SCS Global Services Report
U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery MSC Fishery Assessment Report
Public Comment Draft Report
Client Contact Authors Jeff Kaelin Dr. Joseph DeAlteris, Ph.D. Lund’s Fisheries Inc. Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone, MESM 997 Ocean Drive, Cape May, NJ, USA
Mr. Richard Allen, MMA Katie Almeida The Town Dock 45 State St, Narragansett, RI, USA
28 February 2018
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax www.SCSglobalServices.com SCS Global Services Report
Table of Contents Glossary ...... 2 1. Executive Summary ...... 4 Fishery Operations Overview ...... 4 Assessment Overview ...... 4 Summary of Findings ...... 5 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 7 2.1 Audit Team ...... 7 2.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 8 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 10 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) - Considered Final as Published in the Public Certification Report ...... 10 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 11 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 13 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 13 3.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 13 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery ...... 13 3.2.2 Organization and User Rights...... 15 3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear ...... 19 3.2.4 Areas and Seasons ...... 20 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 24 3.3.1 Longfin Inshore Squid ...... 24 3.3.2 Biology ...... 24 3.3.3 Assessment Model ...... 27 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 37 3.4.1 Scope of Principle 2 ...... 37 3.4.2 Fishery Information and Monitoring ...... 37 3.4.3 Classification of Species for Principle 2 Evaluation ...... 40 3.4.4 Primary and Secondary Species Classification Information ...... 41 3.4.5 Primary Species ...... 45 3.4.6 Secondary Species ...... 61 3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 64 3.4.8 Habitat Impacts ...... 82 3.4.9 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 103 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 112 3.5.1 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions ...... 112 3.5.2 National Level Management ...... 113
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0
SCS Global Services Report
3.5.3 Fishery-Specific Management ...... 117 3.5.4 State Management of Longfin Squid ...... 124 3.5.5 Recognized Interest Groups and Arrangements for Consultations ...... 127 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 129 4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment ...... 129 4.2 Previous Assessments ...... 130 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 130 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 131 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 131 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 133 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 133 5. Traceability ...... 139 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 139 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 139 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 142 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 143 6. Evaluation Results ...... 144 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 144 6.3 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 145 6.4 Summary of Conditions ...... 146 6.5 Recommendations ...... 146 6.6 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 146 7. References ...... 147 8. Appendices ...... 156 Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationales ...... 156 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 156 Principle 1...... 156 MAFMC. 2011-2015...... 163 Principle 2...... 176 Principle 3...... 227 Appendix 1.2: Risk-Based Framework Stakeholder Consultation: Applying a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to Northern Shortfin Squid (I. illecebrosus) ...... 257 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 274 Letters of Support ...... 278 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 280 Peer Review 1...... 280 Peer Review 2...... 311
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0
SCS Global Services Report
Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 340 Comment 1: Peter Kaizer, April 21, 2017 ...... 341 Comment 2: Pew Charitable Trusts, August 1, 2017 ...... 342 Comment 3: Summary of Notes from Call with Cam Gammill on September 26, 2017 ...... 358 SCS Response to Pew’s Letter and General Trimester 2 Stakeholder Concerns ...... 360 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 365 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 366 Appendix 6: SBRM Data Summary ...... 367 Appendix 7: NEFOP Data Summary ...... 369
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0
SCS Global Services Report
Glossary ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ACCSP Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program ACE Annual Catch Entitlements APA Administrative Procedures Act ASAP Age Structured Assessment Program B Biomass BMSY Biomass calculated for Maximum Sustainable Yield CAB Conformity Assessment Body CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species F Fishing Mortality FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FLIM Limit Reference Point for Fishing Mortality FMP Fishery Management Plan FREF Fishing Mortality Reference Point GAO Government Accounting Office GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office GB Georges Bank GOM Gulf of Maine IFMP Integrated Fisheries Management Plan IFQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LOA Length Over-All LPUE Landings per unit of fishing effort M Million (lbs.) MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MG Mobile Gear MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSP Maximum Spawning Potential mt metric ton, 1000 kg or 2204.62 pounds NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NS National Standards for fishery management contained in MSFCMA
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 2
SCS Global Services Report
NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PI Performance Indicator PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk Based Framework SAFIS Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch T1, T2, T3 Trimester (1, 2, 3) WWF World Wildlife Fund
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 3
SCS Global Services Report
1. Executive Summary This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the longfin inshore1 squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) (Lesueur, 1821)2 fishery, harvested by small mesh bottom trawls in U.S. waters in the northwest Atlantic between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC. The species in this range is considered to be a single stock. Within the report, longfin inshore squid may also be referred to as longfin squid. The gear, bottom otter trawl, may be referred to as otter trawl or bottom trawl. The assessment was conducted and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC- accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements V2.0 (October 1 2014) and the associated guidance. The fishery was assessed using the default assessment tree with no modifications.
Table 1. Unit of Assessment (UoA) Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3) Longfin inshore squid Small mesh bottom otter State and federally licensed small (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) trawl (<5.5in codend mesh bottom trawl operators with (Lesueur, 1821) mesh size) permits to land longfin inshore squid
*(Note there has been a recent scientific name change for longfin squid, from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii))
Fishery Operations Overview
The longfin squid small mesh bottom trawl fishery is a commercial fishing operation with approximately 383 vessels holding federal longfin inshore squid/butterfish moratorium permits during 2016. 97 of those permits were in Confirmation of Permit History (CPH), leaving 286 active permits. Each vessel has approximately 2-5 fishers onboard. All vessels operate within U.S. waters between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC, using small mesh bottom trawls. There is a strong seasonal aspect to the longfin squid fishery which occurs inshore and offshore at different times of the year following the availability of the resource, and is reflected in the trimester-based quota system.
The fleet fishes primarily for longfin squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii), but there is also a composite of other species commonly caught in the small mesh bottom trawl fishery, including but not limited to silver hake (whiting), spiny dogfish, scup, little and winter skates, northern shortfin squid and butterfish. The fishery also interacts with several Endangered, Threatened, or Protected (ETP) species, mainly small cetaceans and loggerhead turtles. These interactions in addition to habitat and ecosystem impacts are evaluated under section 3.4. The client group consists of Lund’s Fisheries Inc. of Cape May, NJ, and The Town Dock of Narragansett, RI, both of which are major dealers and processors of longfin squid.
1 The term “inshore” has traditionally been used in stock assessments for this species but is not a geographical categorization. This assessment covers the entire range of the fishery in US waters. 2 Note there has been a recent scientific name change for longfin squid, from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 4
SCS Global Services Report
Assessment Overview
The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are: . Dr. Joseph DeAlteris, Team Leader and Principle 1 Expert . Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone, Principle 2 Expert . Mr. Richard Allen, Principle 3 Expert
The team met with federal fishery managers, scientists and client representatives in Gloucester and Woods Hole, MA, and Narragansett, RI, September 5-8, 2017. Documents were presented by fishery managers and fisheries scientists prior to and during the on-site. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The assessment team conducted several additional follow-up interviews on a range of fishery management topics with state and federal fishery manages and scientists in the weeks following the on-site via phone and email.
The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk Based Framework (RBF) may need to be used and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The RBF was applied to the evaluation of Northern shortfin squid as a Secondary Main species, and a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was conducted via webinar on October 4, 2017. Stakeholders were notified of the onsite visit and invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns, and time was scheduled during the onsite to meet with stakeholders. While no stakeholders requested to participate in, or attended the open stakeholder meeting held during the on-site, several stakeholders registered interest and/or provided comment prior to and after the on-site visit. Comments from stakeholders focused on concerns about the impact of the Trimester 2 fishery on the nearshore spawning grounds off of Nantucket, MA, with concerns over the impact to the longfin squid resource as well as bycatch species. A summary of comments and assessment team responses are found in Appendix 3. Peer Review of the assessment was conducted by Dr. Kristin Kleisner and Dr. Gonzalo Macho, spurring some revision to background, scores and rationales, but no changes in conditions.
Summary of Findings In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80). The team issued 2 conditions for 2 different PIs that did not meet SG80 level, all under Principle 2. A Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.2., was produced to meet the conditions. In Principle 1, no PIs received scores under SG80, on the basis of the assessed status of the target resource, the strength of the federal harvest strategy and demonstrated effectiveness of the harvest control rule, where catch has remained below annual quotas and the resource has been assessed as fluctuating around its target reference point.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 5
SCS Global Services Report
In Principle 2, two of the PIs (2.3.2 and 2.4.2) received scores under SG80. These are related to implementation of the Endangered, Threatened, and Protected species (ETP) management strategy as it pertains to long-finned pilot whales and a lack of recent review of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and fishery impacts as it pertains to the habitat management strategy. Although there is a relatively high discard rate in the fishery, the catch by weight is comprised primarily of federally managed species and all Main species have been assessed as above the point of recruitment impairment. This supports scores of SG80 in components 2.1 and 2.2. However, due to the presence of numerous Minor species that are not subject to federal management, scores most often do not reach SG100. In Principle 3 no PIs received scores under SG80. The management and governance system under which the squid fishery operates is guided by well-established laws and procedures. Decision-making is transparent and accepts input from all interested parties. Impacts on a wide range of valued ecosystem components are analyzed before decisions are implemented.
In this report we provide the rationales for all scores proposed, which support the assessment that the fishery is recommended for certification.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 6
SCS Global Services Report
2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers
2.1 Audit Team This assessment was conducted by Joseph DeAlteris Ph.D., Jennifer Humberstone MESM, and Richard Allen M.M.A., with administrative and quality oversight by SCS Global Services. The assessment was carried out using the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (Effective October 1, 2014).
Dr. Joe DeAlteris – Lead, Principle 1
Dr. DeAlteris retired from the University of Rhode Island (URI) in May of 2012, and was awarded Professor Emeritus status. In 30 years of service to URI he is taught course work, conducted research, and developed outreach programs in fisheries conservation engineering, fish population dynamics and quantitative ecology, and shellfish aquaculture. He mentored more than 40 graduate students completing MS and PhD degrees. He served on numerous government committees including the National Research Council. He authored more than 35 publications in peer-reviewed journals, and also authored and co-authored numerous books, manuals, non-referred articles, and technical reports in the fields of fisheries biology, stock assessment and fishing gear technology.
Dr. DeAlteris has an international reputation as an expert in the field of stock assessment and fishing gear technology. He brings intimate knowledge of finfish and invertebrate fisheries and has considerable experience in MSC fishery evaluations. He has worked for several certifying bodies (CBs). Dr. DeAlteris has worked the full assessment of the Louisiana blue crab and Atlantic red crab fisheries, the Echebastar Indian Ocean tuna fishery, the re-assessment of British Columbia halibut fishery, the NW Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog dredge fishery, and annual audits of Dungeness crab, red crab blue crab, Canadian haddock, Full Bay sea scallop and the shrimp fisheries. He has also conducted numerous pre-assessments, and assessment peer reviews. He has recently worked as an expert evaluator for the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI).
Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone – Principle 2 Jennifer Humberstone holds a Master of Environmental Science and Management degree from the Bren School at the University of California Santa Barbara, where she specialized in fisheries management and natural resource economics. Jennifer has designed spatial bio-economic models to facilitate management decisions and performed research for the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Mrs. Humberstone has cross-sectoral and international project management experiences working with diverse stakeholders including fishers, government, private industry, and NGOs. Jennifer is proficient in Spanish and has marine resource management field experience in both the Philippines and the Dominican Republic: where she spent over two years building initiatives in protected areas, ecotourism, and fisheries management. As a scientific diver, she has participated in a range of field studies evaluating and tracking ecosystem health.
Jennifer is an ISO 9001 lead auditor and MSC Team Leader (V2.0), for which her training includes the RBF, enhanced salmon and bivalve fisheries, and traceability modules. In her role at SCS, she is currently leading, coordinating and/or participating as a team member on MSC pre-assessment, surveillance audits, and full assessments of fisheries worldwide, including multiple U.S. fisheries.
Mr. Richard Allen – Principle 3
Richard Allen has 45 years of experience as a commercial fisherman, a representative of commercial fishermen, a fishery consultant, fishery conservationist, and as an active participant in the fishery
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 7
SCS Global Services Report management system. Allen holds an Associate in Science degree in Fisheries and Marine Technology, a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Development and a Master of Marine Affairs degree. Most recently, Allen returned to school and completed the course work for a Ph.D. in environmental sciences. Allen began a parallel career in fishery consulting in 1972 with clients in the fishing industry, government and non-governmental organizations. He was a member of the New England Fishery Management Council from 1986 through 1995, and was a commissioner on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission from 1986 through 1997. Allen is a former member of the U.S. Department of Commerce National Sea Grant Review Panel, and served one term as its chairman. He has also served as a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee.
Allen has also been an active fishery journalist, writing for Commercial Fisheries News and National Fisherman. He also compiled and edited the 1983 Atlantic Fisherman’s Handbook. Allen was the recipient of the prestigious Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation in 1998. He used his fellowship to translate an obscure lobster egg-per-recruit model into a user-friendly bio-economic model. Most recently, Allen has developed bio-economic models for the primary Cape Verdean fisheries as a consultant to the West African Fisheries Development Project. Commercial Fisheries News recently published Allen’s “Searching for Tradition: a brief history of the New England groundfish fishery” as a 12-part series and as on online flip-book.
Mr. Allen has relevant education, MSC version 2.0 team member training certificates, a depth of MSC assessment experience and proven competencies as described in Annex PC2 to serve as a team member. He has achieved the relevant qualifications for Principle 3 described in Table PC3, and offers substantial depth of experience in local fishery context and country.
2.2 Peer Reviewers
The peer reviewers were selected based on their qualifications and competencies. Together, the peer reviewers have current knowledge of the U.S. fishery management system, language and local fishery context. The peer reviewers have >2 years fishery work experience in the United States, in relevant fisheries, and MSC assessments in the last 15 years. The peer reviewers’ combined experience includes application of fish stock assessment techniques to invertebrates, work with the biology and population dynamics of cephalopods, research in the ecosystem dynamics of the U.S. Northeast, and practical experience in fishery management and policy analysis.
Dr. Gonzalo Macho
Gonzalo Macho, his background comes as a marine biology and fisheries management researcher (1998 - ongoing), as a manager in fisheries resources for the fishers´ guild of Bueu in Galicia, Spain (2007-2008), and as an independent consultant in fisheries & marine ecology (2011 - ongoing). While in the Cofradía de Bueu he launched the MSC pre-assessment and final assessment of the razor clam fishery of the Ría de Pontevedra (Galicia, Spain) which was finally the first Spanish fishery being certified by MSC. He has published more than 15 publications (SCI peer-reviewed journals) and participated in more than 20 national and international scientific projects on population dynamics of marine fishing resources (razor clams, cockles, gooseneck barnacle, clams & sea urchins), fisheries management and governance (octopus, razor clams, gooseneck barnacle, scallops, abalones, deep- sea fishes in Argentina, Chile, Spain and EU), reform of the EU common fisheries policy, marine socio-ecological systems, fisheries socio-economics and climate change impacts on marine invertebrates.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 8
SCS Global Services Report
Dr. Kristin Kleisner
Kristin Kleisner is a Senior Fisheries Scientist with EDF’s Fisheries Solutions Center (http://fisherysolutionscenter.edf.org/). Her work investigates the utility of applying spatial management in combination with rights-based management measures in fisheries around the world, applying bio-economic models to understand the potential for fisheries management to improve the biomass, harvest, and profits of fisheries, and understanding the implications of climate change on the distribution of fish stocks and the implications for fisheries management. Kristin worked previously as a joint research scientist for NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole and The Nature Conservancy working on ecosystem based fisheries models and exploring the effect of climate change on fish stock distributions in New England. She also led research on the development of fisheries, food security, and ecosystem status indicators with indiSeas (www.indiseas.org), FAO, UNESCO, and the Sea Around Us project. She holds a PhD in Marine Biology and Fisheries from the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 9
SCS Global Services Report
3. Description of the Fishery
3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought
3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) - Considered Final as Published in the Public Certification Report
The Unit of Assessment includes the Atlantic longfin inshore squid caught by the state and federally licensed small mesh (<5.5 in codend mesh size) bottom otter trawl vessels with valid permits to land longfin inshore squid, operating between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC, in both state and federal (EEZ) waters.
This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCR v2.0 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it . Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute. (FCR 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.2, 7.4.1.3, 7.4.2) . The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCR 7.4.2.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. . Is not an enhanced fishery and is not based on an introduced species (FCR 7.4.3, 7.4.4) . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4) . The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized (See Section 5), and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.4.6-7.4.12). . The southern limit of the species’ distribution in U.S. waters is unknown due to an overlap in geographic distribution with the congener, Doryteuthis (Doryteuthis) pleii (Blainville, 1823), formerly known as Loligo pleii, which cannot be visually distinguished from longfin squid using gross morphology (Cohen 1976). The assessment team considered whether this species may merit consideration as IPI, but determined that catches by the UoA are unlikely and may be considered negligible. The 2011 SAW report states that the two species may co-occur in catches south of Cape Hatteras, but this is beyond the geographic scope of this UoA (NEFSC 2011). While it is possible that D. Pleii may migrate north of Cape Hatteras, the majority of fishing effort by the UoA does not occur in the Southern range of the Mid-Atlantic waters, and in the course of the on-site meetings fishery managers confirmed that the fishery does not extend far enough south for this look-alike species to merit consideration as an IPI catch (7.4.13-15). . Overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery exists and has been considered in scoring See (7.4.16). See section 4.1 for a summary of harmonization considerations.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 10
SCS Global Services Report
Table 2. Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC).
