takes for 14 separate fisheries. These changes in how the incidental takes are monitored does not reflect a change in fishing effort, but provides managers with better information on the component of each fishery that is responsible for the incidental serious injury or mortality of marine mammal stocks in Alaska. Current management policy states that reliable estimates of commercial- fishery-related annual mortality levels less than ten percent of the potential biological removal (PBR) can be considered insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate.

Tables 1 and 2 compare the harbor seal data from the 2001 assessment with the new data in the draft 2007 assessment. In general, stock abundance estimates have increased and incidental mortalities in the groundfish trawl fisheries have decreased over the most recent five-year period 2000-2004. The switch to monitoring incidental takes by commercial fishery gear type and target species now permits an evaluation of harbor seal incidental takes by trawlers fishing pelagic gear and targeting Alaska pollock in the BSAI and GOA fisheries. For the most recent five-year period 2000-2004, recorded incidental takes of harbor seals in the BSAI and GOA

Rev. 01 Page 69 of 69

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

pollock fisheries were zero.

______Potential BSAI Estimated GOA Estimated Min. Pop. Stock Biological Groundfish Trawl Groundfish Trawl Estimate Trend Removal Incidental Mortality Incidental Mortality (#) (# per year) a (# per year) (# per year) ______2001 Assessment 12,648 Decrease 379 (Unk.) a 2.2 — 2007 Assessment (draft) 20,109 Decrease b 603 (Unk.) 1.3 c — ______

Source: Angliss et al. 2001, Angliss and Outlaw 2007; a long dash (—) indicates not applicable. a It is not known with certainty whether incidental mortalities in the commercial fisheries are less than 10 percent of PBR because of the absence of observer placements in several salmon gillnet fisheries known to interact with this stock. b Recent trends in abundance for this stock are difficult to evaluate due to recolonization of habitat by northern fur seals and the presence of a sympatric species, spotted seals, which may overlap the range of harbor seals but cannot be identified as a different species using aerial surveys. c Harbor seal incidental mortality during the most recent five-year period caused by the cod and flatfish bottom trawl fisheries.

Table 2. Gulf of Alaska harbor seal minimum population estimates, stock trends, PBRs, and incidental mortalities in the BSAI and GOA trawl fisheries, 2001 and 2007. ______Potential BSAI Estimated GOA Estimated Min. Pop. Stock Biological Groundfish Trawl Groundfish Trawl Estimate Trend Removal Incidental Mortality Incidental Mortality (#) (# per year) (# per year) (# per year) ______2001 Assessment 28,917 Stable 868 (Unk.) a 0.0 0.4 2007 Assessment (draft) 44,453 Stable b 1,334 (Unk.) 0.0 0.0 ______Source: Angliss et al. 2001, Angliss and Outlaw 2007. a It is not known with certainty whether incidental mortalities in the commercial fisheries are less than 10 percent of PBR because of the absence of observer placements in several salmon gillnet fisheries known to interact with this stock. b There was a steady decrease in the GOA harbor seal population during the 1970s through the 1990s. Despite some positive signs of growth, the overall GOA stock likely remains small compared to its size in the 1970s and 1980s.

Observations Several government agencies and independent researchers from a number of institutions are conducting targeted research and monitoring the abundance and reproductive success of seabirds, fur seals and harbour seals throughout the BSAI. Collectively this research and monitoring is improving our understanding of biology of dependent species as inputs to models which explore the functional relationships and sensitivities of species to changes in the pollock fishery and pollock abundance. NMFS is continuing to develop more sensitive tools for exploring potential effects of changes in pollock abundance on the dynamics of dependent species of seabirds and pinnipeds. These tools include the development of minimum realistic models of key interacting species. There is also continued effort to turn ecosystem considerations into predictive tools and meaningful thresholds for action (i.e., ecosystem

Rev. 01 Page 70 of 70

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

indicators) in relation to effects of the pollock fishery on dependent species.

Conclusion The surveillance team is satisfied with the high level of commitment to better understand the effects of the pollock fishery and pollock abundance on dependent species other than SSL. This is not an easy task and, as noted previously, progress in the area (as with Condition 10) will be incremental. Progress is satisfactory.

Rev. 01 Page 71 of 71

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

13 Condition of Certification 13. The fishery is managed and conducted in a manner that respects domestic law.

Conclusion of The requirements of this condition have been met and this Condition is closed. Ongoing legal Surveillance compliance of the certified fishery will be monitored under general Sections of future Report 1 surveillance reports.

Rev. 01 Page 72 of 72

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

14 Condition of Certification 14. The management system solicits and takes account of relevant information.

Conclusion of The requirements of this condition have been met and this Condition is closed. This condition Surveillance has now been closed and the outcomes of ongoing associated work will be reviewed as a Report 2 function of annual surveillance audits. Observations During the 2008 surveillance audit the team received stakeholder comment questioning the extent of Alaska Native stakeholder consultation and incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge in the Council process (Greenpeace, pers. comm.). The question was raised in the context of whether the full range of relevant information was being taken into account by the management system.

Traditional ecological knowledge is the environmental knowledge accumulated by indigenous people over generations of observing and interacting with the local environment. It includes knowledge of local species, population histories, and ecological interactions, encoded in the local language and culture.

The surveillance team addressed the question through discussions with Council and AFSC staff and an investigation of Council and AFSC documents to determine the extent to which Alaska Native consultation is conducted and traditional knowledge incorporated in the Council’s management process.

The team found evidence of Alaska Native community considerations in NPFMC standard operating processes. In addition, the team found evidence of Alaska Native consultation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge in several relatively new aspects of Council management policy, community conferences, research on traditional knowledge and outreach.

NPFMC Standard Operating Processes

The NPFMC includes Alaska Native representation on both its Advisory Panel (AP) and the Council. The representation provides a vehicle for Alaska Native concerns to be raised during the fishery management decision-making process. Management decisions must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, which requires that potential effects of fishery management actions on the human environment, including Alaska Natives, be analyzed and, to the extent practicable, mitigated. This includes effects on subsistence users, CDQ groups, non-CDQ Native fishermen, and fishing communities with Native populations. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (1994) on Environmental Justice requires that the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations (which include Alaska Natives) be analyzed. In addition, EO 13175 (2000) on Consultation and Coordination with Indian and Tribal Governments requires that when there is a potential for federal action to significantly or uniquely affect federally recognized Indian tribal governments, federal agencies must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with such governments. This consultation requirement has also been addressed through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MS FCMA) and NEPA compliance process (NMFS 2004a).

Management actions affecting Alaska Native communities engaged in and dependent upon the fisheries, are also subject to the provisions of MSFCMA National Standard 8, which promotes the sustained participation of traditional fishing communities.

The Record of Decision on the Final Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS; NMFS 2004b) states that “The goals and policies for Alaska Native consultation and participation in fishery management under the Preferred Alternative in the Programmatic SEIS would increase from current levels by expanding informal and formal consultation between NOAA Fisheries and the Council, and Alaska Native participants and tribal governments. Local and Traditional Knowledge would be more formally incorporated in fishery management and additional data would be collected.”

NPFMC Management Policy

Rev. 01 Page 73 of 73

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

In 2004 the NPFMC revised its management policy for the BSAI and GOA Groundfish Fisheries. Among the 45 objectives of the management policy are three that explicitly pertain to consultation and participation of Alaska Native groups in the Council process.

• Continue to incorporate local and traditional knowledge in fishery management. • Consider ways to enhance collection of local and traditional knowledge from communities, and incorporate such knowledge in fishery management where appropriate. • Increase Alaska Native participation and consultation in fishery management.

The Council’s workplan priority to increase Alaska Native and community consultation is currently being developed for review by the Council. Workplan goals are to develop: 1. a protocol to improve the Alaska Native and community consultation process, including the possibility of forming a standing committee of community representatives; 2. a method for systematic documentation of Alaska Native participation in the development of management actions (NPFMC 2007b).

Community Conferences

In 2005 and 2006 the NPFMC NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Sea Grant Program co-sponsored two conferences to bring together coastal community residents to generate ideas and potential approaches to increasing community involvement in the fishery management process. The first conference, “Managing Fisheries—Empowering Communities,” was held in Anchorage in 2005, and was followed in 2006 with the conference “Alaska's Fishing Communities: Harvesting the Future,” also held in Anchorage. Subsequently, NPFMC staff used this information to refine their approach to achieving the goals of expanding informal and formal consultation between the NMFS and the NPFMC and Alaska Native participants and tribal governments (Cullenberg 2005; 2007). Research on Traditional Knowledge The NMFS, the , and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have developed projects in conjunction with Native communities to promote a further development of TEK so that its use in fishery management policy analysis may be increased.

The Economics & Social Sciences Research Program of the Resource Ecology & Fisheries Management (REFM) Division at the Alaska Fishery Science Center conducts the Alaska Native Traditional Environmental Knowledge Project. This project includes the Alaska Native Traditional Environmental Knowledge Database, developed as a partial response to public comments about the lack of TEK in the Draft Groundfish Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PSEIS). It also includes the compilation of information from published sources and from contacts with village councils and Native corporations on topics ranging from historic distribution of species to changes in resource use and sharing patterns among villages. Information from the database will be incorporated into Environmental Impact Statements and other policy documents. (AFSC Quarterly Research Reports April-June 2005)

The pollock fishing industry, via the Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF), has funded two TEK-related projects: “Integrating Science and Tradition: Ecosystem Monitoring Through Subsistence Harvests of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska” and “Predation on Northern Fur Seals in the Pribilof Islands: A Baseline Study.” Both of these projects paired UAF researchers with tribal ecosystem conservation organizations on St. Paul and St. George Islands.