Units of Assessment: Defined as the species, gear, and fleet assessed U.S. Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) UoA: Species & Stock (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) pealeii) (Lesueur, 1821)3 Small mesh bottom otter trawl (<5.5in codend mesh UoA: Gear Type (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) size) All federal and state licensed small mesh bottom otter UoA: Vessels (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3) trawl vessels permitted to land longfin inshore squid The UoA encompasses the entire fishing grounds for the Further information: Geographic Area stock that extends from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC. Local fisheries management area comprises U.S. EEZ waters from the U.S.-Canada boundary to Cape Hatteras, as defined and managed under the Federal Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) FMP under the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC). Fishing in state waters may occur by vessels holding both a federal and a state permit or just a state permit, Further information: Management System and longfin squid landed under state permit is included in the UoA as well: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Landings under a state, rather than federal, permit comprise <2% of total landings according to dealer permit data provided by the MAFMC. Unit of Certification: Defined as the vessels allowed to use the MSC ecolabel for catch from the Unit of Assessment (defined as the species, location and gear assessed against the MSC standard).
Client Group Lund’s Fisheries Inc. and The Town Dock All operators as described above are included in the fishery certificate, but only product received by client Fishers in the UoC for the chosen stock group members, as listed on the fishery certificate, is eligible for use of the MSC claim. Other eligible fishers include all licensed small mesh bottom trawlers with federal and/or state permits to land longfin inshore squid, whose catch is not received Other Eligible Fishers that may join the and processed by one of the client group members: certificate for the chosen stock currently Lund’s Fisheries Inc. and The Town Dock.
See the MSC website for the client group’s formal statement on certificate sharing.
3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data
3 Note there has been a recent scientific name change for longfin squid, from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 11
SCS Global Services Report
Table 3. TAC and Catch Data for Longfin Inshore Squid captured by Small Mesh Bottom Trawl
TAC Year 2016 Amount 22,445 mt UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA* UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 Amount NA Total green weight catch Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 18,127mt by UoA** Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 12,397mt *NA: The UoA comprises the entire directed fishery for longfin inshore squid, but it is possible for other gear types to land longfin inshore squid, and the TAC is not allocated by gear. Small mesh bottom trawl typically comprises ~95% of the all longfin inshore squid landings based on dealer data and SBRM reports. The UoC, described as longfin squid processed by members of the client group, likewise is not allocated a portion of the TAC. The amount received and processed by the client group is considered confidential information for competitive considerations.
**UoA green weight estimated from 2017 and 2016 Fishery Information Documents (available from: http://www.mafmc.org/msb/), based on aggregate state landings from dealer data. Landings in this document may include some non UoA (i.e. non-small mesh bottom trawl) landings
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 12
SCS Global Services Report
3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
There is no evidence of enhancement in this fishery.
3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
There is no evidence of introduced species in this fishery.
3.2 Overview of the Fishery 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery The longfin squid fishery takes place on the U.S. continental shelf from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC. International fleets fished longfin squid in U.S. waters prior to elimination of foreign fishing in the late 1970s and 1980s. Development of the domestic longfin squid bottom trawl fishery began in the early 1980s as the U.S. industry developed the appropriate technology to catch and process squid in large quantities, and became solely domestic in 1987. The figure below illustrates the foreign fishery and the development of the domestic fishery relative to the current and recent quotas. Prior to the development of the domestic offshore squid fishery during the winter months, longfin squid was a seasonal fishery that took place within a few miles from shore in the spring and summer. At that time, the primary fishing grounds were in Nantucket Sound and the south coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. As the foreign fleets were removed from the U.S. EEZ and the market for Loligo or “Boston” squid expanded, including both domestic and international markets, U.S. vessels increased their squid catches from offshore waters (100-150m) during the winter. There has been a recent uptick in ex- vessel prices and currently high demand in the international market for longfin inshore squid (Figure 3).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 13
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 1. Longfin squid landings in U.S. waters, 1963-2014. (Source: MAFMC 2017)
Figure 2. Nominal longfin squid ex-vessel revenues from dealer data.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 14
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 3. Inflation-adjusted longfin squid prices.
3.2.2 Organization and User Rights The directed longfin inshore squid fishery is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) under the Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). At present the fishery is managed with a quota allocated on a trimester basis, taking into account the spawning, migratory and fishing patterns of the fishery. Permits issued under the MSB FMP include:
Table 4. Squid permits issued by NMFS in 2014.
Permit Category Type Description Permits Issued in 2014 Category 1 Limited Access Longfin Squid/Butterfish Moratorium 298 Category 2 Open Access Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish Charter Party 703 Category 3 Open Access Squid/Butterfish Incidental Catch 1,608 Category 4 Open Access Atlantic Mackerel 1,761 Category 5 Limited Access Illex Squid Moratorium 69
The MSFCMA requires fishery managers to consider a number of factors when limiting access to a fishery in order to achieve optimum yield. These include: (A) present participation in the fishery; (B) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; (C) the economics of the fishery; (D) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to engage in other fisheries; (E) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery and any affected fishing communities; (F) the fair and equitable distribution of access privileges in the fishery; and (G) any other relevant considerations.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 15
SCS Global Services Report
Approximately 383 vessels had longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits during 2016, but 97 of them were in Confirmation of Permit History (CPH), leaving 286 active permits for vessels in the states listed in Table 5. As shown in Table 4, 298 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits were issued in 2014. In 2017 NMFS issued 263 longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. These numbers are likely to change as the Squid Amendment adopted by the MAFMC in June 2017 is implemented (See Section 3.5.3 for further information).
Table 5. Principal port states (PPST) of actively-permitted longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit vessels (2016).
A key driver for the amendment currently under consideration by the MAFMC has been the concern by industry that additional participation by new entrants may reduce the income of vessels that have become dependent on the squid fishery. Table 6 describes the dependence on the longfin squid fishery for federally-permitted vessels in terms of the proportion of ex-vessel revenues from longfin squid in 2016 and in 2013 (last squid specifications Environmental Assessment).
Table 6. Dependence on longfin squid by federally-permitted vessels – 2016 and 2013.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 16
SCS Global Services Report
Table 7. Number of vessels that actively fished for longfin squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982- 2016.
States may permit commercial vessels for squid fishing in their waters, and squid landed by small mesh bottom trawl vessels with valid state licenses are included in the UoA. It is understood that state–only permitted landings comprise <2% of total longfin squid landings, and all landings, including state-only landings, are reported through the same data system for quota monitoring and
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 17
SCS Global Services Report stock assessments (The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP)). State-only vessels are also subject to observer coverage.
Management organization and access rights are described in more detail in Section 3.5.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 18
SCS Global Services Report
3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear U.S. squid fishing vessels are typically bottom otter trawl vessels owned by individuals and small companies. Some are owner-operated and some have hired captains. Crew size is generally 2-5. Vessels range in size from 11 meters (35 feet) to 45 meters (146 feet). Small mesh bottom trawls are the dominant gear used to target longfin squid.
A bottom otter trawl is towed by a single boat. Two bottom tending, trawl doors are used to achieve the horizontal spread of the net. The door spread averages 300 feet or more depending upon speed and the configuration of the net. The trawl doors are attached to the net by ground cable and bridles (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Diagram of a bottom otter trawl
Appendix D of the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a description of trawl gear: (NEFMC 2011) Trawl gear components include the warps, which attach the gear to the vessel; the doors, which hold the net open under water, the ground cables and bridles, which attach the door to the wings of the net; and the net itself. The top opening of the net, or headrope, is rigged with floats, and the lower opening, or groundrope, is rigged with a sweep, which varies in design depending on the target species (e.g., whether they are found on or off the bottom) as well as the roughness and hardness of the bottom. The net terminates in a codend, which has a drawstring opening that can be untied easily to dump the catch on deck. Three components of the otter trawl typically come in contact with the seafloor: the doors; the ground cables and lower bridles; and the footrope and sweep. Chafing gear may be attached to the codend to avoid damage caused by seabed contact, although this is not believed to be a regular occurrence. All small mesh (<5.5 in codend mesh size) gear was evaluated as part of the UoA, but fishers configure gear differently and use particular mesh ranges in the various directed fisheries that use small mesh bottom trawl. It is understood that the configuration used in the directed longfin inshore squid small mesh bottom trawl results in less contact with and impact on the sea floor (NEFMC 2011; L. Hendrickson, J. Kaelin, pers. comm).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 19
SCS Global Services Report
Impacts of the fishing gear on all ecosystem components, including non-target species, habitat, and ecosystem, are described in Section 3.4. 3.2.4 Areas and Seasons The following summary is adapted from MAFMC 2017.
There is a strong seasonal aspect to longfin squid landings due to availability to the inshore and offshore fisheries and due to trimester-based quota allocations. Quotas for Trimesters 1-3 (T1, T2, T3) are 43%, 17% and 40% of the annual quota, respectively. Since implementation of trimester-based quota management, in 2007, the fishery has been closed due in-season quota attainment during every year except 2010, 2013 and 2015 (Table 6). The T1 and T2 quotas have been allowed to roll-over within a year with certain constraints. Since 2010, underages (landings less than the quota for the trimester) for T1 that are greater than 25% are reallocated to Trimesters 2 and 3 (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. However, since 2011 the T2 quota may only be increased by 50% from rollover and the remaining portion of the underage is reallocated to T3. Any underages for T1 that are less than 25% of the T1 quota are applied only to T3 of the same year. Any overages for T1 and T2 are subtracted from T3 (or the annual quota) of the same year. The harvest strategy is described in detail in Section 3.3.3.
The bottom trawl fishery for longfin squid follows the species’ seasonal inshore/offshore migration patterns; generally offshore during T1 and T3 and inshore during T2 (Figure 5 and Figure 6) from Hendrickson 2016).
Figure 5. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips landing at least 2,500 pounds of longfin squid by trimester and ten-minute square during 2008-2011.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 20
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 6. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips landing at least 2,500 pounds of longfin squid by trimester and ten-minute square during 2012-2015.
Since 2007, T1 has only closed due to attaining the T1 quota during April of 20074. T2 has closed in July of 2008, August of 2009, August of 2011, July of 2012, August of 2014, and June of 2016. While directed fishing at the post-closure trip limit of 2,500 pounds has occurred5, annual landings are partially suppressed in years when seasonal closures occur. While the Trimester allocations are based on historical catch and were primarily developed to optimize fishery operation, they do serve a biological purpose of spreading catch throughout the year, which is an important consideration given the short lifecycle of longfin squid (NEFSC 2011). The squid population is composed of overlapping micro-cohorts and avoiding excessive mortality on any one cohort reduces the chances of recruitment overfishing. The Trimester with the most landings varies from year to year, but T2 had the most landings in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
Table 8. Longfin squid fishery performance since 2007 when Trimesters were implemented (Source: MAFMC 2017).
4 An April 2012 closure of the longfin squid fishery was due the fishery’s attainment of the butterfish bycatch cap. The butterfish bycatch cap is tracked here: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/ButterfishMortalityCapReport/butterfish_cap.htm 5 The 2017 squid capacity amendment is proposing to decrease this limit. See Section 3.5.3
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 21
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 7. Longfin squid fishery landings by year and trimester since 2007 (Source: MAFMC 2017).
In recent years most longfin squid landings have occurred in Rhode Island ports, with New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut also contributing (Table 9). The top ports are listed in Table 10.
Table 9. Longfin squid landings (mt) by state during 2014-2016 (Source: MAFMC 2017).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 22
SCS Global Services Report
Table 10. Top longfin squid ports in rank of descending ex-vessel value, for ports that averaged at least $25,000 in landed longfin squid during 2014-2016 (Source: MAFMC 2017).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 23
SCS Global Services Report
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background An excellent, recent summary of the life history and fishery for longfin squid and of the world squid fisheries can be found in Arkhipkin et al. 2015.
3.3.1 Longfin Inshore Squid
Taxonomic classification
Class: Mollusca Order: Teuthida Family: Loligindae Genus: Doryteuthis (Amerigo) Species: pealleii
3.3.2 Biology
Distribution, stock structure, and migrations Longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii), has a lifespan of less than one year. Longfin squid inhabit continental shelf and upper slope waters between southern Newfoundland and the Gulf of Venezuela, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The species is most abundant between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina where a small-mesh bottom trawl fishery occurs throughout the year (Figure 8). A genetics study indicates that the population inhabiting the waters between Cape Cod Bay, MA and Cape Hatteras, NC is a single stock (Black et al. 1987 and Shaw et al. 2010) and as a result the fishery is managed as a single stock (NEFSC 2011).
The southern limit of the species’ distribution in U.S. waters is unknown due to an overlap in geographic distribution with the congener, Doryteuthis (Doryteuthis) pleii (Blainville, 1823), formerly known as Loligo pleii, which cannot be visually distinguished from longfin squid using gross morphology (Cohen 1976). The distribution of both species varies seasonally. North of Cape Hatteras, longfin squid migrate offshore during late autumn to overwinter in warmer waters along the shelf edge and slope, and then return inshore during the spring where they remain until late autumn (Cohen, 1976). The 2011 SAW report notes that the catch composition south of Cape Hatteras between the two species is not known due to this overlap, but this is outside the range of the UoA (NEFSC 2011).
This species migrates long distances during its short lifespan; inshore during spring and offshore during late fall. Recruitment occurs throughout the year with seasonal peaks in overlapping “micro-cohorts” which have rapid and different growth rates. As a result, seasonally stable biomass estimates may mask substantial population turnover. Recruitment is largely driven by environmental factors. For most squid species, temperature plays a large role in migrations and distribution, growth, and spawning. Individuals hatched in warmer waters during the summer grow more rapidly than those hatched in winter and males grow faster and attain larger sizes than females (Jacobson, 2005, Didden 2015).
Trophic Level Considerations Longfin squid serves as a prey species for a variety of marine mammals, diving birds, and finfish species, and thus was evaluated for classification as “key low trophic level (LTL)” according to the MSC standard.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 24
SCS Global Services Report
Estimates of the trophic level of north Atlantic squid range from 3.3 to 3.6, but squids are not listed on the MSC key LTL table, and the inshore squid does not fully meet the MSC criteria to be assessed as a key LTL species. In particular longfin squid do not feed predominately on plankton as required in the MSC FCR v.2.0 SA2.2.9 for consideration as Key LTL.
Based the NMFS EFH Source Document #NE-193 (Jacobson, 2005)the diet of squid is only planktonic at the immature stage, then it is a predator of crustaceans and small fish, Specifically, the diet of the longfin inshore squid changes with size; small immature individuals feed on planktonic organisms, while larger individuals feed on crustaceans and small fish. Cannibalism is observed in individuals larger than 5 cm. Studies indicate that juveniles 4.1-6 cm long fed on euphausiids and arrow worms, while those 6.1- 10 cm fed mostly on small crabs, but also on polychaetes and shrimp. Adults 12.1-16 cm long fed on fish (clupeids, myctophids) and squid larvae/juveniles, and those > 16 cm fed on fish and squid. Fish species preyed on by longfin inshore squid include silver hake, mackerel, herring, menhaden, sand lance, bay anchovy, menhaden, weakfish, and silversides. Other investigators demonstrated the following seasonal and inshore/offshore differences in diet: in offshore waters in the spring, the diet is composed of crustaceans (mainly euphausiids) and fish; in inshore waters in the fall, the diet is composed almost exclusively of fish; and in offshore waters in the fall, the diet is composed of fish and squid.
Therefore, inshore squid is not considered as a key MSC LTL species for this assessment.
Natural Mortality
Natural mortality is very high; especially for spawners (Didden 2015). Estimates of non-spawning mortality, 0.11 per week and spawning mortality, 0.19-0.48 per week, are very high. Minimum estimates of longfin squid consumption by finfish showed high inter-annual variability, but were 0.8 to 11 times the annual catches during 1977-2009. During 1987-2008, minimum consumption was much higher during the fall (median = 34,089 mt) than during the spring (median = 14,643 mt). (Didden 2015)
Reproduction and Recruitment
Recruitment occurs throughout the year with seasonal peaks in overlapping “microcohorts” which have rapid and different growth rates (Hendrickson, 2017). Recent analyses conducted by NEFSC staff (reported in MAFMC 2017) indicate a significant negative correlation (p = 0.0014), during 1983-2015, between effort (days fished on trips landing more than 40% longfin squid) during April- September and longfin squid landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE, mt per day fished) during the following October- March. A similar significant negative correlation (p < 0.0001) was found between effort and LPUE for the October-March and April-September fishing periods, respectively. Ageing studies indicate that these two time periods represent the two primary seasonal cohorts; summer-hatched squid are taken in the winter fishery and vice versa (Brodziak and Macy 1996; Macy and Brodziak 2001).
Annual biomass estimates for longfin squid exceed annual carrying capacity in multiple years, which is to be expected for a species with highly variable seasonal population dynamics that are linked to variability in environmental conditions. The average lifespan of each seasonal cohort is about six months. Age data indicate that longfin squid caught in the offshore winter fishery (October-March) were hatched about six
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 25
SCS Global Services Report months prior, during the previous summer, and squid caught in the inshore summer fishery (April- September) were also hatched about six months prior, during the previous winter. The NEFSC spring (March) and fall (September-October) surveys are conducted six months apart. Relative abundance of the two seasonal cohorts caught during the spring and fall surveys in the same year, during 1976-2009, were significantly correlated. However, relative abundance in year t and year t+1, for either survey, or between the fall surveys in year t and spring surveys in year t+1 were not correlated.
Catch
Landings: The U.S. squid fishery began in the late 1800s as a source of bait. From 1928 to 1967 annual squid landings (including longfin squid plus Northern shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus) from Maine to North Carolina ranged from 500 to 2,000mt. During 1967-1984, landings of longfin squid were predominately from an offshore international fishery and averaged 20,130 mt, with a peak of 37,613 mt in 1973 (Figure 9). A small, seasonal domestic fishery operated inshore prior to 1987 and a domestic offshore fishery developed thereafter when the international fishery was eliminated. During 1987-2015, landings averaged 15,392 mt with a peak of 23,738 mt in 1989. Landings were generally higher during 1987-1999 then gradually declined from 17,540 mt in 2000 to 6,751 mt in 2010. Landings increased thereafter to 18,379 mt in 2016 mt which was the highest level since 1999 and 82% of the annual quota of 22,445 mt. The 2016 landings include an estimate of 254 mt for state-permitted vessels (1.4% of the 2016 landings, which was the average percentage landed by state-permitted vessels during 2007-2015) because these data were not yet available.
Discards: During 1989-2015, discard estimates averaged 3.0% of the landings but were imprecise. The estimates ranged from 0.4% to 11.2% and most discards occurred in the small-mesh (codend mesh size ≤ 63 mm) bottom trawl fisheries conducted in the Mid-Atlantic region (i.e., Statistical Areas > 600). CVs of the discard estimates ranged between 2% and 114% and averaged 53%, but were consistently lower (average = 30%) during 2011-2016 when small bottom trawl trips were sampled more frequently. The 2016 discard estimate was based on a longfin squid discard weight to kept weight ratio computed with data from the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Database for bottom trawl trips, that was scaled up to the total longfin squid landings from the Dealer Database. This method differed from the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) that was used to estimate discards for 1989-2015 because the database required to use the SBRM method was not yet available. The 2016 discard estimate was 665 mt (CV = 26%).
Catch: Catches during the international fishery period, 1963-1986, averaged 17,049 mt and peaked at 38,892 mt in 1973. During the domestic fishery period, 1987-2016, catches averaged 15,992 mt and peaked at 24,566 mt in 1994. During the trimester-based management period, 2007-2016, catches averaged 11,816 mt and peaked at 19,044 mt in 2016. The catch in 2016 was 81% of the ABC of 23,400 mt and was the highest catch since 1999.
Seasonality: The longfin inshore squid fishery occurs throughout the year. In addition to the abundance, availability and ex-vessel price of longfin squid, monthly landings trends have been affected by in-season longfin squid quotas, since 2000, and by trimester-based butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) catch or
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 26
SCS Global Services Report discard quotas since 2011. The in-season quotas, with the exception of 2010 and 2013, have led to one or more longfin squid fishery closures per year. Landings of longfin squid were more evenly distributed across months during 1987-1995 than thereafter (Figure 10). Monthly landings trends were similar during 1996-1999 (no in-season quotas) and 2001-2006 (quarterly quotas) and generally declined from a peak in February (15-16% of annual landings) to a minimum of 2% in June then increased to 13% during October. During the current management regime of trimester-based quotas (2007-2016), the landings peak shifted to October (13%) and July (12%). This shift, in part, is attributable to a consistent decline, between 1998 and 2012, in the number of large vessels involved in the offshore longfin squid fishery that occurs during November-April.
Landings during Trimesters 1, 2 and 3 totaled 32%, 37%, and 32%, respectively, of the annual landings during 2007-2014. Current quota allocations for Trimesters 1-3 are set at 43%, 17%, and 40%, respectively. As of 2010, a Trimester 2 quota increase of up to 150% is allowable when a comparable underage of the Trimester 1 quota occurs. During 2007-2010, most of the landings were taken during Trimesters 1 or 3 but this trend shifted to Trimester 2 during most years thereafter. At the time of production of this report, the Squid Capacity Amendment was still in draft, therefore the current specifications in place are evaluated for the purposes of scoring. However, the draft Amendment is discussed in Section 3.5.3.
3.3.3 Assessment Model
Details of the assessment methods are described in report of the 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW) in 2010. The stock was assessed based on catchability-adjusted swept-area biomass computed using daytime tows from Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring (March-April), NEFSC fall (September-October) and Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) fall (September) bottom trawl surveys. Only daytime catches were used to compute the biomass estimates because the capture efficiency of bottom trawls is highest for longfin squid during the day.
More recently, catches were updated by L. Hendrickson at the NEFSC for 2010-2016 with discards and landings. Seasonal and annual relative exploitation indices, computed as catch divided by survey biomass, were also updated for 2010-2016. Biomass estimates for NEAMAP fall surveys during 2009- 2016 were added to the biomass estimates derived from the NEFSC fall surveys, assuming no migration between the two survey areas during September. Sampling during NEAMAP surveys covers the two shallowest inshore strata sets (primarily ≤18m and between Block Island Sound and Cape Hatteras, NC) that were sampled during NEFSC surveys prior to 2009 but that can no longer be sampled because the current NEFSC survey vessel (SRV H.B. Bigelow) cannot sample these shallow depths. Biomass estimates from the spring NEAMAP surveys, which occur primarily in May, were not used in the stock assessment because longfin squid distribution maps from NEFSC spring surveys suggest that sampling of squid in May would result in the double-counting of squid that were previously sampled during March-April in the NEFSC spring surveys.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 27
SCS Global Services Report
Biomass estimates for 1976-2009 were updated with data for 2010-2016. Following 51st SAW assessment procedure, catchability (q) was estimated as the median of the prior distribution which was computed using upper and lower bounds on effective tow distance, width of the area swept by the gear, capture efficiency and stock area. Catchability estimates may be greater than 1.0 because their estimation included a multiplier to convert stratified mean kg per tow indices to thousands of metric tons. Biomass indices for NEFSC spring and fall surveys conducted during 2009-2016 were converted from FSV H.B. Bigelow units to R/V Albatross units by applying spring and fall conversion factors. There is no conversion factor to standardize the 2009-2016 stratified mean kg per tow indices from the NEAMAP fall surveys to R/V Albatross units. Therefore, the median q-prior (= 1.894) was computed using values specific to the fall NEAMAP surveys. In particular, the upper and lower bounds on effective tow distance were 1.85-1.86 km, respectively. The lower bound for the width of the area swept by the gear was the average wingspread during 2007-2016 (= 0.0134 km) and the upper bound was the average door spread (= 0.0323 km). The bounds for capture efficiency were 0.20 and 0.95 and the stock area was 2 the area of the fall survey longfin squid strata set (= 12,097 km ).
The spring and fall biomass estimates represent average biomass estimates of the seasonal cohorts available to the January-June and July-December fisheries, respectively. Relative exploitation indices for the two fisheries were computed on a seasonal basis, for 1987-2016, as January-June catch/March-April biomass and July-December catch/September-October biomass. Stock status was determined based on the 2015-2016 average of the spring and fall biomass.
Biological Reference Points
The existing biological reference points for longfin squid were derived in 2010 during SAW 51 and assumed the stock was lightly exploited during 1976-2008. The median of the average biomass for the NEFSC spring and fall surveys during 1976-2008 (76,329 mt) was assumed to represent 90% of the stock’s carrying capacity (K) and the B proxy (42,405 mt) was estimated as 50% of K (i.e., MSY 0.50*(76,329/0.90)). The biomass threshold is 21,203 mt, which is 50% of B . Relative to MSC scoring MSY criteria, the biomass threshold is taken to be the point of recruitment impairment (PRI), and the biomass target is the BMSY, the level of biomass consistent the production of MSY. Fishing mortality reference points could not be recommended in the 2010 assessment due to the lack of evidence that annual catches impacted annual biomass estimates during 1976-2009, and due to the lack of a theoretical basis for linking F to natural mortality or F from per-recruit models for short-lived species like longfin MSY %SPR squid. NMFS has determined that the stock had been lightly exploited because annual catches during 1987-2016 were less than annual biomass and did not result in a multi-year decrease in biomass. In addition, estimates of natural mortality for this semelparous species were very high in relation to exploitation indices.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 28
SCS Global Services Report
Stock Biomass Status in 2015-2016
Squid species exhibit large inter-annual fluctuations in biomass. During 1976-2016, annual biomass (the average of NEFSC spring and NEFSC and NEAMAP fall survey biomass) ranged between 25,806 mt and 175,894 mt (Figure 11). The average of annual biomass during 2015-2016 was 73,762 mt (80% CL =
67,198, 80,327) and was much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt and the target BMSY proxy of 42,205 mt. . Special comments from the NMFS NEFSC 2017 stock assessment update
Hendrickson (2017) offered some special comments in her most recent update of the longfin inshore squid assessment that are relevant to recent issues surrounding longfin squid management.
Recruitment occurs throughout the year with seasonal peaks in overlapping “microcohorts” which have rapid and different growth rates. Annual biomass estimates for longfin squid exceed annual carrying capacity in multiple years, which is to be expected for a species with highly variable seasonal population dynamics that are linked to variability in environmental conditions. The average lifespan of each seasonal cohort is about six months. Age data indicate that longfin squid caught in the offshore winter fishery (October-March) were hatched about six months prior, during the previous summer, and squid caught in the inshore summer fishery (April-September) were also hatched about six months prior, during the previous winter. The NEFSC spring (March) and fall (September-October) surveys are conducted six months apart. Relative abundance of the two seasonal cohorts caught during the spring and fall surveys in the same year, during 1976-2009, were significantly correlated. However, relative abundance in year t and year t+1, for either survey, or between the fall surveys in year t and spring surveys in year t+1 were not correlated.
Female longfin squid attach their egg masses to the seabed, vegetation and fixed objects and can lay multiple clutches of eggs during a period of up to three weeks. Incidental catches of the species’ egg masses in the inshore bottom trawl fishery for longfin squid, indicate that the fishery occurs on the inshore spawning grounds. The impacts of dislodging the negatively buoyant egg masses from the seabed during bottom trawling are unknown, but mechanical disturbance of the egg masses during the late stages of development causes premature hatching that is fatal to all hatchlings because of incomplete absorption of the outer yolk sac. Age data indicate that longfin squid spawn throughout the year. However, the inshore fishery occurs on the only known spawning grounds and it is unknown what portion of annual egg production is attributable to the inshore spawning period. During the inshore fishery, squid are highly aggregated because of their complex mating and communal spawning behaviors, but the effects of bottom trawling on these behaviors is unknown.
Because of the species’ sub-annual lifespan, semelparous life history, and highly variable recruitment, management of longfin squid based on either a fixed TAC or effort is likely to result in foregone yield during periods of high productivity and may not protect the resource during periods of low productivity. For squid species, adequate spawner escapement from each seasonal fishery is required to ensure sufficient recruitment in subsequent seasons, and in–season assessment and management are necessary to harvest the resource at optimum yield. Because squid stocks are susceptible to
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 29
SCS Global Services Report
recruitment overfishing, other squid stock assessments have considered F reference points to %SPR ensure adequate spawner escapement.
Harvest Strategy, Control Rule and Management
Harvest Control Rule
Since 1978 the Atlantic mackerel, longfin inshore squid, Northern shortfin squid, and butterfish fisheries have been managed in Federal waters by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and were combined into a single fishery management plan (FMP), referred to as the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish (MSB) FMP in 1983 with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) serving as the federal implementation and enforcement body. The FMP has been amended with 15 amendments (the most recent in 2015), and 8 framework adjustments. Collectively, these species fulfill both domestic and foreign markets for bait and food. These fisheries operate primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The fishing year is from January 1 through December 31.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages the squid fishery with Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rules. The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews the following criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign the squid stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC reviews the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for all stocks.
The risk policy, last updated in 2012 with the MAFMC’s Framework 6, is used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process, specifically when no OFL or OFL proxy is available. The Council’s risk policy determines an acceptable probability of overfishing (P*) as a function of the stock biomass and life history of the species. Lower stock size and/or life history characteristics that increase susceptibility to overfishing (and are not incorporated into assessments) require greater confidence that overfishing will be avoided (via larger buffers). The probabilistic approach was adopted for three of the levels because it explicitly incorporates uncertainty and the MAFMC’s acceptable probability of overfishing in determining ABCs. It also recognizes that uncertainty is very difficult (or impossible) to fully and quantitatively characterize in some situations. The threshold acceptable probability of overfishing is 0.4 for species with a typical life history and 0.35 for those with an atypical life history. The acceptable probability of overfishing is zero if relative biomass (projected biomass divided by the expected biomass if the stock was fished at the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold) is less than 0.1. The acceptable probability of overfishing increases to its threshold as relative biomass approaches 1. Longfin squid is considered an atypical species.
The MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) meets annually to develop and recommend specifications for consideration by the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC. As the basis for its recommendations, the Monitoring Committee reviews the best available data to recommend specifications consistent with the following.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 30
SCS Global Services Report
For longfin squid, the ABC for any fishing year must be either the maximum Optimum Yield (OY), or a lower amount, if stock assessments indicate that the potential yield is less than the maximum OY. The OYs specified during a fishing year may not exceed the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of
FThreshold (Figure 12). However, in the case where there are no fishing mortality reference points, the SSC has recommended an ABC for a three-year period equal to the catch in the year of the highest exploitation ratio (1993). Thus, the recommended ABC is 23,400 mt, the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC, which occurred during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation (1976-2009) according to the 2010 Longfin Squid assessment.
Based on the review of the data, the Monitoring Committee recommends to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee the measures from the following list that it determines are necessary to ensure that the specifications are not exceeded: . Research Set-Aside (RSA) set from a range of 0 to 3 percent of the IOY for longfin squid . Commercial quotas, set after reductions for research quotas . The amount of longfin squid, Illex, and butterfish that may be retained and landed by vessels issued the incidental catch permit . Commercial trip limits . Commercial seasonal quotas/closures for longfin squid. . Minimum mesh sizes . Commercial gear restrictions . And other issues
The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee reviews the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC then reviews these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator reviews the recommendations and then publishes a proposed rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER, proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period.
The Regional Administrator makes a final determination concerning the specifications for each species and any measures necessary to ensure that the specifications will not be exceeded. After the Regional Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, notification of the final
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 31
SCS Global Services Report specifications and any measures necessary to ensure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to the public comments will be published in the Federal Register.
Both the longfin squid and butterfish catch cap are divided into three trimesters: 43% for Trimester I (January-April), 17% for Trimester II (May-August), and 40% for Trimester III (September-December). As part of the harvest control rule, NMFS has the following fishery closure and accountability measures in place for longfin squid:
NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested before April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, and when 95 percent of the longfin squid Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) has been harvested in Trimester III. On or after April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing trimester period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at CFR §648.26.
For the fishing years 2015-2017, the specifications for the squid fishery are as follows: Species Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH)
Longfin squid 23,400 mt 22,445 mt Since implementation of trimester-based quota management, in 2007, the fishery has been closed due in-season quota attainment during every year except 2010, 2013 and 2015 (Table 6). The T1 and T2 quotas have been allowed to roll-over within a year with certain constraints. While directed fishing at the post-closure trip limit of 2,500 pounds has occurred6, annual landings are partially suppressed in years when seasonal closures occur.
A new squid amendment was approved by the MAFMC in 2017 that considers measures to reduce latent (unused or minimally used) longfin and Illex squid permits, and also measures to modify how Trimester 2 (T2) (May-August) of the longfin squid fishery is managed. Under the preferred alternative adopted by the MAFMC, longfin squid moratorium permits would be reduced by more than 40%. The special comments that Henderson (2017) offered in the 2017 stock assessment update provide some insight into the scientific basis for the proposed management action related to Trimester 2 (T2) found in the (draft) Amendment on Squid Capacity. The concern of some stakeholders is that excessive effort during the T2 period when squid are spawning inshore may be negatively impacting future stock production. An alternative perspective of stakeholders is that although there is some evidence that suggests that there may be some disruption of squid egg masses in localized areas, this fishery has been prosecuted for some time in the area of Nantucket Sound, and there is no evidence that the localized fishing effort has negatively affected stock production. The MAFMC is currently considering alternatives in this proposed management action. This amendment is presented in more detail in section 3.5.3 of this report.
6 The 2017 squid capacity amendment is proposing to decrease this limit. See Section 3.5.3
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 32
SCS Global Services Report
Monitoring
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) monitors the landings of all mackerel, squid, and butterfish, relative to the trimester quotas. NMFS announces closures of the directed fisheries for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and shortfin squid, and when catch reaches a particular quota closure threshold. Weekly landings reports are available at: http://www.great- eratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/atlanticmackerel.html.
Real-time information on commercial fishery landings are collected through the SAFIS electronic data collection system managed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), which is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. (http://www.accsp.org/safis)
Additional Regulations
Gear restrictions are used to control the minimum size of entry of squid into the fishery. For longfin squid, the minimum mesh sizes differ by Trimester, but are required to be diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net. For codends less than 150 meshes, one-third of the net must be the minimum mesh measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope. No net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear can be used that reduce the mesh size.