In 2004 the Pribilof Islands Collaborative (PIC), an Alaska-based NGO, supported a pilot project “Local and Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom of Northern Fur Seals and Their Ecosystem.” More recently, PIC received funding from the North Pacific Research Board to carry out the project “Socioeconomic Baseline Information for the Pribilof Islands.” Additional information on these projects is available at the following web sites: www.sfos.uaf.edu/pcc/ www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Socioeconomics/Projects/TEKNPME.php

Rev. 01 Page 74 of 74

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

www.worldwildlife.org/beringsea_erbc/ www.inforain.org/presentations/pribilofs_coastalzone_baseassess_2007-07-25.pdf www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/alaska/preserves/art12949.html

Outreach In 2006 scientists from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center participated in a pilot outreach program in Sand Point to brief community members on their research. More than 50% of the permanent residents of Sand Point are Alaska Natives (Unangan/Aleut) (AFSC Quarterly Research Reports April-June 2006). Alaska Native consultation is also a component of the Arctic Fishery Management Plan (FMP), currently in development. In 2007 the Council developed a Community Outreach Plan for the Arctic FMP. It is now the Council’s intent to use the development of the Arctic FMP as a vehicle to evaluate new outreach initiatives to increase Alaska native and community consultation (NPFMC 2007b).

The Council has adopted seven guiding principles on stakeholder involvement and outreach: • Use an open and clearly defined decision-making process • Make key information readily available and understandable • Actively conduct outreach and solicit stakeholder input • Involve stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process • Foster responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers • Use formal and informal participation measures • Include all stakeholder interests (North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2008)

The Council will receive an annual report on stakeholder consultation and participation issues at the June Council meeting.

Conclusion There is evidence of Alaska Native consultation and research on traditional ecological knowledge in several areas. NPFMC consultation with Alaska Native communities is a part of standard Council processes. Several new actions on the part of the Council and the NMFS are designed to formalize Alaska Native consultation, expand outreach to stakeholders including Alaska Native communities, and increase research on traditional ecological knowledge. The Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center has also funded research in traditional ecological knowledge, as has the North Pacific Research Board. The incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge into the scientific assessment process is still in its infancy, but discussions about methods and options for incorporation are ongoing.

The consultation with and use of traditional ecological knowledge of the Alaska Native community by the management system meets the standard for soliciting and taking account of relevant information, and the condition remains closed.

Rev. 01 Page 75 of 75

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

15 Condition of Certification 15. The management system provides for internal assessment and review

Conclusion of An extensive scientific review process is in place, conducted through both internal and external Surveillance means. The existing review process constitutes the “periodic, candid and authoritative internal Report 1 review process for pollock fishery management procedures and outcomes” required by the condition. The requirement of this condition is therefore considered to be met and the Condition closed.

Rev. 01 Page 76 of 76

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

16 Significant changes within the fishery during the annual auditing period APA Report Salmon Bycatch

During the mid-1990s, the NPFMC developed management measures to control the bycatch of Chinook and chum salmon in the BSAI pollock fishery. These regulations established “wide- area” salmon savings area (SSA) fishing closures over areas and at times when salmon bycatch had been highest. The chum SSA was established in 1995, and the area is closed to pollock trawling from August 1st through August 31st. In addition, the area remains closed, or closes again after the first of September if 42,000 other salmon are taken before October 14th within an area know as the catcher vessel operational area (BSAI FMP Amendment 35; chum salmon make up about 99 percent of other salmon bycatch). The Chinook SSA was established in 1996 and revised in 2000. The Chinook SSA closes to pollock trawling if 29,000 Chinook salmon are taken, and as with the chum SSA, the timing of the closure depends upon when during the pollock seasons the limit is reached (BSAI FMP Amendments 21b and 58).

Despite these efforts, salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery has increased recently (Table 1). Most of this bycatch salmon is suspected to originate from river systems in western Alaska. (Balsiger 2008). However, the increased salmon bycatch does not appear to be due to increases in the time spent fishing for pollock. Rather, it seems that salmon abundance over the south-eastern portion of the EBS outer-continental shelf (OCS) has increased markedly, especially since 2003-2004 (e.g., see Haflinger et al. 2007, Figures 4-7).

Since 2000, salmon bycatch in the BSAI has been authorized under terms of an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) in a Biological Opinion authorizing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. The 2000 ITS specified a bycatch limit of 55,000 Chinook salmon, and was selected to minimize the potential take of threatened or endangered “evolutionarily significant units” (ESUs) native to streams in Washington and Oregon (the only ESA-listed salmon likely to be affected by the BSAI groundfish fisheries are upper Willamette River and lower Columbia River Spring Chinook [NMFS 2007]). These Spring Chinook salmon are thought to migrate further north than other life-history types, and so sometimes occur during their marine phase in the waters of the GOA and BSAI. An Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 re-initiation of consultation was triggered in 2005 when this limit was exceeded due to bycatch in the 2004 groundfish fisheries.

The NMFS Northwest Region Office updated its prior opinion on the effects of salmon bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries on ESA-listed Chinook salmon ESUs via a supplemental biological opinion (NMFS 2007). Further examination of coded-wire tag recoveries from salmon bycatches in the BSAI 1984-2007 revealed that very few Chinook from the lower Columbia or upper Willamette rivers are likely taken by the BSAI pollock fishery. As such, salmon bycatch in the BSAI pollock fishery does not appear to pose a threat to ESA-listed salmon ESUs in the Pacific Northwest. The supplemental opinion provided a revised and increased ITS limit of 87,500 bycatch salmon. In addition, the new ITS required strict monitoring and reporting of Chinook bycatch and coded-wire tag recoveries. A memorandum from the Alaska Region Office provides the monitoring information required by the new ITS (Balsiger 2008).

Pollock-industry efforts to minimize salmon bycatch began in earnest during 2001, motivated in large part by poor returns to western Alaska rivers during 1999-2001. These efforts continue today, and include: 1) the development of new mid-water trawl designs intended to exclude salmon from the pollock catch; 2) the adoption and refinement of a salmon “hot-spot” avoidance program (areas with large numbers of salmon are closed to pollock fishing); 3) the funding of new DNA-based methods to determine the stream-of-origin of salmon bycatch; and 4) support for basic research about whether climate and temperature changes may have altered salmon feeding migrations and so contributed to increased salmon bycatch. For chum salmon, feeding on the OCS generally begins in August and, in some years, chum salmon remain over the OCS through the end of the pollock B-season (October 31st). For Chinook salmon, the feeding migration that brings them onto the OCS begins in the fall and they often remain on the OCS through February of the following year. As such, Chinook salmon are taken as bycatch by the pollock fishery mainly in September, October, January, and February while chum salmon are mainly taken during July-September.

Rev. 01 Page 77 of 77

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Table 1. Salmon bycatch in the BSAI pollock fishery by season, 1998-2008. ______- - - - Chinook ------Other (Chum) - - - Year Total A B Total A B ______------Numbers of Salmon ------

1998 51,322 15,193 36,130 64,042 4,002 60,040 1999 11,978 6,352 5,627 45,271 362 44,909 2000 4,961 3,422 1,539 58,571 213 58,358 2001 33,444 18,484 14,961 57,007 2,386 54,621 2002 34,495 21,794 12,701 80,652 1,377 79,274 2003 46,993 33,808 13,185 195,135 3,946 191,189 2004 54,028 23,961 30,067 447,626 438 447,187 2005 67,890 27,673 40,217 705,963 599 705,364 2006 83,257 58,900 24,358 310,545 2,525 308,020 2007 122,073 69,521 52,552 94,063 8,523 85,540 2008 15,053 15,053 251 251 ______Source: NPFMC 2008, Appendix 2; NMFS Alaska Region catch statistics April 12, 2008.

New Salmon-Excluder Trawl Designs

Pollock fishing vessels tow trawl nets designed to catch pollock in mid-water. The salmon- excluder trawl designs attempt to exploit the fact that salmon are stronger swimmers than pollock. During the 2003 B-season, a prototype design for a salmon-excluder trawl net was tested on the pollock catcher vessels F/V Vesteraalen and F/V Auriga under an NPFMC-approved experimental fishing permit (EFP). The initial net design incorporated a relatively short, highly tapered cone- shaped tunnel net suspended inside the intermediate section of a standard mid-water trawl. The cone was positioned in the lower two-thirds of the trawl with the narrow end pointing aft. Several diamond-shaped escape holes were cut just aft of where the tunnel attached to the trawl, two located in the top of the trawl and additional holes on either side. The motivation for the design is that salmon possess instinctive behaviors that are triggered by changes in currents sensed along the lateral line. Changes in currents are thought important to salmon fighting their way upstream to spawn, and the design is intended to create a current-change within the net that prompts a salmon to accelerate in preparation for a jump just after emerging from the tapered end of the funnel. Such behavior should propel the salmon forward toward the escape portals.

The ability of the net to exclude salmon while retaining pollock was investigated by placing “recapture bags” over the salmon escape holes. Initial results indicated that salmon escapement was about 10-12 percent with pollock escapement at just 1-2 percent (Anonymous 2004). The latest designs replace the cone-shaped tunnel net with a large diamond-mesh “flapper panel” as a means to guide salmon swimming inside the net to the escape holes in the top and sides of the net. It is hoped that this design change will result in a trawl design that performs well for both large and small pollock vessels. Preliminary results from testing the newest designs have shown salmon escapement rates of up to 40 percent on the F/V Pacific Prince during 2007, and design refinements intended to provide consistently high escapement rates are scheduled for further evaluation during the 2008 pollock B-season (Gauvin and Gruver 2008).

Salmon “Hot-Spot” Closure Program

The nine Bering Sea pollock cooperatives began developing a “rolling” salmon “hot-spot” (RHS) avoidance program during 2001. The program is designed to exploit the patchy distribution of salmon feeding on the EBS shelf. Cooperative participation in the program is voluntary, and the program requires that participating cooperatives respect fishing-areas closures developed according to fishery and cooperative bycatch performance. As fishery bycatches reveal areas where large numbers of salmon are present, the areas are closed to fishing. Close to real-time analysis of bycatch performance spatially allows closed areas to be revised weekly. The program is governed by an pollock inter-cooperative (IC) agreement that all pollock cooperatives have

Rev. 01 Page 78 of 78

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

signed (Anonymous 2007).