Table 3.2 Minimum Mesh Size
Trimester I 2 1/8 inches (54 mm)
Trimester II 1 7/8 inches (48 mm)
Trimester III 2 1/8 inches (54 mm)
Vessels must cooperate with the NMFS, NEFSC, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), and carry observers as requested. (For more detail on the fishery monitoring system and observer program see Section 3.4.2 below. Participants in the squid fishery must maintain on board the vessel and submit an accurate Federal Vessel Trip Report (VTR) for all fishing trips. VTRs must be submitted monthly and must be postmarked within 15 days after the end of the reporting month.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 33
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 8. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) nominal catch reporting areas, Subareas 3-6 and associated Divisions, for fisheries occurring in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Figure 9. Landings (000s mt) of longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealli) by fleet, and TACs (000s mt) during the period 1963-2016 that were used in the most recent stock assessment update (2017).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 34
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 10. Landings (as a % of total annual landings) by numbered calendar month, of longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii), by month, during four fishery management periods: annual quotas without (1987-1995) and with (1996- 1999) mandatory landings reporting; quarterly quotas (2001-2006); and trimester quotas (2000 and 2007-2012). The figure was updated from Hendrickson (2015).
Figure 11. Annual estimates of longfin squid biomass (average of annual biomass during NEFSC spring and NEFSC plus NEAMAP fall surveys) in relation to biomass reference points and catches. The grey line represents the two- year moving average.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 35
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 12. Summary of the definition framework showing the relationship between the OFL, ABC and ACL.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 36
SCS Global Services Report
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
3.4.1 Scope of Principle 2 All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained and/or discarded, managed via biological reference points (assessed as Primary under Component 2.1) or not managed based on reference points (assessed as Secondary under Component 2.2), and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).
Cumulative Impacts To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is within sustainable limits, a UoA assessed against standard V2.0 may need to consider the combined impact of itself and other overlapping UoAs. V2.0 of the MSC standard requires that any fishery under assessment that has spatial overlap with the Units of Assessment of any other MSC certified fisheries, be explicitly considered in Principle 2. ‘Overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at different levels depending on which PI is evaluated. For P2 primary species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact of overlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species. For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be considered in cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total catch. For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC UoAs need to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species. All of the requirements for cumulative impacts for species are applicable to their respective Outcome PIs. For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are managed such that the impact of all MSC UoAs does not cause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs.
3.4.2 Fishery Information and Monitoring
The primary responsibility for the collection of fishery dependent information from commercial fishery operations for most federally managed species from Maine through Virginia lies with the Analysis and Program Support Division (APSD) in the Greater Atlantic Region of NMFS. For some species this responsibility extends throughout the entire range of the commercial fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. In addition, the APSD has responsibility for establishing quality standards for fisheries dependent data collections that are managed by the Greater Atlantic Regional Office, improving the quality of fishery dependent data and the collection of biological information from
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 37
SCS Global Services Report commercial catches. The APSD acquires data through mandatory reporting programs to provide timely and accurate landings and effort data on the federally regulated fisheries in the northeast for in-season management and analysis. Tasks include dockside collection of catch data, biological samples from commercial fishing trips, and producing finished data products to support fisheries management and scientific analyses (Mateo et al 2016).
Observer Program and Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM)
The (current) Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology has been effective for the Greater Atlantic Fishery Region as of July 20 2015. In accordance with the July 2015 Amendment (FR Vol 80, No 125), an annual “Discard Estimation, Precision, and Sample Size Analyses for 14 Federally Managed Species Groups in the Waters off the Northeastern United States” is produced. Sea turtles are additionally considered within scope of the SBRM reporting and observer needs evaluation. The annual report describes analyses associated with discard estimation from July -June of the previous year for the 14 federally managed fish and invertebrate species groups. It also provides the expected coverage needed by at-sea observers for the following year (April -March) using the SBRM, where coverage needed is that which can provide for a precision-based performance standard (30% coefficient of variation of the discard estimate). The sea day analyses use a standardized protocol to account for the importance of the discarded species relative to the amount of discards by each fleet and total fishing mortality. (Wigley & Tholke 2017):
Data sources used in the SBRM report include (Wigley & Tholke 2017): . Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) database . Observed hauls with a ‘complete’ sampling protocol: includes species weights for both kept and discarded portions of all species in the catch. . Vessel Trip Report (VTR; including logbooks from the surfclam [Spisula solidissima] and ocean quahog [Arctica islandica] fishery) database . Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) commercial landings database . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) database.
Trips are partitioned into non-overlapping fleets based on 5 variables: . Geographic region: o New England (NE): departure ports from Maine to Rhode Island o Mid-Atlantic (MA): departure ports from Connecticut to northern North Carolina o (Note: previous studies have found that >93% of observed trips demonstrate that trips originate and fish in the same region, and VTRs align with this finding. . Gear type
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 38
SCS Global Services Report
. Mesh size groups are defined for otter trawl and gillnet only o Otter trawls: small mesh (<5.5in) and large mesh (≥5.5in) o Gillnets: small (mesh less than 5.50 in), large (mesh from 5.50 to 7.99 in), and extra-large (mesh 8.00 in and greater) . Access area: access area (AA) and open (OPEN) . Trip category: the sea scallop fishery was divided into general (GEN) and limited (LIM) category trips; all other fisheries were combined into a category called “all.” The analysis also uses calendar quarters to analyze seasonal variations in fishing activity and discard rates. VTRs form the basis for the sampling frame definitions and are used to extrapolate NEFOP discard ratios to total discard estimates, as these are required for all federal commercial fishing trips (with the exclusion of the commercial lobster fishery). Dealer data is understood to have more accurate weights, but lacks detail such as mesh size and area fished. Observer coverage representativeness is evaluated both temporally and spatially based on a kept weight ratio. Discard ratios are calculated and there are no survival ratios applied. Data from adjoining strata are pooled to develop estimates for cells with <3 trips. 3 trips for fleet-quarter are considered a minimum threshold for allocating observer coverage. At-sea observers record fish dispositions, and the SBRM considers 6 discard categories: no market, regulation (size), regulation (quota), regulation (other), poor quality, and other. (Wigley & Tholke 2017)
Observer Day Allocation under the SBRM The SBRM determines the sea days needed for fish/invertebrates and loggerhead turtles combined for the following April -March. This is calculated based on integration of sea turtle and fish/invertebrate sea day determinations using VTR days. Sea turtle days (loggerhead) are determined on a more general gear basis, so in order to arrive at a fleet-specific allocation comparative to the fish/invertebrate allocation, overall VTR days are used to arrive at proportionate allocation of sea turtle days amongst the fish/invertebrate gear classification. Then, the larger of the two sea day needs (adjusted fish/invertebrate versus loggerhead) for each fleet is used to arrive at a total number of observer sea days needed. The calculated days needed are then compared to funding availability. If there isn’t sufficient funding available, prioritization of days occurs. According to the 2017 report, funding is sufficient and no prioritization is necessary. (NEFSC 2017)
Agency funding sources are comprised of five categories: Atlantic Coast Observers, National Observer Program, Northeast Fisheries Observers, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Reducing Bycatch. Agency funded days that are considered applicable to protected species (MMPA, sea turtles, and ESA- listed fish)-only require specific sampling protocols for protected species such that information collection on finfish and shellfish is not practicable. Some “day” funding is also allocated to support data analysis. The remaining agency-funded days are then subject to prioritization across all fleets. Industry- funded days are dedicated to the scallop fishery. (NEFSC 2017)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 39
SCS Global Services Report
Observer coverage of the small mesh bottom trawl fleet In the 2016 SBRM, it was determined that a total of 11,610 sea days were needed across all fleets, including MMPA sea days. Of these, 1,717 were designated for small mesh otter trawl in the Mid- Atlantic and 798 were designated for the small mesh otter trawl in the Northeast. The 2017 SBRM report indicates that 977 observer sea days were achieved for the Mid-Atlantic small mesh otter trawl fleet, and 1,051 were achieved for the Northeast fleet, 56.9% and 131% of the designated days, respectively. According to Table 3 of the 2017 SBRM report, there were 7,039 and 10,443 actual sea days according to VTR data for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively, equating to 13.9% observer coverage in the Mid-Atlantic small mesh bottom trawl fishery and 10.0% coverage in the Northeast small mesh bottom trawl fleet. In terms of trips, coverage was 11.7% and 8.1%, respectively (Table 2). According to MAFMC, from 2013-2015 approximately 7% of longfin trips were observed (based on bottom trawl -including twin, haddock separator, Ruhle, and large belly mesh) trips landing >40% longfin inshore squid. (MAFMC 2017)
Days are assigned primarily via the NEFOP sea day schedule, which provides a matrix of VTR trip percentages by quarter and state within a fleet based on previous year VTRs. Some fleets are assigned alternatively via a Pre-Trip Notification. These fleets are identified in the SBRM report (Table 6, NEFSC 2017). The SBRM report notes that fleets with low trip activity (quarterly or overall) can present difficulty for assigning observers when not part of a pre-trip notification or call-in program. Observer days not accomplished are carried over. There were 4,895 carryover days (typically days not accomplished) from the 2016-2017 year across all fleets (NEFSC 2017).
In 2017 the small mesh bottom trawl fleet was determined to require as a maximum sea day allocation to achieve a 30% CV 1,010 days for groundfish in the Mid-Atlantic and 1,946 days for monkfish in the Northeast. For the Mid Atlantic fleet, derived sea turtle days exceeded the fish/invertebrate days at 1,381, and therefore this higher number of days was considered. There are no sea turtle days allocated for the Northeast fleets. For the 2017-2018 year, no MMPA agency days were allocated, (Table 6, NEFSC 2017). The resulting sea day schedule for 2017-2018 includes 3,153 sea days for the small mesh otter trawl fleets combined, with 1,187 days allocated to the Mid-Atlantic fleet and 1,946 days allocated to the Northeast fleet. (NEFSC 2017)
3.4.3 Classification of Species for Principle 2 Evaluation Primary species
For the purposes of a MSC evaluation, primary species are those in the catch, and within the scope of the MSC program (fishes or shellfish), and not defined by the client as the target – which by definition is evaluated under Principle 1. Species associated with the target that are harvested under some management regime, where measures are in place intended to achieve management, and these are reflected in either limit or target reference points are evaluated as Primary species within Principle 2. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock) will usually have some overlap in jurisdiction with the UoA fishery.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 40
SCS Global Services Report
Secondary species
In contrast to primary species, secondary species include fish and shellfish species that are not managed according to reference points. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species. These types of species could in some cases be landed intentionally to be used either as bait or as food for the crew or for other subsistence uses, but may also in some cases represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat unavoidable in the fishery. Given the often unmanaged status of these species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass or fishing mortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability. Main species
For Primary and Secondary species, species may be considered “Main” based on either resilience/vulnerability or catch volume. When individuals are released alive this shall not contribute to the definition of Main (SA3.4.3). Species that are not “Main” are Minor. Main and Minor species must meet different Performance Indicators (PIs) in P2. . Resilience: If the species is considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 2% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise it is considered Minor. . Catch volume: If the species is not considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 5% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise, it is considered Minor. Out of scope species that are not ETP are to be considered Main Secondary (SA3.7.1.2).
The assessment team has considered multiple sources of information to determine the most appropriate classification for the non-target species in this fishery. Where sources did not align on species classification, a precautionary designation as Main was predominantly used. Species that accounted for 2-5% of the catch were considered in light of their resiliency (per FCRV2.0 SA3.4.2.2a) - where skates and spiny dogfish were determined to qualify for ‘main’ consideration based on life history traits.
3.4.4 Primary and Secondary Species Classification Information
Small mesh bottom trawl harvest the vast majority of longfin inshore squid (~95%), and the client has therefore elected to define the scope of the Unit of Assessment and Certification according to this single gear type, including all licensed vessels with state or federal permits to land longfin inshore squid. The assessment team used two main sources of information to evaluate catch composition of the fishery for Principle 2 evaluations: 1) Annual Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) reports 2) NEFOP observer data
The SBRM reports characterize fleets by region, gear, mesh size, access area, and trip category, and use numerous catch documentation sources to provide complete catch and extrapolated discard information for the 14 federally managed species groups. The fleet characterization aligns with the MSC scope, and extrapolation techniques provide for fleetwide estimates. However, this method falls short
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 41
SCS Global Services Report of needs for a complete Principle 2 evaluation because it does not account for non-federally managed species. The assessment team requested a custom NEFOP data draw to reflect the UoA scope over several years (2012-2016), and this observer data provides detailed information on the catch composition of the fleet under assessment. This data is not, however, extrapolated to estimate fleetwide catch composition.
Species Classification for Assessment Purposes SBRM
The assessment team has extrapolated the information presented in the 2016 and 2017 SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016; Wigley & Tholke 2017) in order to provide an overall estimate of catch composition of the small mesh bottom trawl fleet from 2014-2016. Table 11 provides the catch composition of the small mesh otter trawl fleet in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern geographic areas, representing 2 of the 34 identified fleets in the SBRM. The total weight presented is the sum of the VTR reported landings plus estimated discards. NEFOP Observer Program Data The NEFOP provided the assessment team with a custom data draw including catch, incidental take, slipped catch, individual animal log (IAL)7 records from small mesh bottom trawl trips (gear codes 050 and 053, mesh size <5.5 in). This provides year-over catch composition from observed hauls from 2,606 trips from 2012-2016, covering both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. The data has not been extrapolated as in the other information sources, but is necessary for the MSC assessment because it accounts for non-federally managed species, where the extrapolated SBRM reports do not.
In a review of the observer data, no non-federally managed species (species not accounted for in the SBRM analyses) comprised >2% of the catch by weight of the fishery. This means that by using the SBRM data as the primary species classification driver the assessment team is not overlooking a non-federally managed species that merits classification as ‘main’ for MSC scoring purposes.
Classification Determination
The NEFOP data received confirmed that federally managed species comprise the vast majority of catch by weight in the fishery, and there are no non-federally managed species that comprise >2% of the catch in total catch from 2012-2016 overall. Therefore, the SBRM data as an extrapolated dataset is considered the best representation of the overall catch composition of the fishery and is therefore used as the main driver in Principle 2 species classification, where the observer data informs non-Federally managed species interactions, and provides for more data fields for insight into catch composition characteristics and trends. The entire SBRM dataset used to characterize the fishery is provided in Appendix 6 and the entire NEFOP dataset is provided in Appendix 7. Minor species considered in the background include only those species that comprise >0.5% of the total fishery catch by weight.
7 The IAL is used to record pelagic species, sturgeons, terrapins, and tagged fish and shellfish. Species recorded under an IAL log are not then recorded in the haul log to prevent double-counting.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 42
SCS Global Services Report
Table 11. Summary of Principle 2 Primary and Secondary species classifications according to SBRM (2014-2016) and NEFOP (2012-2016) data, excluding catch comprising <0.50% of weight. For complete data records from the SBRM and NEFOP, see Appendices 6 and 7. (SBRM data used as primary data source for the federally managed species included in the analysis, with non-federally managed species that contributed >0.50% of catch by weight in NEFOP data included in addition. See above text for further detail.)
Species Common SBRM % NEFOP % Classification Rationale Name Squid, Atl Long-Fin 28.75% 12.72% Target >5% catch, managed with Reference Hake, Silver (Whiting) 13.73% 15.58% Main Primary Points >5% catch in SBRM, no reference Squid, Short-Fin* 11.76% 1.37% Main Secondary points available >5% catch, managed with reference Scup 10.43% 11.74% Main Primary points >5% catch, managed with reference Skate Complex 8.40% 10.83%^ Main Primary points >5% catch in SBRM, managed with Butterfish* 6.85% 2.97% Main Primary reference points >5% catch in SBRM, managed with Herring, Atlantic 6.69% 9.60% Main Primary reference points <5% catch in SBRM but considered Dogfish, Spiny 4.18% 7.01% Main Primary less resilient, managed with reference points <5% catch in SBRM, not considered Hake, Red (Ling) 2.58% 3.33% Minor Primary less resilient, managed with reference points <2% catch in SBRM, managed with Flounder, Summer (Fluke) 1.50% 4.61% Minor Primary reference points Minor <2% catch in SBRM, not managed Atlantic Mackerel 1.32% 0.39% Secondary with reference points <2% catch in SBRM, managed with Sea Bass, Black 1.22% 1.98% Minor Primary reference points <2% catch in SBRM, managed with Haddock 1.11% 1.28% Minor Primary reference points Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Crab, Horseshoe NA** 1.90% Secondary not managed with reference points <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Croaker, Atlantic NA 1.66% Minor Primary managed with reference points NA Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Northern Sea Robin 1.11% Secondary not managed with reference points NA Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Hake, Spotted 1.02% Secondary not managed with reference points NA Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Dogfish, Smooth 0.83% Secondary not managed with reference points NA Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Sea Robin, Striped 0.73% Secondary not managed with reference points NA Minor <2% catch in NEFOP (NA in SBRM), Flounder, Fourspot 0.69% Secondary not managed with reference points <2% catch in SBRM, managed with Monkfish (Goosefish) 0.50% 0.65% Minor Primary reference points ^Skate Complex comprised of multiple skate species. The SBRM report does not break down Skates by species. Observer data includes records of little skate (5.88%), winter skate (1.64%), clearnose skate (1.23%), unknown (little, winter, or other) (1.50%), and barndoor skate (0.58%). Only little and winter skate considered ‘main.’ *comprises >5% of catch according to MAFMC MSB Specifications Table 20 calculations (MAFMC 2014) **NA under SBRM means the species is not part of one of the 14 federally managed species groups
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 43
SCS Global Services Report
Additional Data Considerations
The small mesh bottom trawl fleet targets numerous species, and vessels may hold several commercial fishing permit types and fish under multiple permits on a single trip. Vessels specify up to five target species on a trip, but they are not restricted to directed fishing or landing of those designated species. This renders an evaluation of catch composition of a discrete ‘longfin inshore squid fishery’ impracticable for MSC purposes, in particular due to the MSC requirement that states: “The UoA and UoC shall not be defined based on the species caught as determined at the time of fishing” (FCRV2.0 7.4.9), meaning the fishery should not be evaluated on the basis of trips or hauls that land squid.
As previously stated, because the small mesh bottom trawl is used to target multiple species, and fishing trips can be conducted under multiple permit types, the data filtered by a gear type may not present the most accurate depiction of the targeted fishery. The assessment team conducted several evaluations on the observer data to evaluate whether the summarized annual catch composition was sufficiently representative of: the state versus federal fishery, the “targeted” longfin fishery compared to the fishery defined based on gear type only, seasonal variations in catch. These various analyses of the observer data did provide for differential results in catch composition, but in no cases did the differential analyses suggest that a species classified as ‘minor’ (<5% of the catch) be evaluated as ‘main’ (>5% of the catch composition).
Results of these additional analyses of the 2012-2016 NEFOP small mesh bottom trawl data include: . Trips that caught >1lb of longfin squid account for 70% of the observed catch by weight, and 99.95% of observed longfin squid catch by weight. . Trips that identified longfin squid as a target species accounted for 25% of total catch of all species but 95.83% of longfin catch. . State landings are understood to comprise less than or close to 2% of total longfin squid landings according to dealer data (provided by MAFMC), and the observer data aligns with this- where state permitted fishing is inferred from a lack of Federal permit information. These inferred state- only trips account for 1.19% of total observed catch, and 2.13% of longfin squid observed catch. . Total observed catch, and catch of longfin squid, was generally evenly distributed between quarters (observer data was provided by quarter and not trimester). There is some notable variability in catch composition by quarter and by year, but this variation did not provide cause for any minor species to be considered main (i.e. no minor species demonstrated a change in relative catch nearing the 5% threshold for main classification). For a complete summary of observed catch data from 2012-2016 observed trips, see Appendix. 7.
The assessment team also reviewed MAFMC fishery characterizations, which typically characterize the ‘longfin squid fishery’ based on proportion of longfin landed on a trip. The MAFMC in the 2017 specifications for the MSB FMP characterized the longfin squid fishery according to all trips that had at least 50% longfin squid by weight amongst retained species (MAFMC 2014). This captured 86% of all longfin squid landings in the dealer database over the years 2011-2013 and accounted for 123 observed
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 44
SCS Global Services Report trips on average per year over this same period and 4,243 hauls, 92% of which were observed. Observed trips accounted for 6% of total longfin squid caught (based on weight). Observer data was used to provide a very rough characterization of the fishery to estimate incidental catch in the direct longfin inshore squid fishery. MAFMC considered this is a reasonable approach for a relative estimate given the available data, and cautioned that it is highly imprecise and does not follow the protocol used for official discard estimates. In this document MAFMC considers only species caught at >25,000 lbs per year, which captured 98% of discards.
The resulting characterization would result in less ‘main’ species than in the SBRM or NEFOP data. This aligns with the assessment’s team review of observer data, where by filtering for trips ‘targeting’ longfin inshore squid, the number of species comprising >5% of the catch decreases significantly. (MAFMC 2014)
3.4.5 Primary Species Table 12. Main Primary Species Summary
Management Average % of Catch by Overfished? 4 Overfishing? 4 Body Catch by total UoA as Species UoA UoA % total (SBRM1) catch catch (SBRM*) 20173 HAKE, SILVER No No (WHITING) NEFMC 13,682,181 13.73% 88.45% (northern and southern stocks) SCUP MAFMC 10,391,747 10.43% 74.45% No No HERRING, No No ASMFC/NEFMC 6,663,445 6.69% 3.44% ATLANTIC MAFMC/ASMF No No DOGFISH, SPINY 4,164,699 4.18% 13.71% C/NEFMC Thorny- Yes Winter- Yes SKATE COMPLEX2 NEFMC 8,376,766 8.40% 10.40% Others- No Others- No MAFMC MSB No No BUTTERFISH 6,832,107 6.85% 96.27% FMP 1Summarized data from Wigley et al 2016; Wigley & Tholke 2017. See Appendix 6. 2Skate Complex comprised of multiple skate species. The SBRM report does not break down Skates by species. Observer data includes records of little skate (5.88%), winter skate (1.64%), clearnose skate (1.23%), unknown (little, winter, or other) (1.50%), barndoor skate (0.58%), rosette skate (0.05%), thorny skate (0.01%) and smooth skate (0.01%). Only little and winter skate considered main. 3According to Wigley & Tholke 2017 4based on the NMFS 2016 Status of Fisheries: Stock Assessments and other Sources that support Status Determinations
Overview of Main Primary Species Management
Management of all main species (Primary and Secondary), and the majority of minor species, falls under the same stringent management system as for the P1 species. In federal waters, retained species are managed by the Mid-Atlantic or New England Fishery Management Councils under various fishery management plans (FMPs). In state waters species are managed by the ASMFC under complimentary FMPs. Commercial permits are required to possess, land, or sell managed species. The primary
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 45
SCS Global Services Report management tool is the specification of an annual catch limit (ACL). The ACL is determined through periodic stock assessments conducted at Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshops (SAW). “SAW” is a formal scientific peer review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers. The SAW protocol is used to prepare and review assessments for fish and invertebrate stocks in the U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by SAW working groups (federally led assessments) or Atlantic States Maine Fisheries Commission technical assessment committees (state led assessments) and peer reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts called the Stock Assessment Review Committee or “SARC”. The SAW/SARC process began in 1985. The SARC panel may accept or reject an assessment. Final SAW documents include a Stock Assessment Report, a Stock Assessment Summary Report and the SARC panelist reports. Final SAW assessment reports are published by the NEFSC online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ and http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/ . Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) must be set less than or equal to the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) (to account for management uncertainty), which must be set less than or equal to the Overfishing Level (OFL) (to account for any scientific uncertainty in the stock (Federal Register 2009). Quotas are derived from the recommendations of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and how various components of fishing mortality are handled by the various FMPs. All federally managed species also undergo evaluation to designate ‘Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)’, and the impacts of all federally managed fisheries are evaluated for impacts on all designated EFH.
Bycatch Considerations Discard rates in the longfin inshore squid fishery are relatively high, at around 33% (MAFMC 2017). National Standard 9 requires minimization of discards to the extent practicable, and this is relevant to scoring of management PIs under V2.0 which includes criteria for regularity of review of unwanted mortality and evidence of implementation as appropriate.
In addition to the species-specific management described above, NOAA has developed a National Bycatch Reduction Strategy (2016)8 comprised of the following objectives: . Monitor and estimate the rates of bycatch and bycatch mortality in fisheries to understand the level of impact and the nature of the interaction. . Conduct research to improve our bycatch estimates, understand the impacts of bycatch on species and community dynamics, and develop solutions to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality. . Conserve and manage fisheries and protected species by implementing measures to reduce bycatch and its adverse impacts. . Enforce fishery management measures, including those aimed at reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality, to ensure compliance with applicable laws. . Communicate to develop a common understanding of bycatch, to share information on our efforts to address bycatch, and to identify areas where we can improve.
8 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/bycatch/docs/national_bycatch_reduction_strategy_final.pdf
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 46
SCS Global Services Report
Also at the National level, a U.S. National Bycatch Report was produced in 2011 that summarizes available information on bycatch, uses a tier system to categorize fisheries by bycatch data quality, and identify key stocks based on high bycatch ratios, where tier classifications and key stocks may be used as performance measures to monitor over time. There have been two data updates to this initial report, and a comprehensive update is expected in 2017 that would also include prioritization of fish stocks and fisheries for bycatch reduction. At the time of writing this report, this comprehensive update was not available online.
Monitoring and estimation under the strategy is supported by the monitoring and information systems described in Section 3.4.2 above. There is also notable research outside of the SBRM and NEFOP programs. The NEFSC study fleet is engaging industry to increase fishery selectivity and minimize discards through cooperative research and sharing of real-time information from the fleet. The Squid Trawl Network was funded by NMFS NEFSC Northeast Cooperative Research Program in 2010. The initiative website states that bycatch reduction for butterfish and river herring via cod-end mesh size restriction is economically unviable for the squid fleet, and created an Avoidance Network Fleet Communication Program to provide a platform for fishers to communicate real-time hotspots to avoid for butterfish, river herring, yellowtail flounder and windowpane flounder. The network website (http://www.squidtrawlnetwork.com) also features relevant research on gear modifications in various bottom trawl fisheries. In addition to the Squid Trawl Network the NEFSC study fleet has additional ongoing initiatives, all with the overall objectives of: (1) assembling a “study fleet” of commercial New England vessels capable of providing high resolution (temporal and spatial) self-reported data on catch, effort and environmental conditions while conducting “normal” fishing operations; and
(2) developing and implementing electronic reporting hardware and software (our Electronic Logbook System) for the collection, recording, and transferring of more accurate and timely fishery-based data.9
Dr. John Manderson of NEFSC provided the assessment team with a description of his ongoing work with the study fleet, which includes vessels from the squid and mackerel fisheries. The key goals of the project are to co-develop regional scale habitat models that we can project in real time or even in short term forecast mode and engage study fleet collaborators to understand the habitat dynamics of target species as well as bycatch species at scales finer than can currently be measured and modeled, including development of frontend software on the study fleet to allow captains to use tow-by-tow reporting to produce dynamic views of catch in the context of real-time environmental data. The continuous face to face engagement provides for a greater practical understanding of the socio-ecological forces driving the fishery to support ecosystem-based management. Study fleet information has been used to date to refine the butterfish and Atlantic mackerel stock assessments to account for population availability to fishery independent surveys related to changing habitat dynamics.
9 https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/popdy/studyfleet/
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 47
SCS Global Services Report
At the national level, NMFS for the last 10 years has also been providing annual grant funding for bycatch reduction research under its “Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program”, which every year is synthesized into an annual report to congress.
There is evidence that measures implemented have been successful in reductions of bycatch and discarding of targeted species. For this UoA, the primary management measures for bycatch reduction are found in Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP (2009). In addition to the formal management measures, voluntary ongoing collaborative research targets a practical real time and fine scale approach to more selective targeting, and there are numerous research initiatives looking at gear modifications for bycatch reduction. Despite these efforts, the overall discard rate of the fleet remains high, and particularly so for several main species, including spiny dogfish and winter and little skates. The Council considers that discards have been reduced to the extent practicable via measures implemented previously including: Scup Gear Restricted Areas, the Butterfish Discard Cap, mesh increases, voluntary avoidance programs, etc., and discards consideration in the management of other fisheries (MAFMC 2017). Annual Advisory Panel meeting notes from the last two years include discussion of the effectiveness of current gear regulations and potential alternatives that should be explored.10
Hake, Silver (Whiting) (Northern and Southern Stocks) Status11
Silver Hake (Whiting): Silver Hake (Merluccius bilinearis) occurs on the Northwest Atlantic coast from southern Newfoundland to South Carolina. Length at maturity = 23.2 cm, Max length = 76.0 cm T, common length = 37.0 cm TL (male), common length = 65 cm TL (female), max. published weight = 2.3 kg , max. reported age = 12 years (Fish Base 2017). Silver Hake exhibit seasonal onshore-offshore migrations. Spawning takes place from June-July in the mid-Atlantic region; July-August in the Gulf of Maine and to the north of Georges Bank, and August-September on the Scotian Shelf.
Silver Hake are managed as two stocks; a Northern Stock in the GOM and on northern GB, and a Southern Stock on southern GB and the MA. Overfishing occurs when the ratio between the catch and the arithmetic fall survey biomass index from the most recent three years exceeds the overfishing threshold. Silver hake is overfished when the three-year moving average of the fall survey weight per tow (i.e. the biomass threshold) is less than one half the BMSY proxy, where the BMSY proxy is defined as the average observed from 1973-1982. As of the last assessment update in 2014, silver hake is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in the northern or southern management area (NEFSC 2014; Figure 13).
Fishery and Management
10 Annual AP meeting notes available in the ‘Fishery Performance Reports’ found here: http://www.mafmc.org/msb/ 11 Status summaries for all species sourced primarily from “Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US” (e.g. https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pg/silverhake/) and Matelo et al 2016
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 48
SCS Global Services Report
Due to their abundance and availability, silver hake have supported important U.S. and Canadian fisheries as well as distant-water fleets. Landings increased to 137,000 mt in 1973 and then declined sharply with increased restrictions on distant-water fleet effort and implementation of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) in 1977. U.S. landings during 1987-1996 were relatively stable, averaging 16,000 mt per year, but have gradually declined to a historic low of 6,800 mt in 2005. The otter trawl remains the principal gear used in the U.S. fishery, and recreational catches have been low since 1985. Silver hake are managed under the NEFMC's Northeast Multispecies FMP ("non-regulated multispecies" category). In 2000, the NEFMC implemented Amendment 12 to this FMP, and placed silver hake into the “small mesh multispecies” management unit, along with red hake and offshore hake. This amendment established retention limits based on net mesh size, adopted overfishing definitions for northern and southern stocks, identified essential fish habitat for all life stages, and set requirements for fishing gear (NEFMC 2000).
Fishing for whiting occurs primarily under exempted fisheries, which allow for exemption to certain northeast multispecies regulations, such as mesh size and Days at Sea. The bycatch of regulated species must be demonstrated to be minimal and not jeopardize fishing mortality objectives. Gear requirements in the directed whiting fishery depend on the exemption area being fished, but standardized requirements to use specialized trawl gear referred to as raised footrope trawls are required when fishing for whiting. Possession limits for silver hake (and red and offshore hakes), and the list of species permitted of retention in addition to silver, red and offshore hake, depend on the exemption area being fished. For more information on regulations, see https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/whiting/index.html.
UoA Impacts
The UoA, defined as all small mesh bottom trawl (Mid-Atlantic and Northeast), is comprised of nearly 14% whiting, and represents nearly 90% of all whiting landings, according to the SBRM data (Wigley & Tholke 2017). While there is some co-directing by fishermen and squid and whiting are incidentally caught in each respective directed fishery, the percentage is higher than in the directed longfin inshore squid fishery because the gear employed is similar and not differentiated in the SBRM reports or the NEFOP data obtained by the fleet. For comparison, when evaluating catch composition of trips landing >50% longfin inshore squid, silver hake comprises 4.3% of the fishery catch (MAFMC 2014: Table 20).
Discards represent 8% of silver hake catch, where 32% of discards are attributed to the northeast small mesh otter trawl fleet (Wigley & Tholke 2017). According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 6.05% of silver hake caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are discarded. Discards were estimated with 0.272 and 0.309 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 49
SCS Global Services Report
Northern Silver Hake
Southern Silver Hake
Figure 13. Fall survey biomass in kg/tow (LEFT) and relative exploitation ratios (RIGHT) of the total catch to the fall survey indices in kt/kg and associated 3- yr moving averages (red lines). The horizontal dash lines represent the biomass and overfishing thresholds and the solid line is the biomass target. Source: NEFMC 2014.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 50
SCS Global Services Report
Scup Status Scup (Porgy): Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) is a demersal, schooling species distributed in the Mid Atlantic Bight from Cape Cod, MA to Cape Hatteras, NC. Previous tagging studies have indicated the possibility of two stocks, one in Southern New England waters and the other extending south from New Jersey. However, the lack of definitive tag return data from these studies, coupled with distributional information from NEFSC trawl surveys, support the concept of a single unit stock from New England to Cape Hatteras. Scup undertake extensive migrations between coastal waters in summer and offshore waters in winter, migrating north and inshore to spawn in spring. Sexual maturity is essentially complete by age 3 at a total length of 21 cm (O’Brien et al. 1993). Scup attain a maximum fork length of about 40 cm, and ages of up to at least 14 years.
The most recent scup benchmark stock assessment took place in 2015 and found that scup were not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2014 (NEFSC 2015). Spawning stock biomass was estimated to be about 210% of the target biomass. Fishing mortality in 2014 was estimated to be about 57% of the overfishing threshold.
Fishery and Management U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries for scup are managed under the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) administered jointly by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). The principal gear used in commercial fishing for scup is the otter trawl. According to the 2017 SBRM report (Wigley & Tholke 2017), the UoA (NE and MA small mesh bottom trawl) accounted for 74.45% of all scup catch (including kept and discarded).
The recreational rod-and-reel fishery for scup harvests a significant proportion of the total catch. Commercial fishery quotas were implemented in 1997, and landings then ranged between 1,200 mt and 8,100 mt and averaged 4,000 mt during 1997-2014. Reported 2014 commercial fishery landings were 7,228 mt = 15.935 million lbs, about 77% of the commercial quota, and 68% of the total catch. (NEFSC 2015).