During 2003-2004, as salmon bycatches began to increase significantly, the pollock industry came to understand that the rapidly changing program of targeted-area closures developed by the IC was a more effective way to minimize bycatch than the existing wide-area SSAs. In fact, during 2004 it appeared as though the wide-area closures were actually contributing to the salmon bycatch problem (NPFMC 2005). In contrast to the IC program, the wide-area SSAs are fixed in time and space and close once a cumulative amount of salmon bycatch is reached. In response to this industry concern, the NPFMC began in 2005 to assess whether a RHS program like that developed by the IC could be substituted for the existing collection of SSAs. It also began, using a “two- track” analysis, to consider alternative measures to control salmon bycatch for the case where the RHS program controls on bycatch proved insufficient. To generate information about the performance of the industry program, the NPFMC employed the EFP regulatory process, and in 2006 approved an EFP that suspended enforcement of the SSAs for vessels participating in a cooperative-based RHS program. Thus, during the 2006 pollock B-season the IC RHS program was substituted for the SSAs and salmon bycatch closures came to be determined exclusively by the IC program. Subsequently, the NPFMC approved a second EFP to extend the RHS trial through 2007.

Tables 2 and 3 provide summaries of salmon “savings” due to the IC program under the EFP regulations. The number of salmon estimated as having been saved by the RHS program is found by examining the bycatch of vessels fishing in an area before it closes, and then comparing their bycatch subsequently to that which would have been expected had the area not closed (Haflinger et al. 2007). In this way, a before-and-after comparison is made between the bycatch that would have been expected from the vessels which caused the closure had they not moved, and their observed bycatch after moving. This method of estimating bycatch reduction was agreed upon during the EFP process, and represented the best which could be done in the absence of a controlled experiment that would allow a group of vessels to fish in closed areas without regard to bycatch performance.

As Table 2 shows, the RHS program generated Chinook salmon bycatch savings of about 50,000 in 2007 and about 1,000 in 2006 (during 2006 EFP approval was delayed and the program did not begin until August). These savings were estimated over about 285,000 tons of pollock catch in 2007 and over about 47,000 tons in 2006. The total pollock catch in 2007 was about 1.32 million tons while in 2006 the total catch was about 1.45 million tons. The difference between the total pollock catches and the pollock catch over which the program could be evaluated results from the fact that not all pollock catch comes from areas that are closed due to high salmon bycatch, and that it is not possible to generate valid before and after comparisons for all vessels forced out of closed areas (Haflinger et al. 2006, 2007). For the 2006 B-season just less than 10 percent of the pollock harvest could be used to estimate bycatch savings; for 2007 just over 20 percent of the harvest was used.

Table 2. Chinook salmon savings in the IC RHS program by season, 2006-2007. ______Actual Estimated Chinook Pollock Pollock Chinook Chinook Salmon Fraction Season Catch Bycatch Bycatch Savings Saved Year(A or B) (mt) (n) (n) (n) (n/n) ______

Chinook Salmon Closures

2007 B 74,465 10,879 23,448 12,569 0.54 2007 A 102,592 15,600 51,150 35,550 0.70 2006 B 24,007 6,105 7,641 1,536 0.20

Chum Salmon Closures

2007 B 107,646 1,593 3,600 2,007 0.56 2006 B 23,049 565 468 -97 —

Rev. 01 Page 79 of 79

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

______

Table 3 shows similar estimates of chum salmon savings due to the RHS program. For the 2007 B-season it is estimated that the program generated salmon bycatch savings of about 85,000 chum and for 2006 about 65,000 chum. In 2006 chum salmon were thought more abundant over the pollock grounds and bycatch was significant over the early part of the B-season before the EFP program came into force.

The results show that for both Chinook and chum closures, the fraction saved of Chinook and chum salmon, respectively, increased from 2006 to 2007. This seems consistent with improved RHS program performance, which was an objective of the industry committee that developed the IC agreement. Table 3 also shows that B-season Chinook closures appear to reduce the bycatch of chum as well as Chinook. Because the evaluation was not based on a controlled experiment, the method used to estimate bycatch reduction may not capture all of the factors thought to influence bycatch performance. For example, the performance of vessels without observers, and of those that planned to avoid the closed areas entirely (e.g., chose to fish to the northwest in the B season where salmon are rarely encountered), is not captured in the analysis. For shore-plant vessels in particular, uncertainty over whether the grounds they wish to fish could be closed creates significant financial risk. These vessels often have only two days to catch fish, and if in the middle of a trip their grounds are taken away by a closure, they could be forced to deliver less than a full load of pollock (Haflinger et al. 2007).

Table 3. Chum salmon savings in the IC RHS program by season, 2006-2007. ______

Actual Estimated Chum Pollock Pollock Chum Chum Salmon Fraction Season Catch Bycatch Bycatch Savings Saved Year(A or B) (mt) (n) (n) (n) (n/n) ______

Chinook Salmon Closures

2007 B 74,465 20,317 30,757 10,441 0.34 2007 A 102,592 2,887 2,226 -661 — 2006 B 24,007 7,429 22,849 15,419 0.67

Chum Salmon Closures

2007 B 107,646 16,926 92,896 75,970 0.82 2006 B 23,049 28,462 78,342 49,880 0.64 ______

IC program compliance and enforcement is independently audited, and audit reports are available from the NPFMC. In 2006, 12 potential violations of the closed-area rules were discovered, and seven were determined to have been violations. All of the cleared violations resulted from alternative interpretations of the term “fishing” as used in the RHS agreement. For 2007, the agreement was revised to clarify that the trawl net may not be deployed in a closed area, and a further six violations were recorded. Thus, during 2006 and 2007 eleven violations of closed areas were determined to have occurred, and these violations together generated $115,000 in damage assessments (Haflinger et al. 2007). Per the RHS agreement, the assessments were paid by vessel skippers and the monies will be used to support research concerning the stream of origin of salmon taken incidentally in the pollock fishery.

During 2008 Amendment 84 to the BSAI FMP came into force, and this regulatory change exempted participants in a cooperative RHS closure program from compliance with the Chinook and chum SSAs. As such, Amendment 84 eliminated the need to continue the RHS program exemption under the EFP regulations. Under the Amendment 84 rules, whether the exemption continues is subject to an annual review of the effectiveness of the RHS program. Because the SSAs remain in regulation, cooperatives or other vessels that do not participate in a RHS program remain subject to the SSA wide-area closures, if triggered.

Rev. 01 Page 80 of 80

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

The RHS program adopted for 2008 represents a refinement and upgrading of program components developed over the last six years such that the plan now benefits from many years of industry experience avoiding salmon bycatch. For example, the program will for the first time include a pre-defined area of high Chinook bycatch that will remain closed during the entire A- season. Analysis to support this area closure indicated that in recent years about 20 percent of salmon bycatch occurred within the area prior to February 15th while pollock catches over the same period were just two percent of the total harvest. In addition, the fishing areas available for closure each week during the A-season are increased to 1,500 square miles from 1,000 square miles. Preliminary results from the 2008 A-season fishery (Table 1) indicate a significant reduction in Chinook salmon bycatches down to levels not experienced since 1998-2001 (the low salmon abundance “crisis” years in western Alaska).

For the B-season, the fishing areas available for closure each week are increased to 1,500 square miles from 500 square miles. This change is anticipated to provide sufficient area to close all of the traditionally productive pollock fishing grounds in the southeastern Bering Sea if the need arises. Such a wide-area closure would force most of the larger shore-plant vessels to fish further to the north and most of the smaller catcher vessels to stop fishing altogether. Given the preliminary results for stream-of-origin of bycatch salmon in the BSAI pollock B-season (Table 11, NPFMC 2008c), moving fishing effort to the north would be expected to increase bycatches of salmon from rivers in coastal western Alaska and the middle and upper Yukon River, and decrease significantly bycatches of salmon from British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest. As such, the already very low probability that bycatches of ESA-listed Chinook salmon ESUs occur in the pollock fishery would be reduced further. Finally, the bycatch performance benchmarks that describe the candidate areas for closure have been made more flexible for 2008, and this is expected to result in additional closed areas in the B-season even under circumstances where salmon bycatches are very low.

Salmon Stream of Origin Research

Uncovering the stream of origin of bycatch salmon is of critical importance in determining the effects of salmon bycatch on salmon runs in Alaska and throughout the Pacific Rim. Initial work in this area involved scale pattern analysis and measuring the frequencies of protein-coding genes using allozyme electrophoresis (Wilmot et al 1998, Myers et al. 2004). For hatchery fish, fin clips have been used in conjunction with coded-wire tags or otolith thermal marking to track stream of origin. More recently, DNA-based methods have been developed. DNA-based methods offer advantages in terms of ease and expense of sampling as well as increased variation useful for discriminating among salmon within the same geographic region.

Over the past six years the Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center has awarded about $400,000 in research grants to promote the advancement of DNA-based information “baselines” capable of assigning bycatches of Chinook and chum salmon to their steam-of-origin. This work contributed to a microsatellite baseline for Chinook salmon and a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) baseline for chum salmon. Today it appears that future steam-of-origin research is likely to focus mainly on SNPs baseline information for both Chinook and chum salmon. Further development of the SNPs baselines for Chinook and chum salmon is a high-priority objective of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) as well as researchers at the University of Washington, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Templin et al. 2005, Seeb and Seeb 2006).

Preliminary work by AFSC and University of Washington scientists shows that the stream-of- origin of Chinook salmon bycatch recently (2005-2006) depends on the fishing season. In the A- season fishery, bycatches are mainly from coastal western Alaska and the Alaska Peninsula, and from the Pacific Northwest (British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon). In the B-season, the Pacific Northwest and Alaska Peninsula components are reduced, the western Alaska component is increased, and additional components from the middle and upper Yukon, Cook Inlet, and southeast Alaska appear (NPFMC 2008c). In addition, it is known that these salmon are from mainly three brood years. However, this preliminary work is based on a very limited sampling of the bycatch. Similar information for chum salmon is available from the work of Wilmot et al. (1998), although this information comes from bycatch samples collected during 1994 and 1995.

Rev. 01 Page 81 of 81

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

The stream-of-origin results were used to develop a preliminary analysis of adult-equivalent impacts of Chinook salmon bycatch in the BSAI pollock fishery on regional salmon runs. Estimating these impacts requires a synthesis of information on salmon brood years in the bycatch, the proportion in the bycatch maturing (returning to spawn) at age by region, ocean survival rates by age, and stock size (run return) by region and species. Because information is uncertain or lacking for some of these factors, the adult-equivalent analysis is stochastic and employs bounding assumptions on ocean survival.

The results shows that adult equivalent impacts to most areas are likely to be small. For example, estimated impacts to streams in the upper Yukon region range from 0.1 to one percent of run returns, with impacts during 2000-2002 at the lower end of the range and impacts more recently about one-half of one percent. For the western Alaska region, estimated run-return impacts of Chinook bycatch range from 1-5 percent, with impacts generally about 2-3 percent of the return. For the Pacific Northwest, where Chinook run information is not yet available, impacts are estimated to have been between 3,000 and 12,000 fish, with impacts most recently between 10,000 and 12,000 fish (NPFMC 2008c). On-going work seeks to obtain more representative samples of salmon bycatch, better information on the proportion maturing at age by region, and improvements in the SNPs baseline for Pacific Northwest stocks.

Climate and Ocean Carrying-Capacity Changes

Changes coincident with climate regime shifts have been observed in the Bering Sea that affect the survival and recruitment of pelagic and demersal fishes, the abundance of forage fish and shrimp, the amount of primary and secondary production, and the distribution of cold water species. Salmon are important ecological, economical and cultural resources in the northern Pacific region, and their response to climatic change is poorly understood. Research documenting changes in the biomass of Pacific salmon indicates a 30- or 40-year periodicity in the North Pacific Ocean coinciding with long-term climate conditions (Kaeriyama 2004).

Generally, Alaskan salmon stocks have been at high levels of abundance in the last 20 years, and Asian stocks have shown similar trends. In contrast, salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia were at lower levels in the 1980s and 1990s. All salmon, except Chinook, generally spend the majority of their ocean life in offshore waters, bounded by brief periods of migration through coastal areas as juveniles and returning adults. Chinook salmon also migrate through coastal areas as juveniles and returning adults, but immature Chinook salmon undergo extensive migrations and can be found inshore and offshore throughout the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. In summer, Chinook salmon concentrate around the Aleutian Islands and in the western Gulf of Alaska.

A period of high Alaskan salmon production from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s has been attributed to changes in ocean and atmospheric conditions that increased survival as well as enhanced hatchery releases (Kaeriyama 2004, Heard 1998). Asian hatchery releases of chum salmon have increased exponentially since the 1970s, and in British Columbia hatcheries recently have released 40-50 million juvenile Chinook salmon and 100-150 million juvenile chum salmon each year (Cook and Irvine 2007). In addition, hatcheries in southeast Alaska have released just over 200 million Chinook salmon smolts in recent years (Table 7, NPFMC 2008e). Well cared for hatchery salmon have higher survival rates than wild salmon, especially during their early marine life period. This increased salmon production has resulted in a decrease in average salmon weight and an increase in the average age at maturity, which has been attributed to a density-dependent, negative feedback on growth as large numbers of salmon bump up against the capacity of the North Pacific Ocean to provide sustenance (Helle et al. 2007). This density- dependent negative feedback is thought to have occurred even though the carrying capacity of the North Pacific Ocean for salmon is estimated to have increased somewhat since the climate regime shift of the late 1970s (Kaeriyama 2004).

The NPAFC has on-going a cooperative international research program to investigate changes in the carrying capacity of the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean for Pacific salmon. This program, the fisheries oceanography survey of the Bering Sea, is known by the acronym BASIS. A substantial portion of the program is concerned with studies on salmon feeding habits and how

Rev. 01 Page 82 of 82

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

salmon foraging relates to growth and ocean survival within the context of climate change. Because pollock is the most abundant pelagic fish species in the Bering Sea, they are an important food source for marine mammals, seabirds, and piscivorous fish, and this is especially the case for juvenile pollock. Salmon diet data collected as part of the BASIS program reveals that juvenile pollock are significant diet components of large Chinook and chum salmon foraging on the EBS shelf (Kuznetsova 2006, Davis et al. 2004). And Helle et al. (2007) show that age-zero pollock were very abundant on the EBS shelf during the recent warm period 2003-2005. In contrast, these pollock year classes are judged as significantly below average in the most recent EBS pollock assessment (Ianelli et al. 2007), suggesting the possibility of a potential negative interaction between pollock recruitment success and the increased abundance of Chinook and chum salmon on the OCS that began during 2003-2004. Based on NPAFC reports, a significant portion of salmon abundance in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean is due to greatly increased ocean- ranching efforts intended to enhance (i.e., not restore) natural runs.

Alternative Management Measures

As noted above, the NPFMC began in 2005 to consider alternative measures to control salmon bycatch control via the industry RHS program prove insufficient. By April 2008, these alternative measures were refined to include only hard caps and fixed, wide-area closures triggered by salmon bycatches, with separate actions to address Chinook and chum salmon bycatch (NPFMC 2008a,b). Additional options include: 1) splitting the bycatch caps or trigger amounts by pollock fishing season; 2) allocating any cap on salmon bycatch by fishery sector (catcher-processors, mother-ship catcher vessels, shore-plant catcher vessels, and the community development quota groups); and 3) the possibility for transfers of any salmon bycatch allocations among the shore- plant pollock cooperatives. The alternatives will be judged against a post-Amendment 84 status quo which exempts vessels that participate in a cooperative program to reduce salmon bycatch from the wide-area SSAs that remain in regulation. To ensure that all stakeholder concerns are addressed, the public was noticed in December, 2007 that an environmental impact statement (EIS) would accompany the analysis, and a summary of public comments on salmon bycatch concerns in the EBS pollock fishery was produced (NMFS 2008).

The time-line for considering these alternative management measures will extend through 2008, and include for Chinook salmon: 1) the identification of a preliminary preferred alternative in June; 2) an ESA consultation with the NMFS Northwest Region Office and the completion of a draft EIS in the fall (includes another round of public comment); and 3) final action by the NPFMC in December. For chum salmon, the NPFMC will identify a preliminary preferred alternative in October, and this alternative will be the focus of the draft EIS that will be developed in the fall. For both species, follow-on rule making is anticipated to require most of 2009, and as such it is anticipated that some provisions of the final rule may come into force either during the 2009 B-season or the 2010 A-season (NPFMC 2008d).

Rev. 01 Page 83 of 83

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Observation There has always been a bycatch of salmon, primarily Chinook and chum, in the Pollock fishery. In the past the bycatch rate was managed by a system of spatial-temporal closures of specific areas generally displaying the highest bycatch rates, augmented by “rolling closures” of hotspots. Through the late 1990s and early 2000s this management approach was successful at keeping the bycatch at acceptably low levels. However, in 2006 and 2007 bycatch of Chinook increased to unprecedented levels, although the harvesting strategy did reduce bycatches significantly compared to bycatches expected to have occurred had the fixed and rolling closures not been in place.

There is some ability to disaggregate the bycatch by river of origin, but this is done at the regional scale. It has not been possible to attribute Chinook bycatches to specific runs, including runs that are protected under US or Canadian legislation and other individual runs that are important to commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries. With uncertainty about the run composition of the bycatches there is a possibility that the recent high bycatch does pose a threat to some endangered or threatened stocks of Chinook. Even if the bycatch does not contain noteworthy numbers of protected runs, it may still have some impact on the strengths of runs supporting important salmon fisheries, although it is acknowledged that at the coast-wide scale the number of “adult equivalents” taken as bycatch is a small fraction of all Chinook that return to US and Canadian rivers. Although the level of this threat is highly uncertain, it is of concern to a number of stakeholders who raised it with the audit panel, with the Council and state / provincial management authorities, and with the Pollock fishery itself.

If the trend in Chinook bycatch since the early 2000s were to continue, it would pose important challenges to continued certification of the Pollock fishery. There would be legitimate questions regarding the score of the fishery relative to several indicators including: • Performance Indicator 1.2.3 There are strategies to control catches of significant by-product species in the pollock fishery. • Performance Indicator 2.1 The fishery is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on biological diversity at the genetic, species or population level of endangered, threatened or protected species. • Performance Indicator 2.2.1 The management system keeps impacts of the fishery on protected species within agreed and reasonable bounds, and keeps impacts on threatened or endangered species within the limits set by the Endangered Species Act.

And possible some other indicators. However, both the industry and the management agencies have been proactive in dealing with this problem.

A working group of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council has been exploring a number of options for managing the Pollock fishery to reduce bycatch of salmon, particularly Chinook. Although the final decision among the options has not yet been made, and cannot be implemented readily before 2009, it appears to the audit team as if some combination of larger spatial closures of areas with recent high bycatch and a hard cap on salmon bycatch will be implemented. Not waiting for action by the NPFMC, however, the Pollock industry has taken actions on a self-imposed “closed area” that encompasses a large part of the area where bycatches in the mid 2000s have been high, augmented by an industry-coordinated “rolling closure” when bycatches are encountered. The industry tabled credible estimates of Chinook bycatch in the 2008 A (winter) fishery of 17,000 Chinook, down from 69,500 in 2007 and 58,900 in 2006.

Conclusion The information provided by APA and the NMFS satisfied the audit team that:

a) the Pollock industry is treating the salmon bycatch as a serious concern, and is acting proactively to reduce the bycatch; and

b) the measures taken by the industry are proving effective in addressing the bycatch.

Given a) and b), and the actions expected by the NPFMC in the coming months, the audit team has concluded there is insufficient justification to issue a new condition for this fishery, or

Rev. 01 Page 84 of 84

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

recommend discontinuing its certification. However the situation will be monitored very closely over the B fishery as well, and if the fishery is not equally successful in reducing Chinook bycatch in that fishery the bycatch will constitute an important part of the 2009 review. Therefore, at the time of the audit the audit team did not consider that any of the related performance indicators needed to be re-scored.