UoA Impacts: Discards represent ~22% of scup catch, where ~80% of discards are attributed to the NE and MA small mesh otter trawl fleets (Wigley & Tholke 2017). According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 16.43% of scup caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are discarded. According to the 2017 SBRM report, a CV of 0.155 and 0.217 was achieved for discard estimation in the MA and NE small mesh otter trawl fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
The squid fishery is subject to Southern and Northern Scup Restricted Areas (GRA), November 1- December 31 and January 1-March 31, respectively (Figure 14), implemented in 2000 to decrease discarding of scup, and impacts on juvenile scup in particular, in the longfin and silver hake fisheries. The GRAs have been modified several times since 2000, most recently in 2016. During the specified times for each GRA mesh size of 5.0 inch diamond mesh is required. Observer data have provided evidence that the GRAs have been effective in reducing the scup discards as a percentage of total catch percentage, though overall discards may be increasing with recent increases in quota.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 51
SCS Global Services Report
According to the 2015 benchmark assessment (NEFSC 2015): Both the observed discards (as a function of both increased fishing activity for scup and increased sampled trip number) and the current assessment GMDL estimated fishery discards (as a function of increased fishery quotas and therefore increased fishing activity for scup) have generally increased as the fishery quotas have increased since 2005, although the observed discard percentage of total commercial catch has decreased. Scup commercial fishery estimated discards remain an important component of the commercial fishery removals and averaged about 25% of the estimated total commercial catch during 2010-2014 (with an estimated 11% live discards in 2014).
Figure 14. Scup Gear Restricted Areas applicable to the squid (source: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/images/scupgearrestrictedareas.jpg).
The Southern GRA has been modified as a Framework Adjustment to the scup FMP. The final rule, including detail regarding the revised area boundary can be found online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/09/2016-27020/magnuson-stevens-fishery- conservation-and-management-act-provisions-fisheries-of-the-northeastern/
Atlantic Herring Status
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 52
SCS Global Services Report
The Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, is a schooling, coastal pelagic species that inhabits both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean. In the western North Atlantic they range from Labrador to Cape Hatteras where spring and autumn spawning populations support major commercial fisheries. Juveniles and adults undergo complex north-south and inshore-offshore migrations for feeding, spawning, and overwintering. In U.S. waters, herring from the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank are assessed and managed as a single stock complex with two major spawning components. Males and females mature at around 3-4 years old between 25-27 cm TL. (Reid et. al. 1999).
The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2015 (Deroba 2015). Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points were based on the fit of the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship, estimated internally to the ASAP model, and inputs (e.g., weights-at-age, natural mortality) from the terminal year of the assessment (i.e., 2014). Point estimates of the MSY BRPs equaled: MSY = 77,247 mt, FMSY = 0.24, and SSBMSY = 311,145 mt. The values for these reference points during the previous benchmark assessment were: MSY = 53,000 mt, FMSY = 0.27, and SSBMSY = 157,000 mt. After the correction for retrospective bias, SSB 2014 is ~2 times the SSBMSY and F2014 is ~half of FMSY (Deroba 2015).
Fishery and Management The Atlantic herring fishery is managed in state waters by the ASMFC and in federal waters by the NEFMC. The fishery is managed by a stock-wide annual catch limit (ACL) that is allocated to four distinct management areas (sub-ACLs, also known as management area quotas). Individual states may set different regulations, such as possession/landing restrictions or spawning area closures.
UoA Impacts Atlantic Herring on average comprised 6.69% of the total MA and NE small mesh otter trawl catch (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017). The UoA accounts for just 3.44% of all Atlantic Herring catch according to Wigley & Tholke 2017.
Discards represent ~0.1% of Atlantic Herring catch, where ~92% of discards are attributed to the NE and MA small mesh otter trawl fleets (Wigley & Tholke 2017). According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 2.35% of Atlantic Herring caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are discarded. A CV of 0.492and 0.317 was achieved for discard estimation in the MA and NE small mesh otter trawl fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Status Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, are distributed in the western North Atlantic from Labrador to Florida and are considered to be a unit stock in this region (Burgess 2002). During the colder months, spiny dogfish occur in coastal waters between North Carolina and Southern New England. In summer, dogfish migrate northward to the Gulf of Maine Georges Bank region and into Canadian waters (Jensen 1965). They tend to school by size and, when mature, by sex. Dogfish feed on many species of fish and crustaceans, but generally target the most abundant species (Link et al. 2002). In the Northwest Atlantic, maximum reported ages for males and females are 35 and 40 years, respectively (Nammack et al. 1982). The species bears live young, with a gestation period of about 18 to 22 months, and produce between 2 to 15 pups with an average of 6. Size at maturity for females is around 80 cm, but can vary from 78 cm to 85 cm depending on the abundance of females. (Sosebee 2005).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 53
SCS Global Services Report
For spiny dogfish, Bmsy (proxy) is the spawning stock biomass that maximizes recruitment (SSBmax) in a Ricker type (dome-shaped) stock-recruitment model. SSBmax is estimated to be 159,288 mt (351 M lb) with ½ of that target corresponding to the biomass threshold (79,644 mt; 175.5 M lb). In September 2011, the NEFSC updated their assessment of the spiny dogfish stock using catch data (2010), and results from the 2011 trawl survey. The updated estimate of SSB for 2011 was 169,415 mt (373.496 M lb), about 6% above SSBmax (159,288 mt). Total removals in 2010 were approximately 21.330 M lb corresponding to an F estimate of 0.09, well below Fmsy = 0.2439. According to the 2015 stock assessment update, the spiny dogfish stock is still not overfished or experiencing overfishing (Rago & Sosebee 2015).
The Atlantic Spiny Dogfish is an MSC certified fishery that is currently undergoing re-assessment.
Fishery and Management The principal commercial fishing gears used to catch dogfish are sink gillnets, bottom longlines and trawls. Dogfish are frequently caught as bycatch and discarded during groundfish operations. Gillnets contribute the most to spiny dogfish landings followed by longlines and trawls. Trawls were the most important gear during the 90s when spiny dogfish were so severely overfished. The trawl fishery has been discouraged from participating in the present spiny dogfish fishery by using restrictive trip limits of 6,000 lb per trip, and a limit of 1 trip per calendar day. Recreational and foreign fishing are of minor importance.
The fishery is managed under a Fishery Management Plan developed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils for federal waters and a plan developed concurrently by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for state waters.
UoA Impacts Spiny dogfish are discarded at a rate of approximately 47% in a range of fisheries, where the UoA comprises approximately 25% of all discards. According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 86.21% of spiny dogfish caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are discarded. Discards were estimated with 0.18 and 0.218 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017). These high discard rates are attributable to the low market value of spiny dogfish and their high abundance, and the recent decrease in discard to landing ratios is attributed to more efficient resource utilization.
According to Rago & Sosebee (2016) total discards in 2015 of 8,035 mt were 36% less than the previous 5 year average. Similar patterns were observed for dead discards. There were no major changes in the discarding patterns among fleets. The ratio of dead discards to landings in 2015 decreased to 38%. The ratios of total discards to landings and total dead discards to landings exhibit a generally declining trend since 2004.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 54
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 15. Bycatch (discards) of spiny dogfish by “fishing fleet” (gear type and area). (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
Figure 16. Trends in the ratio of total discards to landings and total dead discards to landings for spiny dogfish, 1989‐2015. Source: Rago & Sosebee 2016
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 55
SCS Global Services Report
Butterfish Status Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) are distributed from the Florida to Nova Scotia, occasionally straying as far north as the Gulf of St Lawrence. Butterfish is a fast growing species that schools by size, makes seasonal inshore and offshore movements, and seldom attains an age greater than 3 years but can occasionally live up to 6 years. Butterfish mature at age 1, spawn during the summer months (June- August), and begin schooling at about 60 mm (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). They exhibit a planktivorous diet, feeding mainly on zooplankton, ctenophores, chaetognaths, euphausiids and other organisms. Butterfish are preyed upon by a large number of medium-sized predatory fishes such as bluefish, weakfish, and spiny dogfish, large pelagic fish including swordfish, marine mammals including pilot whales and common dolphins, seabirds such as greater shearwaters and northern gannets, and invertebrates such as squid (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm145/tm145.pdf).
The butterfish stock was most recently assessed at SARC 58 (2014, but utilizing data through 2012). According to the summary report (NEFSC 2014): The current fishing mortality rate (F2012 = 0.02) is well below the overfishing reference point accepted by SARC 58 (2/3 M = 0.81 [CV = 0.05]; Patterson, 1992). The current SSB (79,451 mt) is well above the accepted biomass reference point 45,616 mt (100.6 million lb) (CV = 0.25). Therefore, based on the point estimates, the stock is considered rebuilt. SSBthreshold is one half the SSBMSY proxy, or 22,808 mt (50.3 million lb). Overfishing is not occurring and the stock is not overfished.
These findings were updated in 2017 using data from 2013-2016, concluding that “The current fishing mortality rate (F2016 = 0.05) is 94% below the overfishing reference point FMSY proxy = 0.81 accepted by SARC 58. The current SSB (64,376 mt) is 41% above the accepted biomass reference point SSBMSY proxy = 45,616 mt (100.6 million lb) (CV = 0.25).” (Adams 2017)
Fishery and Management
Total catches of butterfish increased from 15,167 mt (33.4 million lb) in 1965 to a peak of 39,896 mt (88.0 million lb) in 1973, at which time they were dominated by catches from the offshore foreign fleets. Total catches then declined with the implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, and were completely phased out by 1987. A domestic fishery was developed to supply the Japanese market, leading to a peak catch of 22,401 mt (49.4 million lb) in 1984, and from 1991-2001, catches ranged between 3,928 mt (8.7 million lb) and 12,185 mt (26.9 million lb). Catches were relatively lower during 2002-2012 due to the lack of a directed fishery and management restrictions, and discards comprised a majority of the total butterfish catch, averaging 58% during 1989-2001 and 67% during 2002-2012. The butterfish fishery today is primarily a discard/bycatch species.
Butterfish first came under formal federal management in 1978 and is now managed by the MAFMC in the Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP. The FMP provides for 600lb trip limits for incidental squid/butterfish permits, and unlimited/5,000lb trip limits for moratorium longfin/butterfish permits. In addition, vessels fishing with otter trawl gear that possess 5,000 lb or more of butterfish, must use nets that have a minimum codend mesh of 3 inches (76 mm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 100 continuous meshes forward of the end of the net. For codends
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 56
SCS Global Services Report with less than 100 meshes, one-third of the net must have a minimum mesh of 3 inches, measured from the back of the codend to the headrope. For more detail on management measures, see https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html.
UoA Impacts
In 2005 the butterfish stock was deemed overfished, triggering the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requirements to end overfishing and implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response to the MSA mandate, Amendment 10 to the SMB FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005 which included management measures that reduce fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through bycatch and discarding in the longfin inshore squid fishery. This includes a mortality cap on the directed longfin fishery, and increase of the minimum codend mesh size in the longfin fishery to 2 1/8 in in Trimesters 1 and 3. Later assessments found that butterfish were never overfished but the management measures implemented via Amendment 10 have remained in place.
Discards represent 59% of butterfish catch, where 97% of discards are attributed to the northeast small mesh otter trawl fleet (Wigley & Tholke 2017). According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 40.07% of butterfish caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are discarded. Discards were estimated with 0.255 and 0.221 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
Skate Complex (Main species include: little skate and winter skate) Status
The seven species in the Northeast Region skate complex are: Little Skate (Leucoraja erinacea), Winter Skate (L. ocellata), Barndoor Skate (Dipturus laevis), Thorny Skate (Amblyraja radiata), Smooth Skate (Malacoraja senta), Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria), and Rosette Skate (L. garmani). The Barndoor Skate is the most common skate in the Gulf of Maine. Georges Bank and southern New England is the center of distribution for the Little and Winter skates. The Thorny and Smooth skates typically occur in the Gulf of Maine. The Clearnose and Rosette skates have a more southern distribution, and occur primarily in southern New England and the Chesapeake Bight.
The SBRM reports consider skates at a complex level, and therefore the assessment team looked to NEFOP data to understand the relative catch composition across skate species. Based on the SBRM data, only little skate is greater than 5% by volume and thus classifies as main. However, because winter skates comprise nearly 2% of the catch, there is ~0.5% of catch that could be winter skate (in the little/winter/NK category, and winter skate may be considered less resilient they are also considered main.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 57
SCS Global Services Report
Table 13. Observed catch composition of skate species in the small mesh bottom trawl fishery from 2012-2016 (source: NEFOP).
Total Observed Catch 2012- % of 2016 by Small Mesh Bottom combined Common Name Trawls (NEFOP Data) catch SKATE, LITTLE 1,797,038 5.85% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 502,206 1.63% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 376,693 1.23% SKATE, NK 303,399 0.99% SKATE, BARNDOOR 177,882 0.58% SKATE, LITTLE/WINTER, NK 157,150 0.51% SKATE, ROSETTE 15,597 0.05% SKATE, THORNY 4,552 0.01% SKATE, SMOOTH 1,596 0.01%
Little Skate: Little Skate (Leocoraja erinaces): (formerly Raja erinacea), occurs from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras and is one of the dominant members of the demersal fish community of the northwest Atlantic (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; McEachran and Musick 1975). Its center of abundance is in the northern section of the Mid- Atlantic Bight and on Georges Bank, where it is found year-round over almost the entire range of temperatures recorded for those areas (McEachran and Musick 1975). The egg cases are laid in pairs. Development takes 6-12 months depending on water temperature. Maximum observed length from NEFSC surveys was 62 cm TL, and length and age at maturity were estimated at 50 cm TL and 4 years (Packer et al. 2003).
Winter Skate (Big Skate); Winter Skate (Leucoraja ocellata)
Occurs from the south coast of Newfoundland and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras Its center of abundance is on Georges Bank and in the northern section of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Packer et.al. 2003). As with all skates (Rajiformes), Winter Skates lay benthic, leathery egg cases, usually two at a time. Incubation extends over several weeks (Musick and Ellis 2005) .Egg deposition occurs during summer and fall off Nova Scotia and probably in the Gulf of Maine as well. Egg deposition continues into December and January off southern New England. Winter skates are one of the larger skates in the Gulf of Maine, with a maximum known size of 150 cm TL Size and age at maturity is ca. 78 cm and seven years (Packer et.al. 2003).
Stock Assessments of skate species overfishing is based on a rate of change in the three year moving average for NEFSC Groundfish Survey biomass. Overfishing thresholds vary by species due to normal inter-annual survey variability. According to NEFMC (2016b), based on survey data updated through fall 2014/spring 2015, only thorny skate remains in an overfished condition and no skate species are experiencing overfishing. A summary of stock status provided is as follows:
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 58
SCS Global Services Report
. “For little skate, the 2013-2015 NEFSC average of the spring survey biomass index of 6.75 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point and the biomass target; the species is not overfished. The most recent 3 year moving average is below the 2012-2014 index by 3.4%; overfishing is not occurring. . For winter skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 5.06 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point; the species is not overfished. The most recent 3 year moving average is above the 2011-2013 index by 2%; overfishing is not occurring. . For clearnose skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 0.77 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point and the biomass target; the species is not overfished. The most recent 3 year moving average is below the 2011-2013 index by 23.3%; overfishing is not occurring. . For rosette skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 0.048 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point; the species is not overfished. The most recent 3 year moving average is above the 2011-2013 index by 14.6%; overfishing is not occurring. . For smooth skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 0.19 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point; the species is not overfished but not yet rebuilt (Table 3). The most recent 3 year moving average is below the 2011-2013 index by 12.5%; overfishing is not occurring. . For thorny skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 0.13 kg/tow was well below the biomass threshold reference point; the species is overfished. The most recent 3 year moving average is above the 2011-2013 index by 8.7%; overfishing is not occurring. . For barndoor skate, the 2012-2014 NEFSC average of the fall survey biomass index of 1.41 kg/tow was above the biomass threshold reference point; the species is not overfished but is not yet rebuilt. The most recent 3 year moving average is above the 2011-2013 index by 16.5%; overfishing is not occurring.”
Fishery and Management
Skate landings have two components, one focused on larger skates to cut wings, and the other focused on small skates for bait in other fisheries. Based upon NMFS port sampling data, over 98 percent of skate wing fishery landings are composed of Winter Skate. Similarly, approximately 90 percent of skate bait landings are composed of Little Skate, with the remainder being largely comprised of juvenile Winter Skates. While in most circumstances it is unlawful to retain, land, or possess Barndoor, Thorny, and Smooth skates, vessels and fish dealers must still report the unauthorized landing of these (NOAA 2014).
NMFS implemented the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (Skate FMP) in September 2003. The FMP required both dealers and vessels to report skate landings by species, includes possession prohibitions of barndoor, thorny, and smooth skates in the Gulf of Maine, implemented a trip limit of 10,000 lbs (4,536 kg) for winter skate, and requires fishermen to obtain a Letter of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 59
SCS Global Services Report
Authorization to exceed trip limits for the little skate bait fishery. In 2010, Amendment 3 to the Skate FMP implemented a rebuilding plan for smooth skate and established an ACL and annual catch target for the skate complex, total allowable landings for the skate wing and bait fisheries, and seasonal quotas for the bait fishery. Possession limits were reduced, in-season possession limit triggers were implemented, as well as other measures to improve management of the skate fisheries.