As a final note, the causes of the increase in Chinook bycatch are poorly understood. The increase could be a consequence of any one or a combination of several factors, and it is possible that the decline in the 2008 A fishery is due to a reversal in the causal factors and not primarily to the changes in fishing strategies of the fleet. Nonetheless, the conservation outcome is the same - the threat posed by the bycatch to threatened or endangered runs of Chinook, and to commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries, has been reduced to an acceptable level. Hence the decision by the audit team would also be the same (no justification for additional conditions at this time), as would the emphasis on continued close monitoring of the Chinook bycatch in the 2008 B fishery, and in 2009.

17 Any complaints against the certified operation; recorded, reviewed and actioned The certified operation considered here is the following signatories to the APA MSC certification programme:

Alaska Ocean American Co. Arctic Storm, Inc. Arctic Fjord, Inc. Glacier Fish Co. Golden Alaska Seafoods Highland Light Seafoods Ocean Peace, Inc. Starbound LLC. Supreme Alaska Seafoods Seafoods Corp. Icicle Seafoods Peter Pan Seafoods Westward Seafoods Premier Pacific Seafoods Alyeska Seafoods Co. UniSea

There were no reported incidents of any complaints against the APA member companies or the non-APA Alaska pollock producers relating to the scope of MSC certification.

Rev. 01 Page 85 of 85

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

18 Any relevant changes to legislation or management regime.

There were no known substantive and relevant changes in legislation or management within the annual cycle of this surveillance audit.

19 Overall Conclusions The overall management of the fishery continues to at least the level as during the main assessment.

APA and/or NMFS have taken appropriate measures to address the conditions of certification raised during the MSC certification assessment. This can be summarised as follows:

1. Conditions where requirements are deemed to have been fully met and the condition closed: • Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15

2. Conditions where specific requirements are deemed to have been fully met and which will be considered in future surveillance reports, as required, as part of overall fishery management: • Conditions 5, 6, 7,11

3. Conditions which will be subject to ongoing monitoring to achieve closure, or significant progress to an appropriate level, over the lifetime of the current MSC certificate: • Conditions 10, 12

Some comments and recommendations have been made by the assessment team to assist in further development of measures, as relevant.

MSC Certification should therefore continue and surveillance audits continue to the same schedule.

Information Sources:

Meetings 1. 8th April 2008, by phone: George Pletnikoff, Greenpeace; Bubba Cook & Bruce Robson WWF; Kathy Scarfo, West Coast Trollers Association (Area G). 2. 9th April, NOAA Fisheries, AFSC, Seattle. William Karp, Pat Livingstone, Steve Berbeaux, Jim Ianelli, Martin Dorn, Anne Hallowed, Stephani Zador, Sarah Gaucher, Tom Gilatt. 3. 10th April 2008: Ed Richardson, Paul MacGregor, At-Sea Processors; Julian Parrish, University of Washington, Lisa Seeb, Karl Haflinger, SeaState

References

Acuna, E. and R.R. Lauth. 2008. Results of the 2007 Eastern Bering Sea Continental Shelf Bottom Trawl Survey of Groundfish and Invertebrate Resources. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-181. Seattle: US Department of Commerce. Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 2006. AFSC Quarterly Research Reports April-June 2006. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/amj2006/divrptsNMML2.htm

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 2005. AFSC Quarterly Research Reports April-June 2005. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/amj2005/divrptsREFM5.htm Anonymous 2007. “Amended and Restated Bering Sea Pollock Fishery Rolling Hot Spot Closure Salmon Bycatch Management Agreement.” November 8, 2007, At-sea Procesors Association, 4039 21st Avenue West, Suite 400, Seattle, Washington.

Rev. 01 Page 86 of 86

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Anonymous 2004. Salmon Excluder Shows Promise for Pollock. Alaska Fishermen’s Journal, February, 2004.

Aydin, K., Gaichas, S., Ortiz, I., Kinzey, D., and N. Friday. 2007. A Comparison of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands Large Marine Ecosystems Through Food Web Modeling. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-178. Seattle: US Department of Commerce.

Balsiger, J.W. 2008. “2007 Annual Report for the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Salmon Incidental Catch and Endangered Species Act Consultation.” Memorandum for Robert Lohn, January 14, 2008, National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska. Barbeaux, S. 2006. “2006 Aleutian Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Study.” Manuscript, BSAI Plan Team, September, 2006. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington.

Barbeaux, S., Loggerwell, L. and S. Romain. 2008. “The Aleutian Islands Cooperative Acoustic Survey Study (AI CASS): Towards a local-scale pollock and Steller sea lion management strategy.” Poster, Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 20-23, 2008. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington.

Barbeaux, S., Ianelli, J., Gaichas, S. and M. Wilkins. 2007. “Chapter 1a Stock Assessment of Aleutian Islands Region Pollock.” Appendix A. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Barbeaux, S., Ianelli, J.N. and E. Brown. 2004. “Chapter 1a Stock Assessment of Aleutian Islands Region Pollock.” Appendix A. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Barbeaux, S., Ianelli, J.N. and E. Brown. 2005. “Chapter 1a Stock Assessment of Aleutian Islands Region Pollock.” Appendix A. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Barbeaux, S., Ianelli, J.N. and E. Brown. 2006. “Chapter 1a Stock Assessment of Aleutian Islands Region Pollock.” Appendix A. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Boldt, J. (ed.). 2007. “Ecosystem Considerations for 2008.” Appendix C. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Boldt, J. (ed.). 2006. “Ecosystem Considerations for 2007.” Appendix C. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Boyd, I.L. 2006. “Marine Mammal Research Assessment: The relationships between SSL foraging behavior and pollock-as prey abundance at the local scale related to putative fish-school disruption caused by trawling in localized areas.” Contract Report, At-sea Processors Association, 4039 21st Avenue West, Suite 400, Seattle, WA.

Cook, R. and J.R. Irvine. 2007. “Canadian enhanced salmonid production during 1978-2006 (1977-2005 brood years).” North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comission Document 1039. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch, 401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Cullenberg, Paula. 2005. Managing Fisheries, Empowering Communities: Conference Proceedings, April 21-23, 2005, Anchorage, Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. (AK SG-05-05) 94p.p. SH328 .C57 M36 2005

Cullenberg, Paula. 2007. Alaska's Fishing Communities: Harvesting the Future. Conference Proceedings, September 21-22, 2006, Anchorage, Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska

Rev. 01 Page 87 of 87

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Fairbanks. (Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report AK SG-07-02) 206p. SH329 .C57 A43 2006

Davis, N.D., Armstrong, J.L. and K.W. Myers. 2004. “Bering Sea salmon diet overlap in fall 2002 and potential for interactions among salmon.” North Pacific Anadromous Fish Comission Document 779. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, Washington.

Dorn, M., Aydin, K., Barbeaux, S., Guttormsen, M., Megrey, B., Spalinger, K. and M. Wilkins. 2007. “1. Gulf of Alaska Walleye Pollock.” Appendix B. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Dorn, M.W., Hollowed, A.B., Brown, E., Megrey, B., Wilson, C. and Jim Blackburn. 2001. “Assessment of Walleye Pollock in the Gulf of Alaska.” Appendix B. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Executive order 12898 of February 11, 1994. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm

Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments. November 6, 2000. http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13175.html

Fritz, L., Kunisch, E., Sweeney, K. and T. Gelatt. 2007. “Survey of Adult and Juvenile Steller Sea Lions, June-July 2007.” Memorandum. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.

Fritz, L. and T. Gelatt. 2006. “Survey of Adult and Juvenile Steller Sea Lions, June 2006.” Memorandum. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.

Gauvin, J. and J. Gruver. 2008. “Request for a new exempted fishing permit (EFP) to continue research on salmon bycatch reduction devices.” North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Guttormsen, M. A. 2007. Results of the February-March 2007 echo integration-trawl surveys of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) conducted in the Gulf of Alaska, Cruises MF2007-01 and MF2007-04. AFSC Processed Report 2007-07. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle Washington.

Haflinger, K., Gruver, J. and D. Christensen. 2007. “Report to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) Groundfish Fishery Exempted Fishing Permit #07-02.” North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Haflinger, K., Gruver, J. and K. Duffy. 2006. “Final Report to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) Groundfish Fishery Exempted Fishing Permit #06-04.” North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Heard, W.R. 1998. Do hatchery salmon affect the North Pacific Ocean ecosystem? North Pacific Anadramous Fish Comission Technical Report No. 1: 405-11.

Helle, J., Farley, E., Murphy, J., Feldmann, A., Cieciel, K., Moss, J., Eisner, L., Pohl, J. and M. Courtney. 2007. The Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey (BASIS). AFSC Quarterly Report January-February-March 2007. Seattle: Alaska Fishery Science Center.

Ianelli, J.N., Barbeaux, S., Honkalehto, T., Kotwicki, S., Aydin, K. and N. Williamson. 2007. “1. Eastern Bering Sea Walleye Pollock.” Appendix A. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

Livingston, P.A., Aydin, K., Boldt, J., Ianelli, J., and J. Jurado-Molina. 2005. A framework for ecosystem impacts assessment using an indicator approach. Journal of Marine Science 62:592-97.

Rev. 01 Page 88 of 88

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. Silver Spring (MD): National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004a. Appendix F-9 Alaska Native Issues. In Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau: NMFS Alaska Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). . 2004b. Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau: NMFS Alaska Region.

National Research Council. 2003. Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters: Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets. Washington (D.C.): National Research Council.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999. Ecosystem-based Fishery Management: A Report to Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. Washington: US Department of Commerce.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2007. Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan. Anchorage: North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2007a. “A Potential Approach to Implementing the Council’s Groundfish Policy Workplan Priority: Increase Alaska Native and Community Consultation.” Staff draft, July 18, 2007. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 2007b. “Proposed Community Outreach Plan for Arctic FMP.” Staff draft, July 13, 2007. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska.http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/Arctic/Arctic%20FMP%20Outreach%20Plan%20Dec %202007.pdf

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2008. Current Issues. Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/

Pascual, M.A. and M.D. Adkison. 1994. The decline of the Steller sea lion in the northeast Pacific: demography, harvest or environment? Ecological Applications 4:393-403.

Sterling, J. T., R. Ream, R., Fadley, B.S. and T. Gelatt. 2007. Merging satellite telemetry with oceanographic and archival tag data to assess foraging ecology of Alaskan pinnipeds. In (P. Sheridan, J. W. Ferguson, and S. L. Dowling [eds.]) Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service Workshop on Advancing Electronic Tag Technologies and Their Use in Stock Assessments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-82. Seattle: US Department of Commerce.

Testa, J.W. (ed.). 2007. Fur Sea Investigations, 2004-2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-174. Seattle: US Department of Commerce.

Wolf, N. and M. Mangel. 2004. “Understanding the decline of the Western Alaskan Steller sea lion: assessing the evidence concerning multiple hypotheses.” NOAA Contract Report AB133F-02-CN-0085. Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., Seattle, WA.

Standards and Guidelines used:

1. MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing 2. MSC Fishery Certification Methodology Version 6. September 2006 3. TAB Directives - all

Appendix

Rev. 01 Page 89 of 89

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Written submissions received from stakeholders

Rev. 01 Page 90 of 90

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-462-1177 • Fax: 202-462-4507 1-800-326-0959 • www.greenpeaceusa.org

Paul Knapman North America Regional Manager Moody Marine Ltd 28 Fleming Drive Halifax Nova Scotia B3P1A9 Canada April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Knapman:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MSC’s Annual Surveillance Audits of the Alaska pollock fisheries.

Many of the problems with the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska pollock fisheries have already been communicated to the Marine Stewardship Council assessment teams through the course of the assessment period. These were repeated in the Objections to the Final Determinations filed for these fisheries, and in later testimony during annual reviews. Unfortunately, MSC certification has yet to result in resolution of these concerns, or to progress in that direction.

In fact, some problems have worsened. The percentage of pollock caught in Steller sea lion critical habitat in the Bering Sea during the 2007 A Season was the highest since 1998. Salmon bycatch has become an extremely serious problem, with a record number of Chinook salmon taken by the trawl fishery in 2007. Over 772,000 salmon were taken as bycatch by Bering Sea pelagic trawlers in 2005, a nearly 300% increase since 2003, the year before the fishery was certified.

It is also worth noting that the scientific literature on the impacts of bottom trawling, which is one of the gear types used by the MSC certified pollock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska, has grown substantially. We would hope that this increased understanding of the destructive nature of bottom trawling – and on “pelagic” trawling gear that is frequently in contact with the seafloor - would be reflected in this review.

The Aleutian Islands and Bogoslof Island stocks remain closed to fishing, and the Gulf of Alaska stock is a mere fraction of what it once was. The one stock still capable of supporting a large commercial fishery, in the eastern Bering Sea, is now in serious trouble as well. There have been five straight years of below average recruitment, something which has never happened before in the history of the fishery. Despite this problem, a large portion of the fishing pressure is focused on the winter spawning aggregation, targeting pregnant females just before they spawn. Overall biomass has dipped below BMSY. The Total Allowable Catch for 2007 was a 28% reduction from 2006, but several members of the Groundfish Plan Team had recommended much sharper cuts.

Despite clear indications that the problems the conditions were intended to address have not gone away and, in many cases, have worsened, the 2007 Surveillance Reports for the Alaska pollock

Rev. 01 Page 91 of 91

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08 fisheries present a glowing picture of fisheries that are meeting conditions and improving scores on most if not all criteria. It is difficult to find much cause for this assessment.

Greenpeace is in agreement with Bob Furness, one of the original certifiers of the pollock fisheries, in finding that the At-Sea Processors Association plan does not fulfill the conditions set for the fisheries in 2003. The starkest example is the requirement to carry out an experiment that would enable scientists to assess in a controlled manner the impacts of the fisheries on Steller sea lions and the efficacy of current fishery mitigation measures that were implemented in 2002. Arguments that such an experiment would be illegal are frankly preposterous, as the effect would be to reduce potential impacts of the fisheries from the status quo. In fact, NMFS proposed just such an experimental design of open and closed fishing areas in the comprehensive November 2000 FMP Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the NMFS mitigation plan was rejected by the Fishery Management Council’s “mitigation committee,” representing the major industry stakeholders.

The need for such an experiment is reiterated in the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan, just released in March of 2008. The Recovery Plan finds competition with fisheries as having a potentially high impact on endangered Steller sea lions. Establishing a controlled experiment to assess fisheries impacts is one of the four major actions required by the Recovery Plan:

Design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation measures (Action 2.6.8) Due to the uncertainty as to how fisheries affect Steller sea lions and their habitat, and the difficulty in extrapolating from individual scientific experiments, a properly designed adaptive management program should be implemented. This type of program has the potential to assess the relative impact of commercial fisheries and to better distinguish the impacts of other threats (including killer whale predation). This program will require a robust experimental design with replication at the proper temporal and spatial scales with the appropriate levels of commercial fishing as experimental treatments. It will be a challenge to construct an adaptive management plan that meets the requirements of the ESA, is statistically sufficient, and can be implemented by the commercial fisheries. Acknowledging these hurdles, a significant effort must be made to determine the feasibility of such a program.

According to an article on the Recovery Plan published in the prestigious journal Science, “…many researchers such as Robert Small of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, chair of the Plan's recovery team, suggest that experimentally closing certain areas to fishing is the best way to find out if the industry is indeed hurting the sea lions.”

The role of industry in enabling this experiment to move forward in an effective and timely manner is clear from this statement by Douglas DeMaster, Science and Research Director of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center: "it would be logistically very tough, and unpopular" [with the fishing industry].

Years have gone by since such an experiment was proposed by a National Research Council study, and since it was required as a condition of MSC certification of the pollock fisheries, yet there has been no progress. Steller sea lions remain in danger of extinction, and the pollock fisheries remain one of the most likely causes.

Of additional concern is the increasing amount of testimony from Alaska Native communities regarding the impacts of the pollock fishery on their cultural survival. Communities that have lived off the waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska for thousands of years now often travel far offshore in search of food that was once plentiful right off the beach. Communities have expressed concern about impacts to the seafloor as well as on the effects of localized depletion on the nutrition of marine mammals and seabirds. Bycatch, particularly of salmon and halibut, is also a serious problem for many of these communities. Industry is quick to point out the benefits to

Rev. 01 Page 92 of 92

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08 these communities of the CDQ shares, but even a cursory survey of native fishermen will provide assessors with a very different perspective.

"The problems caused by the pollock fishery, especially with all the by-catch they get in their huge nets, are killing my people. Pretty soon, we will have to close down our villages and move into the larger cities if this keeps up. There will be no more food to eat," says Michael Zacharof, a City Council member and former Tribal President of the community of St. Paul Island on the Pribilof Islands, in the middle of the Bering Sea.

We will close by repeating the conclusion from the Objection to the pollock fisheries certification filed by Greenpeace, Oceana, NET, and the Alaska Oceans Program. Unfortunately, this statement is perhaps more true today than it was in 2004.

We are disappointed in the decision that these fisheries should be certified according to the MSC Standard. For the reasons stated in our previous comments and in this Objection, the certification team made a serious mistake in its Final Determination. Certifying a fishery with a history of depleted stocks, significant ecosystem impacts and staggering management problems is a grave error. The pollock fisheries and their management are not models for the world’s fisheries. In so many ways, their problems provide examples of how not to conduct fisheries. We sincerely hope that the MSC concludes the Alaska pollock fisheries do not deserve to bear the distinction of MSC certification and its label. We fear that a decision to certify will haunt the certification team and the Marine Stewardship Council.

Should you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Hocevar Oceans Specialist Greenpeace [email protected] (512) 454-6140

Cc Rupert Howes Brad Ack Chris Ninnes

Rev. 01 Page 93 of 93

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Email submission from WWF

To: Paul Knapman, Moody Marine Ltd.

From: Bubba Cook, WWF Bering Sea Ecoregion; Bruce Robson, Community and Ecology Resources

Date: April 9, 2008

Subject: Comments for consideration during the 2008 BS/AI Pollock Fishery Surveillance Audit

This memorandum provides brief comments on issues that the WWF Bering Sea Ecoregion Program believes are relevant to the April 2008 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) pollock fishery surveillance audit. Our comments specifically address the MSC Conditions pertaining to the effects of the fishery on Steller sea lions (SSL) and northern fur seals (NFS) and as such are intended as a follow-up to our detailed comments for the 2007 surveillance audit. We are concerned that NFS on the Pribilof Islands are declining and the western stock of SSL remains listed as an endangered species. Additionally, we are concerned that salmon bycatch in the pollock fishery has increased substantially in recent years to a level that potentially effects threatened and endangered stocks from the Pacific Northwest as well as discrete populations along the Western Alaska coast. These concerns are exascerbatedby the fact that the pollock fishery TAC has recently been reduced due to declining stock assessments. WWF requests that special attention be paid to these continuing conservation concerns during the audit process. We present these comments as they pertain to the MSC conditions and corresponding items in the APA action plan as well as the BS/AI Pollock Fishery Surveillance Report 2.

Localized and Regional of effects fisheries on apex predators In our 2007 comments to the surveillance team we stressed the need to use an approach that identifies and addresses multiple factors that are likely responsible for species declines in the BS/AI region. This issue was a central theme of the SSL and NFS reports prepared by Dr. I.L. Boydi,ii,iii under contract to the At-Sea Processors Association (APA). In his analyses, Dr. Boyd stressed the utility of an approach for simultaneously testing multiple hypotheses for species declines such as that formulated by Wolf and Mangel (2004, 2008).iv,v This approach weighs the importance of different factors in a species decline using mathematical models that allow the weight of existing evidence to differentiate between a set of plausible hypotheses. Rather than looking for one “smoking gun” this analytical framework acknowledges the interactive and cumulative nature of factors such as fisheries interactions, entanglement, predation, and possibly the effects of changing environment. Dr. Boyd proposed this approach as a cost-effective alternative to the large-scale field experiments stipulated in MSC Certification Condition 10. This could in effect serve as a means of assessing the feasibility of adaptive management measures for SSL and NFS that could be used to mitigate adverse effects of competition with fisheries if they exist.