UoA Impacts
Discards represent 73% of skate complex catch, where 13% of discards are attributed to the northeast small mesh otter trawl fleet (Wigley & Tholke 2017). According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 90.83% of skates caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic were discarded. Discards were estimated with 0.137 and 0.212 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017). Specifications for the Skate Complex in 2012-2013 used a 20% and 12% discard mortality rate for little and winter skates, respectively.
Primary Minor Species
Minor species do not receive the same depth of consideration as main species in the MSC system. Therefore, key status and management information is presented in the following table for minor species comprising >0.50% of UoA catch by weight. As noted in section “Species Classification for Assessment Purposes” above, species comprising <0.50% of catch by weight in the UoA are not explicitly considered in the background. A complete dataset summarizing the SBRM and NEFOP data are available in Appendices 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 14. Key status and management information for minor primary species (comprising >0.50% of total catch)
Avg UoA as Catch as % of Mgmt Species % of total Last Stock Assessment3 Overfished? Overfishing? Body total species UoA Catch 2 Flounder, 1.50% Stock Assessment Update of Summer MAFMC (SBRM1) 15.27% Summer flounder for 2016, NEFSC No Yes (Fluke) CRD 16-15 Ann. Monitoring Report for Fishing 2.58% Hake, Red Year 2014 with a Red hake NEFMC (SBRM) 81.51% No No (Ling) operational assessment for
calendar year 2014 (by NEFMC) SEDAR 25 Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Black Sea Sea Bass, MAFMC 1.22% Bass Update, March 2013, 43.75% No No Black +ASFMC (SBRM) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/ Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopN um=25
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 60
SCS Global Services Report
Not Known, Croaker, 1.67% ASFMC NA 2010, new assessment in progress but biomass No Atlantic (NEFOP) increasing Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Operational Assessment of 20 Northeast 1.11% Haddock NEFMC 6.16% Groundfish Stocks, Updated No No (SBRM) Through 2014. U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 15-24; 251 p. MAFMC 2013 Monkfish Operational 0.50% Monkfish & 2.86% Assessment" A. Richards and P. No No (SBRM) NEFMC Nitschke; NEFSC CRD13-23 (2013) 1average of 2016 and 2017 SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016; Wigley & Tholke 2017) 2(Wigley & Tholke 2017) 3According to National Marine Fisheries Service - 2016 Status of U.S. Fisheries Stock Assessments and other Sources that support Status Determinations.
3.4.6 Secondary Species
Shortfin Squid (Illex illecebrosus) The northern shortfin squid is not considered a Primary species according to MSC definitions (FCR V2.0 SA3.1.3.3) because it is not managed based on biological reference points (limit or target reference points). The northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) stock was most recently assessed at SARC 42 (2006). It was not possible to evaluate current stock status because there are no reliable current estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality rate. In addition, no projections were made in SAW 42. SAW 37 (the previous assessment) also could not evaluate current stock status because there were no reliable estimates of absolute stock biomass or fishing mortality to compare with existing reference points. However, based on a number of qualitative analyses, it was determined that overfishing was not likely to have occurred during 1999-2002.
Relative abundance and biomass indices are calculated based on regular Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl surveys, which have been conducted since 1967. Relative abundance and biomass indices were highly variable during 1967-2013, as is typical for squid species given their sub-annual lifespans and the fact that spatial distribution and recruitment are primarily determined by environmental factors. Despite this variability, periods of high and low abundance are apparent. Periods of high abundance, during 1976-1981 and 1987-1990, were preceded by periods of low abundance during 1967-1974 and 1982-1986, respectively. During most years between 1991 and 2002, relative abundance was 50% above and below the time series median of 8.0 squid per tow. Relative abundance was highly variable during 2003-2006 then declined to a level below the median in 2013 (4.7 squid per tow). During 2014, relative abundance increased and was slightly above the median.
A portion of the stock seasonally resides and is also fished outside U.S. waters, but landings have been mostly from U.S. waters, during most years, since 1998. The northern stock component, extending from Newfoundland to the Scotian Shelf, is assessed annually and managed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) based on a total allowable catch (TAC)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 61
SCS Global Services Report
Because there are no available reference points for the management of shortfin squid, the RBF was triggered in accordance with FCRV2.0 Table 3. The outcome score for shortfin squid was determined using the RBF: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). The process and findings of this exercise are detailed in Appendix 1.2.
Fishery and Management
Shortfin squid are managed alongside longfin, butterfish, and mackerel under the MSB FMP. The FMP for shortfin and longfin inshore squid were created together in 1978. During this time, foreign fishing dominated. During the period 1973-1982, foreign landings of Illex in U.S. waters averaged about 18,000 mt, while U.S. fisherman averaged only slightly more than 1,100 mt per year. Foreign landings from 1983-1986 were part of the U.S. joint venture fishery which ended in 1987. The domestic fishery for Illex increased fitfully during the 1980's as foreign fishing was eliminated in the U.S. EEZ. Illex landings are heavily influenced by year-to-year availability and world-market activity and vary substantially year to year.
Shortfin squid can be landed with unlimited trip landings (until 95% of the Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) limit is reached) for vessels with a moratorium permit. Vessels holding an incidental permit can harvest up to 10,000 lb of shortfin per trip, and this limit applies to moratorium vessels once the quota is reached. ACL overages do not apply due to the semelparous lifecycle of shortfin squid. There are no minimum mesh size requirements for shortfin squid. Vessels fishing for Illex squid with otter trawl gear that possess longfin squid during June, July, August, and September seaward of the following coordinates (listed at bottom of page) are exempt from the longfin minimum mesh sizes, provided they do not have any net or piece of net with a mesh size less than 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) diamond mesh available for immediate use, when the vessel is landward of the exemption area boundary.
UoA Impacts
The UoA, defined as all small mesh bottom trawl (Mid-Atlantic and Northeast), is comprised of nearly 12% shortfin squid, and represents ~95% of all shortfin squid landings, according to the SBRM data (Wigley et al 2016; Wigley & Tholke 2017). Shortfin squid are targeted by a subset of the UoA (small mesh bottom trawl fleet), and operationally longfin inshore squid is considered bycatch in temporally and geographically focused directed fishery for Illex, where significant co-encountering of shortfin and longfin inshore squid occurs only in some years and typically when the longfin population is particularly large. This nuance is not apparent in aggregated data characterized by the gear with encompasses both directed fisheries.
Discards represented 3% and 19% of shortfin squid catch, where 100% and 74% of discards were attributed to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic small mesh otter trawl fleets in the 2014-2015, and 2015- 2016 July-June years respectively (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017). Discards were estimated with 0.264 and 0.247 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively (Wigley & Tholke 2017).Looking back further at earlier SBRM reports, in the 2013-2014 season (2015 report) 12% of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 62
SCS Global Services Report shortfin squid were discarded and in the season preceding this only 2% was discarded (2014 report)12. In these years the small mesh bottom otter trawl fleet is responsible for >85% of discards. According to the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), a total of 5.24% of shortfin squid caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic were discarded, though the year-over variability ranged significantly from 18.14% in the 2016 report and 5.94% in the 2017 report. The 2017 SBRM report states that 99.9% of discards were attributed to ‘No Market’ (Wigley & Tholke 2017), and this as the predominant discard reason is consistent across all reports reviewed by the team.
The presence of Illex on U.S. EEZ fishing grounds is highly variable, as the stock distribution expands North, South, and East of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and has a temporal presence on the shelf. Low market demand and unpredictability of the presence of Illex may contribute to discards by vessels, and management attributes years of higher discard rates as typically due to years where there is greater spatial overlap with the longfin inshore squid directed fishery. Fishery Performance reports13 often cite the unpredictability of availability of the species as a key environmental challenge. Despite the variability in discards, total catch of Illex in recent years have been well below the quota (22,915 mt). Management has continued to exempt targeted Illex trips from minimum mesh size requirements, where smaller mesh is typically used in the Illex fishery because the body shape of the species causes it to incur damage, or ‘gill up’, in larger meshes. There is also a high incidental limit for Illex at 10,000lb per trip, which is set high to minimize regulatory discards (J. Didden, pers. comm).
Minor Secondary Species All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. The assessment team has elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1). Also noted above, species that comprise <0.50% of the catch by weight are not considered explicitly in the background. A complete list of species found in the catch according to SBRM and NEFOP data are found in Appendices 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 15. Key status and management information for minor primary species (comprising >0.50% of total catch)
Species Common Scientific Management % of UoA Abundance and status information Name name Catch available (NEFOP data) Horseshoe crab Limulus ASFMC 1.92% Trends vary by sub-region. Declines in polyphemus New York, New England Northern sea robin Prionotus NA 1.12% Some distribution data available from carolinus NEFSC** Spotted hake Urophycis NA 1.03% Some distribution data available from regius NEFSC** Atlantic Mackerel Scomber MAFMC 1.32%* See NEFSC 2017b. scombrus
12 All SBRM reports are available online at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/SBRM/ 13 All Fishery Performance Reports are available online at: http://www.mafmc.org/msb/
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 63
SCS Global Services Report
Smooth Dogfish Mustelus NA 0.83% Some distribution data available from canis NEFSC** Striped sea robin Prionotus NA 0.73% Some distribution data available from evolans NEFSC** Fourspot flounder Hippoglossina NA 0.69% Some distribution data available from oblonga NEFSC** *SBRM percentage (because federally managed). Not recorded as >1% of catch in NEFOP data. ** https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/spatial-analyses/
3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species
ETP species include species recognized by international agreements specified under FCRV2.0 SA3.1.5.2, including CITES Appendix 1 and out-of-scope species classified as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered by the IUCN. In addition, species recognized under national legislation are also qualified as ETP.
The national legislative basis for the protection of ETP species relevant to this assessment is found in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The legislation is briefly introduced here and the current impact evaluations of the UoA under the respective legislative frameworks relative to the protected species are discussed in further detail below. NOAA’s Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is the program responsible for protecting marine mammals and endangered/threatened marine life. The OPR works in cooperation with NOAA regional offices and science centers. Responsibilities of the program include; listing species under the ESA and designating critical habitat, developing and implementing recovery plans for listed species; consulting on any Federal actions that may affect a listed species to minimize the effects of the action; investigating violations of the ESA and authorizing research on protected species. The NMFS Office of Protected Species collects and analyses data on interactions between fisheries and ETP species using data primarily from observer programs and logbooks in commercial fisheries, scientific surveys at sea, standings on shore. These data sources are reviewed annually to monitor impacts on ETP species and to ensure resources are allocated for additional at sea observer coverage for fisheries that are considered a risk to ETP species.
Eligible Species and Recorded Interactions The 2015-2017 Specifications for the Longfin Squid Fishery (MAFCM 2014) reports that numerous species which inhabit the environment within the management unit of this FMP that are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (i.e., for those designated as threatened or endangered) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). As of 2014, eighteen species are classified as endangered or threatened under the ESA, while the rest are protected by the provisions of the MMPA. The specifications detail the subset of these species that are known to have interacted with the MSB fisheries and these are starred in the list below (directly pasted from the 2014 specifications (MAFMC 2014), and it is noted that these include several candidate species (species being considered for listing as an endangered or threatened species). Seabirds were not included under ETP considerations in the specifications document, thus seabird species are not listed below.
Cetacean Species Status
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 64
SCS Global Services Report
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) -West Indies DPS Protected Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus Endangered Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Protected Beaked whales (Ziphius and Mesoplodon spp.) Protected *Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Protected *Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.) Protected *White-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) Protected *Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Protected Spotted and striped dolphins (Stenella spp.) Protected *Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Protected
Sea Turtles Species Status
*Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) -North Atlantic DPS Threatened Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered *Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) -Northwest Atlantic DPS Threatened Fish Species Status
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered Atlantic salmon – Gulf of Main DPS (Salmo salar) Endangered *Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) Chesapeake Bay DPS Endangered New York Bight DPS Endangered Carolina DPS Endangered South Atlantic DPS Endangered Gulf of Maine DPS Threatened Cusk (Brosme brosme) Candidate
The NEFOP data for the small mesh bottom trawl fleet also contained information on fishery interactions with ETP species. From 2012-2016 there have been 88 incidental interactions with marine mammals and 61 with turtles. 91% of marine mammal and 15% of sea turtle interactions were recorded as dead (primarily ‘dead fresh’). The species recorded aligned with those notes in the specifications document (marked with *), with the exception of bottlenose dolphin and addition of harbor and gray seals and green and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles. Interactions with common dolphins accounted for 87% of the marine mammal interactions, and loggerhead turtle interactions accounted for 83% of sea turtle interactions. It should be noted that 2 turtle deaths (1 loggerhead and one NK) were recorded as
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 65
SCS Global Services Report
“Severely Decomposed”. Seabirds were not included in the MSB specifications but observer data on interactions is included in the section on seabirds below.
Marine Mammals: Protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), enacted on 1972, protects all marine mammals. Similarly to the ESA, the MMPA prohibits the "take" of marine mammals, with certain exceptions, including special cases for subsistence, scientific research, and permits authorizing incidental take of marine mammals to commercial fishing operations. Under the MMPA NMFS assesses all marine mammal stocks, and for all stocks provides a description of the stock's geographic range, a "minimum population estimate", current population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, "Potential Biological Removal" (PBR) levels, status of the stock, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury by source, and descriptions of other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding the recovery of "strategic stocks" (stocks for which human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR) . NMFS reviews reports for "strategic stocks" of marine mammals annually. For non-strategic stocks, reports are reviewed every three years, or when new information becomes available. Under section 118 of the MMPA, NMFS must publish and annually update the List of Fisheries (LOF), which places all U.S. commercial fisheries in one of three categories based on the level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in each fishery (arranging them according to a two tiered classification system). The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as additional Northeast Fishery Observer Program observer coverage or take reduction plan requirements.
The classification criteria for the annually updated LOF consists of a two tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock (Tier 1) and then addresses the impact of the individual fisheries on each stock (Tier 2). If the total annual mortality and serious injury of all fisheries that interact with a stock is less than 10% of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) for the stock then the stock is designated as Tier 1 and all fisheries interacting with this stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to categorization under Tier 2. Under Tier 2, individual fisheries are subject to the following categorization: . Category I. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50% of the PBR level; . Category II. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than one percent and less than 50% of the PBR level; or . Category III. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than one percent of the PBR level.
PBR is the product of minimum population size, one-half the maximum productivity rate, and a “recovery” factor (MMPA Sec. 3. 16 U.S.C. 1362; Wade and Angliss 1997). The PBR level is the product of the following factors: the minimum population estimate of the stock; one-half the maximum
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 66
SCS Global Services Report theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size; and a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0. PBR is really designed as a metric to be used when comparing all estimated annual, anthropogenic mortalities, so as to decide if a marine mammal stock should be considered a strategic stock. A strategic stock is defined by the MMPA "as a marine mammal stock-- for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA." While there is considerable analysis that goes into estimating PBR, in fact it is not a limit as compared to fishery based limits (target and threshold).
The current List of Fisheries is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/.
The longfin squid fishery using small mesh bottom trawls is represented by the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, both of which are considered Category II. The Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery is classified under Category II the basis that “The total mortality and serious injury of common dolphins (Western North Atlantic [WNA] stock), long-finned pilot whales (WNA stock), Risso's dolphins (WNA), and short-finned pilot whales (WNA stock) in this fishery is greater than 1% and less than 50% of each of the stocks’ PBR.” The Northeast Bottom Trawl fishery is classified as Category 2 on the basis that “The total annual mortality and serious injury of white-sided dolphins (Western North Atlantic [WNA] stock) in this fishery is greater than 1% and less than 50% of the stock’s Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level.” NMFS has authority to place observers on any Category I or II vessel, but as a Category II fishery it is not required to address marine mammal interactions with a Take Reduction Team (TRT) process; however, the fishery has been subject to a Take Reduction Team (see below) in the past, based on classification of the midwater trawl gear type.
The MSB fishery (midwater trawl) was elevated to Category 1 in 2001, thereafter reduced to Category II in 2007. In April 2003, a settlement agreement was signed between the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and NMFS requiring the agency to convene a Take Reduction Team (TRT) to address takes of pilot whales and common dolphins in the Atlantic Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish fisheries (as a Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery) by September 30, 2006. The settlement agreement also required that NMFS conduct abundance surveys and observer programs for the fishery in order to obtain at least two successive years of updated marine mammal injury and mortality estimates for common dolphins and pilot whales prior to convening the take reduction team. As mandated by the settlement agreement, NMFS has undertaken stock assessment surveys for pilot whales and common dolphins, as well as white-sided dolphins.
Team meetings were held in September 2006 and April 2007 to evaluate bycatch of long-finned pilot whales, short-finned pilot whales, common dolphins, and white-sided dolphins in trawl fisheries. Subsequently, the estimates of annual human-caused serious injury and mortality to these stocks was determined to be below their respective PBR levels and the creation of a regulatory take reduction plan under the MMPA requirements was not warranted. However, NMFS and the Team finalized the non-
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 67
SCS Global Services Report regulatory Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy (ATGTRS) in December 2008. The ATGTRS provides recommendations to NMFS for compiling additional data on fishery interactions with long- and short-finned pilot whales, whitesided dolphins, and common dolphins, conducting education and outreach on these fishery interactions, and establishing research priorities for these species. The ATGTRS also includes voluntary mitigation measures for trawl fishermen intended to reduce fishery interactions with these marine mammal stocks.
Quantitative UoA Impacts and Status Information
The following is a description of species of concern because they are protected under MMPA and have had documented interactions with fishing gears used to harvest species managed under the MSB FMP based on observer data, specification documents, and/or LOF classifications.