The Wolf and Mangel4,5 approach was proposed by the APA and endorsed by the Assessment Team in the BS/AI Pollock Fishery Surveillance Report 2 (Condition 10 pp.91-92). However, we are concerned that this approach may not be on track for to be fully implemented as it was proposed. We base this concern on the list of projects recently announced for funding through the University of Alaska Fairbanks Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center (PCCRC) grant program this year (the funding mechanism for this research proposed by the APA). In response to the specific requests in the 2007 RFP for simultaneous hypothesis testing and adaptive management feasibility assessments, the PCCRC has funded a literature

Rev. 01 Page 94 of 94

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08 review and critical evaluation of the cause of the NFS decline. The previous reports by Dr. Boyd contained a thorough review of some of these issues as have previous peer reviewed publicationsvi. While an updated literature review will undoubtedly have value, it may fall far short of the stated goal of simultaneous hypothesis testing recommended by Dr. Boyd and supported by the surveillance team in the 2007 assessment report. We acknowledge that this analysis could be a part of the proposed research, we do not see any indication of a quantitative approach to simultaneous hypothesis testing in the project abstract posted on the PCCRC site.

To be fair, we do not know if any proposals were submitted for use of the Wolf and Mangel approach, or if the 2007-08 funding level was sufficient to support such research. However, WWF is concerned that a valuable opportunity is being missed for making much needed progress in a process that is already constrained by a short timeframe. With NFS in the Pribilofs the potential exists to greatly increase our knowledge of the interaction between fisheries and apex predators. The Pribilof Islands are a central-place foraging system with well documented colony specific foraging patterns for NFS.vii,viii These patterns result in habitat segregation and diet differences.ix Population trends have also differed between the islands in recent decades and possibly between rookery complexes.x Within this system the distribution of the pollock fishery has shifted over time due to pollock distribution, abundance and management actions. There is also evidence that predation on NFS by killer whalesxi and SSL differs by colony.xii As a whole, the ecosystem structure and wealth of data are well suited for the type of analysis used by Wolf and Mangel.4,5 for SSL.

WWF strongly recommends that the surveillance team specifically require a modeling approach utilizing simultaneous testing of alternative hypotheses for the decline of NFS using multiple sources of data as a prerequisite to closing this condition. This analysis should seek to include the following elements to assess the feasibility of an adaptive management framework such as that described by Wolf and Mangel:

• A determination of critical foraging thresholds based on pre-season forage abundance as determined by NMFS trawl surveys • As appropriate, the participation of the pollock fishery to determine rates of localized depletion using hydro-acoustic survey methods as these are developedxiii • Assessment of the time interval necessary to detect changes in juvenile survival or fecundity in NFS for comparison with NMML tagging studies • Incorporation of estimated rates of mortality by sex and age class due to entanglement in marine debris

In summary, the multi-factorial analysis approach that is recommended in the Boyd reports should be used to assess whether trends in northern NFS numbers correspond in space and time with pollock density and distribution (and thereby intensity of fishing). This should be the next step toward fulfilling MSC Condition 6 and 10, as stipulated for areas where research is still required. This approach provides a quantitative means to effectively incorporate recent information on NFS into a formal assessment process to evaluate multiple hypotheses for the NFS decline. This analysis will also provide valuable insight into the decline (and possible recovery) of a sympatric species, the SSL. Northern fur seal entanglement As a follow-up to our 2007 surveillance audit comments, WWF again recommends that in order to fully comply with MSC Conditions 7 and 11, the APA must include a thorough examination of the characteristics of marine debris photographed on and removed from entangled NFS on the Pribilof Islands. In particular, this analysis should be a required under Condition 11.1 mandating an assessment of gear loss from the pollock fishery and whether it contributes to the risk of NFS entanglement. This recommendation is warranted by recent information on NFS entanglement rates and debris characteristics collected by researchers on the Pribilof Islands,xiv,xv in combination

Rev. 01 Page 95 of 95

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08 with the analysis of trawl debris from beach cleanups conducted by the Pribilof communities and the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation (MCAF).xvi,xvii Based on this information, we are concerned that the conclusion stated in the BS/AI Pollock Fishery Surveillance Report 2, that marine debris from the pollock fishery is not a threat to NFS, is still premature and requires this additional research to credibly fulfill the required conditions.

In collaboration with local communities, the MCAF16,17 has implemented a successful program of beach cleanups the Pribilofs and other coastal Alaskan communities. Results from their analysis of debris type and characteristics were presented in the 2007 assessment report. The MCAF analysis concludes that most of the debris sampled from beach cleanups was older, of foreign manufacture and not of a type associated with the US pollock fleet. As they indicate, this result is not surprising because a large proportion of the debris found on land, especially in areas that have not been cleaned previously, is older and therefore more likely to be derived from foreign fisheries. The MCAF analysis also presents useful data on annual accumulation rates on Pribilof beaches cleaned in successive years. However, the report does not give a detailed breakdown of the deposition rate of new trawl net debris and its likely origin (foreign or domestic) for the Pribilof Islands. These data are important to determine the extent and possible origin of new debris entering the Pribilof nearshore system.

The MCAF also reports information on the mesh size of net samples as an indicator of the fishery in which the net was being used. Mesh size information from entangled NFS is also collected and summarized in the Pribilof community research reports and historically by NMFS researchers.xviii,xix A careful comparison of these two data sets may provide important new insights into the characteristics of entangling debris. A recent retrospective analysis of entangling debris removed from 683 NFS between 1985 and 2005 indicates that the stretched mesh size of most entangling debris is generally between 15-30 cm for all three major debris types; net, packing bands and line (loops of twine, string and rope).14 In this analysis, the stretched mesh size of most probable trawl net fragments removed from seals was consistent over the 20 year period, ranging from 15-30 cm with a median stretched mesh size of 25-30 cm.14 The mesh size data are roughly comparable between the beach debris and entanglement debris studies, however further analysis drawing on the knowledge of net construction and marine debris experts would be beneficial. Further analysis should account for possible differences in mesh size between beach debris sampling sites and consider potential bias introduced by pooling all debris samples into one size distribution.

The MCAF analysis also classifies trawl debris as twisted strand polyethylene (PE) or braided PE to attempt to determine the fishery of origin. This determination is based on the knowledge of two experts in net manufacture. They conclude that the domestic fishing industry almost exclusively uses nets made from braided, not twisted PE.17 A preliminary high-magnification re-examination of digital photographs of trawl net debris from entangled NFS observed in 2005-06 and shown in digital photographs in Zavadil et al. (2007) indicates that both braided and twisted strand PE are observed on the Pribilof Islands (B. Robson pers. comm.). These photos1 can be seen in the 2006 report on entanglement monitoring on the Pribilof Islands.15 At high magnification, it appears that twine tracers can also be seen in some of the trawl net debris indicating that this debris may be able to be traced to more specific origins17 (see footnote below).

This information is not intended as a quantitative assessment of the occurrence of braided twine on entangled NFS on the Pribilof Islands. This preliminary evaluation was conducted after receiving the MCAF report just prior to submission of these comments and is solely meant to document that

1Appendix 2 Figure 1 in Zavadil et al. (2007) shows a juvenile fur seal of unknown sex entangled in a strand of orange braided trawl net (upper right panel) and a pup entangled in a blue piece of trawl net. At high magnification, both of these strands appear to have twine tracers. Appendix 2 Figure 5 shows a seal entangled in a piece of twisted twine trawl net (panels a-c) and the same juvenile seal from Figure 1 in panels d-f). Appendix 2 Figure 8 shows an adult female fur seal entangled in an orange braided–twine trawl net with another blue material tangled in the net (middle left panel). Figure 6 also shows an assortment of twisted twine trawl net debris. A possible explanation for the occurrence of multiple colors of twine woven together (upper right and lower left panels) is provided on page 28 of the Discussion section of the report.

Rev. 01 Page 96 of 96

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

NFS entangled in braided PE trawl net occur on the Pribilof Islands. The additional analysis utilizing the expertise of net debris specialists recommended in these comments is necessary to further assess the significance of this finding. It should also be noted that this initial high magnification re-assessment of the photographs of NFS shown in the 2006 report includes an adult female, a juvenile and a pup observed entangled in braided trawl net. While adult and juvenile NFS observed entangled may have encountered their debris in the North Pacific, debris found on NFS pups necessarily represents debris types occurring in the Pribilof Islands nearshore environment. This is because prior to weaning, NFS pups do not range far from shore.

Information on debris type and origin considered by NFS age class and gender is important when considered in light of recent findings from community-based entanglement research., Previous information on entanglement among NFS has primarily focused on data for juvenile males.20,21 Research conducted during 2005-06 on St. George Island present some of the first data on the entanglement rate among NFS pups. These data show a mean entanglement rate of 0.06-0.08% for pups, with a potential maximum rate of up to 0.11% in October prior to weaning.15 These results are supported by three alternative methods; observational surveys, a comparison of the total number of pups observed on South rookery to the estimated number of pups alive in August, and the results of a preliminary mark/resight analysis. Concurrent surveys of adult female NFS show that the incidence of entanglement among females on St. George Island increased during the course of the 2005-06 breeding seasons, coincident with the predicted arrival of progressively younger females on the rookery.15 The estimated entanglement rate reached 0.13% in October, an order of magnitude higher than the average incidence calculated when surveys are only conducted in mid-July. In combination, this information indicates that entanglement rates among females may be comparable to those observed among juvenile male NFS after accounting for age and timing of arrival and that some NFS pups become entangled before leaving the Pribilof Islands.

In summary, the Pribilof communities have demonstrated a commitment to a multi-faceted approach to NFS entanglement that incorporates assessment, prevention and mitigation. This approach is supported by the Pribilof Islands Collaborative. The fishing industry should be commended for joining with the communities to clean debris from local beaches. Fulfillment of the MSC conditions regarding NFS entanglement represents an opportunity for the pollock fishery to continue to lead fishing industry on this issue. Prior to closing this condition, a rigorous analysis should be conducted with debris removed from and photographed on entangled NFS. This analysis should incorporate the type of expertise and background knowledge information used in the MCAF analysis of beach debris. Debris samples and digital photographs are archived by the Tribal Government ECO Offices on both Pribilof Islands and positive working relationships exist between MCAF and both Islands. WWF encourages he surveillance team to strongly encourage the APA and MCAF to collaborate with local researchers in these efforts, and if necessary in obtaining the necessary funding to support this research.

If this analysis indicates that trawl debris fragments removed from NFS could be derived from the BS/AI pollock fishery, the fishery should, in collaboration with other members of the Pribilof Islands Collaborative, work to implement educational programs among the fishing fleet and provide viable means for the fleet to recycle net debris from fishing operations. Prevention efforts such as these have been shown to be effective in reducing pinniped entanglement rates in other parts of the world.xx Collection of entangling debris from NFS may also prove to be a viable means of tracking progress on this issue in the future and has the added benefit of mitigating the often deadly effect of the debris for individual seals. Chinook and Non-Chinook Bycatch Condition of Certification 8 requires that the fishery is conducted in a manner which does not have unacceptable impacts on biological diversity at the genetic, species, or population level of endangered, threatened or protected species. Over the last year, WWF became increasingly aware of genetic and scale pattern informationxxi which indicates that Chinook and non-Chinook (chum) salmon caught by the pollock trawl vessels includes fish from Upper Willamette River, Lower

Rev. 01 Page 97 of 97

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Columbia River, and possibly other lower 48 stocks that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The problems inherent in rebuilding these critically important Oregon and Washington stocks are caused in large part by escapement-return failures, but are potentially exacerbated by bycatch in the pollock fishery.

This issue was addressed in 1999 and 2000 NMFS biological opinions, which resulted in an incidental take statement for the groundfish fisheries based on the expected bycatch of 55,000 Chinook.xxii The terms of the 2000 incidental take statement were violated in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when the groundfish fisheries caught 55,594; 63,138; 74,975; and 87,771 Chinook salmon, respectively. More than 90% of these fish were caught by pollock trawl vessels. To the pollock industry’s credit, they have taken steps since 2005 to address salmon bycatch by instituting a voluntary rolling hot spot (VRHS) system designed to allow inseason monitoring of bycatch and voluntary closures in areas with high bycatch rates. However, as evidenced by the record Chinook bycatch of 122,000 during 2007, this method has proven largely unreliable and ineffective at reducing the overall amount of bycatch.

Currently, while we know Pacific Northwest salmon congregate in the Southern Bering Sea, we possess inadequate knowledge of the life history and distribution of endangered or threatened salmon species such that important impacts of the pollock fishery on their biodiversity cannot be identified. Additionally, this lack of information, in conjunction with uncoordinated bycatch reduction efforts, renders it impossible to adjust management to confidently expect reductions in these impacts. WWF recommends that the surveillance team require additional genetic stock of origin research to be conducted to determine the temporal and spatial distributions of specific endangered or threatened salmon stocks that occur in the Bering Sea and originate in the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, the pollock fishery must be required to maintain bycatch levels below the ESA incidental take statement amount of 87,500 Chinook to prevent adverse impacts on those same stocks through maximum bycatch cap limits.

iBoyd, I.L. 2006. The relationships between northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) foraging behavior and pollock-as-prey abundance at the regional and local scale. Atsea Processors Association, Seattle, WA. iiBoyd, I.L. 2006. The relationships between Steller sea lion foraging behavior and pollock-as-prey abundance at the regional scale (related to pollock stock size and geographical distribution). Atsea Processors Association, Seattle, WA iiiBoyd, I.L. 2006. The relationships between SSL foraging behavior and pollock-asprey abundance at the local scale related to putative fish-school disruption caused by trawling in localized areas. Atsea Processors Association, Seattle, WA ivWolf, N. and M. Mangel. 2004. Understanding the decline of the Western Alaskan Steller sea lion: assessing the evidence concerning multiple hypotheses. NOAA Contract Report AB133F-02-CN-0085. v 2008 Wolf, N. and M. Mangel. Multiple hypothesis testing and the declining-population paradigm in Steller sea lions. Ecological Applications (preprint) vi Trites A.W. (1992). Northern fur seals: Why have they declined? Aquatic Mammals, 18, 3-18. vii Robson B.W., Goebel M.E., Baker J.D., Ream R.R., Loughlin T.R., Francis R.C., Antonelis G.A. & Costa D.P. (2004). Separation of foraging habitat among breeding sites of a colonial marine predator, the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82, 20-29. viii Banks, A., Springer, A., Iverson, S.J., Ream, R.R., Sterlint, J., Fadely, B. 2007. Consequences of Fur Seal Foraging Strategies: Inter-annual Variability. Abstract and Presentation at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January, 2007. ix Zeppelin, T.K. and R.R. Ream. 2006. Foraging habitats based on the diet of female northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus) on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Journal of Zoology. Print ISSN 0952-8369 x Towell, R.G., R.R. Ream, and A.E. York. 2006. Decline in northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) pup production on the Pribilof Islands. Mar. Mammal Sci.22:486-491. xi John Durban, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Pers. Comm. xii Gentry R.L. & Johnson J.H. (1981). Predation by sea lions on northern fur seal neonates. Mammalia, 45, 423-430.

Rev. 01 Page 98 of 98

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

xiii AFSC Fisheries Interaction Team NPRB Grant 730 http://project.nprb.org/view.jsp?id=27592f49-0654- 40aa-97c3-85723ad9da1c xiv Zavadil et al. Zavadil, P.A.,A.D. Lestenkof, K. Holser, A. Malavansky and B.W. Robson. 2007. Northern Fur Seal Entanglement Studies on the Pribilof Islands in 2005. Available from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government Ecosystem Conservation Office http://www.tribaleco.com/cm/ xv Zavadil, P.A., B.W. Robson, A.D. Lestenkof, R. Holserand and A. Malavansky. 2006. Northern Fur Seal Entanglement Studies on the Pribilof Islands in 2006. Available from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government Ecosystem Conservation Office http://www.tribaleco.com/cm/ xvi Stone, M., Patterson, S., and B. King. 2007. Analysis and Identification of Samples Collected during Alaska Marine Debris Cleanup Programs in 2006. Alaska Marine Conservation Fundation, P.O. Box 20726, Juneau, Alaska. xviiDerelict Fishing Gear in Alaska: Accumulation Rates and Fishing Net Analysis Bob King, Marine Debris Program Coordinator, MCA Foundation, Juneau AK xviii Fowler, C.W. 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):326-335. xix Fowler, C.W. 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):326-335. Fowler, C.W. 2002. Ecological Effects of Marine Debris: The Example of Northern Fur Seals. Pages 40-58 in: Proceedings of the International Marine Debris Conference: Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean Environment held in Honolulu Hawaii, August 6-11, 2000. (CD-ROM, .PDF). U.S. Dep. Comm., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hawaii Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Honolulu, HI. xx Arnould, J.P.Y., and J.P. Croxall. 1995. Trends in entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazelle) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30(11):707-712. xxi Myers, K., R.V. Walker, N.D. Davis and J.L. Armstrong. 2004. High Seas Salmon Research Program, 2003. SAFSUW-0402, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. 93p.; Myers, K.W., R.V. Walker, lL. Annstrong, and N.D. Davis. 2003. Estimates of the bycatch of Yukon River Chinook salmon in U.S. groundfish fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea, 1997-1999. Final Report to the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, Contr. No. 04-001. SAFS-UW-0312, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. 59pp. xxii NMFS, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation -Supplemental Biological Opinion Reinitiating Consultation on the November 30, 2000 Biological Opinion regarding Authorization of the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fisheries at 2.

Rev. 01 Page 99 of 99

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Rev. 01 Page 100 of 100

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Rev. 01 Page 101 of 101

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Rev. 01 Page 102 of 102

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Rev. 01 Page 103 of 103

Moody Marine Ltd. BS/AI Pollock Fishery: Surveillance Report 3 2007/08

Email Submission on behalf of BC Seafood Alliance, dated 8th April 2008.

Dear Paul,

On behalf of commercial, recreational and First Nations fishermen in BC, I have been asked to convey concern about the extent of the Bering Sea pollock fleet's bycatch of salmon, especially chinook salmon.

In British Columbia chinook trends have been in decline for sometime. Conservation concerns have been expressed for the West Coast of Vancouver Island stocks, early timed Fraser River stocks, and Cowichan stocks as well as some USA stocks. Restrictions on harvest have been in place for some time with more planned. While the commercial sector has felt the brunt of these restrictions, we are now also facing closures for recreational and First Nations fisheries. In addition the US is looking at buying out BC troll capacity as a conservation measure for Lower 48 chinook.

For instance our Northern troll fishery has been cut back from an average of 200,000 chinook to just under 70,000. Coastwide, our total commercial chinook harvest in 2007 was 185,278 fish.

Given the severity of the restrictions we face, it is troubling to see the increase in the pollock fleet's bycatch of chinook--to the point where it is at approaching the same level as our directed fishery.

We'd like to see the surveillance report explicitly deal with the need to reduce chinook and other salmon bycatch. In addition, we think it would be helpful if the report proposes more direct contact between the pollock fishery and BC/Yukon fishermen to exchange information, data, proposals and plans so that there is a better understanding of the pollock fleet's chinook conservation efforts and a joint attempt to quantify the fleet's impact and attempts at mitigation. We believe that the recent visit by Ed Richardson of the At Sea Processors Association was a useful first step towards such a process.

The BC Seafood Alliance is an umbrella organization representing commercial fisheries in British Columbia.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with me,

C/ Christina Burridge BC Seafood Alliance 604.377.9213 www.bcseafoodalliance.com

Rev. 01 Page 104 of 104