Table 16 provides a summary of recorded interactions with marine mammals according to the NEFOP data provided for the small mesh bottom trawl fleet from 2012-2016. It is important to note that this data represents just a portion of fishing effort so does not represent an estimate of total annual interactions.
Table 16. NEFOP observed incidental interactions with marine mammals by the small mesh bottom trawl fleet 2012-2016. (Note these are raw observer numbers and are not extrapolated to the fleet level.)
Avg % Recorded 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dead Marine Mammals DOLPHIN, COMMON (OLD SADDLEBACK) 22 13 8 20 13 96% DOLPHIN, NK (MAMMAL) 1 0% DOLPHIN, RISSOS 1 1 0% DOLPHIN, WHITESIDED 1 0% SEAL, GRAY 1 2 1 1 100% SEAL, HARBOR 1 1 50% WHALE, PILOT, NK 1 100%
Information on each species presented below is primarily from the MSB Specifications (MAFMC 2014), with updates from the most recent LOF and Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) from NMFS where relevant (available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/).
Common dolphin (PBR = 557, all fisheries annual take 2010-2014 = 409)
The common dolphin may be one of the most widely distributed species of cetaceans, as it is found worldwide in temperate, tropical, and subtropical seas. They are widespread from Cape Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35° to 42° North latitude) in outer continental shelf waters from mid- January to May. Exact total numbers of common dolphins off the U.S. or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown, although the most recent Stock Assessment Report considers the best abundance estimate for common dolphins to be 70,184 (Coefficient of Variation (CV) =0.28). The most recent SAR notes that
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 68
SCS Global Services Report the population estimate is now substantially lower than the previous estimate, not due to a decline in stock abundance, but rather exclusion of data from surveys in Canadian waters.
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 52 animals (CV=0.2). The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 243 animals (CV=0.14). The portion of these estimates attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012-2016 reports 74 interactions with common dolphins recorded as dead or unknown.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) (PBR = 304, all fisheries annual take 2010-2014 = 74)
Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) are found in temperate and sub-polar waters of the North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100m depth contour. The exact total number of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) along the eastern U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown, although the best available current abundance estimate for white-sided dolphins in the western North Atlantic stock is 48,819 (CV=0.61).
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 51 animals (CV=0.16). The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 1.9 animals (CV=0.94). The portion attributable to the specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012- 2016 reports 1 interaction with an Atlantic white-sided dolphin, which was released alive.
Long-finned (Globicephala melas) and short-finned (Globicephala macrorhynchus) pilot whales (PBR = 35+ 159=198, all fisheries annual take 2010-2014 = 38 + 192*= 227) *Pelagic Longline
There are two species of pilot whales in the Western Atlantic - the Atlantic (or long-finned) pilot whale, Globicephala melas, and the short-finned pilot whale, G. macrorhynchus. These species (sp.) are difficult to identify to the species level at sea. Preliminary analysis suggests the following distribution of the two species: sightings south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay are likely short-finned pilot whales, as are offshore (near the 4,000m depth contour) sightings from off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay through off New Jersey. Sightings from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to the Southern Edge of Georges Bank along the 100/1,000 m depth contours are likely mixed. Sightings in the Gulf of Maine and east and north of Cape Cod are likely long-finned pilot whales, as are sightings in shelf waters immediately southeast of Nantucket. The best estimate population size for short-finned pilot whales is 21,515 (C.V. = 0.37) and for long-finned pilot whales to be 5,636 (C.V. = 0.35).
According to the 2017 stock assessment summary, the long-finned pilot whale is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but the western North Atlantic stock is considered strategic under the MMPA because the mean annual human-caused mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR. The status of this stock relative to an optimum sustainable population level in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown and there are insufficient data to determine the population trends for this stock.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 69
SCS Global Services Report
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality of long-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 33.2 animals (CV=0.15). There were zero mortalities of short-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast fleet and no estimated mortalities for the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fleet over this period for either species. The portion attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012- 2016 reports 1 interaction with a pilot whale, which was recorded as a mortality.
Based on the most recent impact estimation and PBR, northeast bottom trawl fleet, as defined under the LOF, merits classification as a Category 1 fishery because the estimated mortality from the composite fleets is >50% of the PBR. There is significant uncertainty in the stock assessment, where methodologies to separate the long-finned and short-finned pilot whale stocks is under development, and the 2017 stock assessment report (available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm) states that the 2011 surveys that support the population estimate likely underestimate overall abundance because they did not survey the Scotian Shelf where high densities of pilot whales have been observed. However, the published stock assessment is expected to represent the best available information.
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) (PBR = 126, all fisheries annual take 2010-2014 = 53.6)
Risso's dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate seas, and in the Northwest Atlantic occur from Florida to eastern Newfoundland. Off the east U.S. coast, Risso's dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras northward to Georges Bank during spring, summer, and autumn. In winter, the range is in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and extends outward into oceanic waters. The best population estimate for the western North Atlantic Risso’s dolphin is 18,250 (CV=0.46).
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 1.8 animals (CV=0.47). The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 38 animals (CV=0.35). The portion attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012- 2016 reports 2 interactions with Risso’s dolphins, both of which were released alive.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Offshore Form. (PBR = 561, all fisheries annual take = 39.4)
There are two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes described as the coastal and offshore forms. Both inhabit waters in the western North Atlantic Ocean along the U.S. Atlantic coast. According from a 2014 NEFSC report, the best available estimate for the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins in the western North Atlantic is 77,532 (CV=0.40).
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 2.8 animals (CV=0.62). The 2007-2011 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 19 animals (CV=0.28). The portion attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, and there were no recorded interactions with Bottlenose dolphins in observer data from NEFOP from 2012-0216.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 70
SCS Global Services Report
Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina vitulina). (PBR = 2,006, all fisheries annual take = 389) The harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) is found in all nearshore waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans and adjoining seas above about 30ºN. Although the stock structure of the western North Atlantic subspecies (P. v. concolor) is unknown, it is thought that harbor seals found along the eastern U.S. and Canadian coasts represent one population. Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine and occur seasonally along the southern New England to New Jersey coasts from September through late May. The best available estimate for the Western North Atlantic Stock of Harbor Seals is 75,834 (CV=0.15).
Harbor seals were added to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl LOF in 2012. The 2017 LOF notes that in March 2009, a harbor seal was killed in a bottom trawl targeting Longfin inshore squid. The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 4 animals (CV=0.44). The 2010- 2014 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 11 animals (CV=0.62). The portion attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012-2016 reports 2 interactions with harbor seals, with 1 seal released alive.
Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus atlantica). (PBR = unknown, all fisheries annual take = 4,937) The gray seal (Halichoerus grypus atlantica) is found on both sides of the North Atlantic, with three major populations: eastern Canada, northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. The western North Atlantic stock is equivalent to the eastern Canada population, and ranges from New Jersey to Labrador where the stock is separated by geography, differences in the breeding season, and mitochondrial and nuclear DNA variation from the northeastern Atlantic stocks. Tissue samples collected from Canadian and U.S. populations confirm that recolonization by Canadian gray seals is the source of the U.S. population. Current estimates of the total western Atlantic gray seal population are not available; however, the level of human-caused mortality and serious injury in the U.S. EEZ is considered “insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate” relative to the stock size in Canadian and U.S. waters.
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 33 animals (CV=0.17). The 2010-2014 average annual mortality attributed to the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl was 18 animals (CV=0.5). The portion attributable to specific fisheries is unknown, but NEFOP data from 2012-2016 reports 5 interactions with gray seals, all recorded as deaths.
Sea Turtles and Sturgeon: Protected under the Endangered Species Act
The ESA, signed on 1973, provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. NOAA has jurisdiction over 159 endangered and threatened marine species and works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage ESA-listed species. Generally, NOAA manages marine species, while USFWS manages land and freshwater species. When a species is listed as endangered it is illegal to “take” (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to do these things) that species. Section 10 of the ESA allows NOAA Fisheries Service to issue permits for incidental take, with the requirement of a conservation plan to minimize and mitigate impacts to the affected species. NMFS’ Office of Law
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 71
SCS Global Services Report
Enforcement works with the U.S. Coast Guard and other partners to enforce and prosecute ESA violations (NOAA).
Section 9 of the ESA prohibit take of endangered species, but under the terms of section 7(b) (4) and section 7(o) (2), taking that is incidental to and not the purpose of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. This statement must include the impact of incidental taking and reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize impacts which are considered non-discretionary. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon.
The Biological Opinion considers a description of proposed actions (e.g. the continued implementation of the FMPs), status of species (unlikely to be adversely affected and potentially affected), the environmental baseline including other human impacts and ongoing initiatives to reduce threats to ESA species, climate change effects, the effects of the proposed actions (fisheries) on ESA-listed species, cumulative effects, and a conclusion that includes incidental take statements, reasonable and prudent measures, conservation recommendations and terms for reinitiating consultation14.
Reasonable and Prudent measures include requirements for permit holders regarding sea turtles, Atlantic Sturgeon and Atlantic salmon, including but not limited to requirements to possess handling and resuscitation requirements, continued development and distribution of training materials for commercial fishermen, continued investigation into gear modification and implementation where appropriate within a reasonable timeframe, continued review of all data available on take and review of whether there are particular conditions or areas where take is most likely, continued deployment of observers to monitor interactions to ensure that monitoring detects exceedance of ITS, continued monitoring and recording of entanglement and associated gear such that any adverse impact is monitored, continued tagging and tissue sampling, and continued implementation of serious injury guidelines to better assess and evaluate injuries for potential population impact. (NMFS 2013; NMFS 2016b)
Candidate species for ESA listing receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA for the purposes of federally managed fishery specifications; however, NMFS recommends considering conservation actions to limit the potential for adverse effects on candidate species (MAFMC
14 Per 50 CFR 402.16, “reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In the event that the amount or extent of take is exceeded, NMFS NERO must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation. In addition [for the 2013 BiOp regarding the seven Northeast commercial fisheries, re-initiation will be required if… (1) more than three mortalities or serious injuries of North Atlantic right whales; or (2) more than eight mortalities or serious injuries of humpback whales; or (3) more than three mortalities or serious injuries of fin whales; and/or (4) more than two mortalities or serious injuries of sei whales.” (NMFS 2013)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 72
SCS Global Services Report
2014). According to MAFMC (2014) the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Northeast Regional Office has initiated review of recent stock assessments, bycatch information, and other information for these candidate species which will be incorporated in the status review reports for candidate species.
The impact of the MSB fishery, amongst seven Northeast fisheries, on ESA-listed species was considered in a 2013 Biological Opinion. This consultation is required under Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) which state that each Federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. As an implementing agency, NMFS has conducted this as an intra- service consultation. This consultation followed a 2010 Biological Opinion issued for the MSB fishery, based on a consultation triggered by sea turtle interactions.
Several ESA-listed species were determined unlikely to be adversely affected, and three primary groups of species were evaluated for impact: large whales, sea turtles, and sturgeon. None of the large whale species have recorded impacts in the small mesh bottom trawl fishery, and therefore this report will focus on ESA-listed sea turtles and sturgeon impacts (also noting the consideration of marine mammals under the MMPA above).
In October 2017 NMFS GARFO reinitiated the 2013 Fishery Biological Opinion due to new information regarding the status of the North Atlantic Right whale.
Sea Turtles (Various Species)
The 2013 Biological Opinion for the MSB (NMFS 2013) contains detailed information on sea-turtle interactions. This document updates information on sea turtle interactions with trawl gear in the MSB fisheries. Summary information is provided below and the full document above may be consulted for details. The Opinion concluded that Mid-Atlantic fisheries (including MSB) “may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of” Loggerhead (specifically, the NWA DPS), leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles.
The primary species likely to be adversely affected by the MSB fishery would be loggerhead sea turtles, as they are the most abundant species occurring in U.S. Atlantic waters. Sea sampling and observer data indicate that fewer interactions occur between fisheries that capture MSB and leatherback, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. The primary area of impact of the directed commercial fishery for MSB on sea turtles is likely bottom otter trawls in waters of the Mid-Atlantic from Virginia through New York, from late spring through fall (peak longfin squid abundance July-October). In New England, interactions with trawl gear may occur in summer through early fall (peak squid abundance August -September), although given the level of effort, the probability of interactions is much lower than in the Mid-Atlantic. Interactions are known to occur more persistently south of 37 degrees N, in warm shallow waters. However, high interaction rate areas are not necessarily inclusive of high interaction-magnitude areas. For example, although predicted interaction rates were highest south of 37 °N, estimated adult
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 73
SCS Global Services Report equivalents were higher between 37 and 39 °N as a result of greater fishing effort and the presence of reproductively valuable turtles. (Murray 2015; Warden 2011a,b)
Sea Turtle Species Status Summaries
The GARFO Protected Resources Division provided the assessment team with summaries of available information on status and trends for the four turtle species known to interact with the fishery:
Loggerhead
As designated in the 2008 loggerhead Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 2008), the Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of loggerheads is divided into five recovery units, representing nesting assemblages. These are: (1) the Northern Recovery Unit (NRU: Florida/Georgia border through southern Virginia); (2) the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU: Florida/Georgia border through Pinellas County, FL); (3) the Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU: islands located west of Key West, FL); (4) the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU: Franklin County, FL through Texas); and (5) the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU: Mexico through French Guiana, Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles). Index beach nesting in the largest recovery unit, PFRU, had a 24% increase in nesting from 1989 to 1998, followed by a 42% decline from 1998 to 2007. Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), annual nests have increased. Overall, from 1989 to 2016, there a slight positive but not statistically significant nesting trend (FFWCC 2017 unpub. data). The second largest recovery unit, NRU, found no significant trend in nesting from 1983-2014. Nesting in 2015 was near 2013 levels.
Other Turtles: Kemp’s ridley, green, and leatherback
The Bi-National Recovery Plan for Kemp’s ridleys (NMFS et al. 2011) contained a model that predicted the population to grow 19% per year from 2010-2020. However, the increase in nesting numbers stopped after 2009, and an updated model found a population decline of over 40% per year (Heppell unpublished data in NMFS and USFWS 2015). These results indicate the population is not recovering. Green turtle nesting in the North Atlantic Distinct Population Segment is considered to be increasing (Seminoff et al. 2015). In particular, Statewide Florida surveys have shown an increasing trend of green sea turtle nesting since 1989 (FFWCC 2017 unpub. data).
In the Atlantic, an increasing or stable population trend for leatherbacks is seen in all regions except the Western Caribbean and West Africa (TEWG 2007). The largest population in the Atlantic, French Guinea and Suriname, is found to have a stable population (based on nest numbers 1977 to 2005; Fossette et al. 2008). Stewart et al. (2011) evaluated nest counts from 68 Florida beaches over 30 years (1979-2008) and found that nesting increased at all beaches with trends ranging from 3.1%-16.3% per year, with an overall increase of 10.2% per year. Florida nest counts since 2008 have been increasing (FFWCC 2017 unpub. data).
Quantitative UoA Impacts
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 74
SCS Global Services Report
According to NEFOP, there were 61 observed interactions with sea turtles from 2012-2016, including 51 interactions with loggerheads, and sporadic interactions with leatherback, kemps ridley and green turtles (0-2 per year). It is important to note that this data represents just a portion of fishing effort so does not represent an estimate of total annual interactions.
Table 17. NEFOP observed incidental interactions with turtles by the small mesh bottom trawl fleet 2012-2016.
Avg % Recorded 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dead TURTLE, GREEN 1 1 0% TURTLE, KEMPS RIDLEY 2 0% TURTLE, LEATHERBACK 1 1 50% TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD 19 12 9 5 6 14% TURTLE, NK HARD-SHELL 2 2 25%
As noted previously, the SBRM is required report annual discards of sea turtles using information obtained from the NEFOP, and the number of sea days needed to monitor the species groups for the next year. The 2017 SBRM report (NEFSC 2017) states that for loggerhead turtles, the most abundant and likely for interaction, 3,300 days were determined needed across all bottom trawl fisheries, parsed then across types and regions of bottom trawl. Estimates of sea day needs are revised as new bycatch estimates are available for each gear type, which is approximately every 5 years. There are too few observed interactions to estimate total bycatch and CVs for non-loggerhead turtle species using the model based approaches.
Table 18. The most recent average annual estimates of sea turtle interactions and their associated coefficient of variation (CV) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic commercial fisheries. (NEFSC 2017)
Fishery Estimate CV Years Included Species Reference Bottom trawl, for 231 0.13 01 Jan 2009-2013 Loggerhead Murray 2015a fish and scallops Sea Scallop 22 0.73 01 Jan 2009 - 2014 Loggerhead Murray 2015b Dredge Sink Gillnet 89 0.26 01 Jan 2007-2001 Loggerhead Murray 2013 Sink Gillnet 95 0.21 01 Jan 2007-2011 Hard-shelled Murray 2013
When estimated interactions are pro-rated across fisheries (by weight of species landed on each trip), the longfin inshore squid fishery is estimated to have the third highest interactions of all bottom trawl fisheries, behind Atlantic croaker and summer flounder. Each year, 42 (CV: 0.26, CI 23-66) loggerheads were estimated to interact with longfin squid trawls. One of these interactions was an unobservable yet quantifiable interaction. (Murray 2015) This is higher than the previous estimate by Warden (2011a, b) which put the pro-rated interactions with loggerheads at 23 per year.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 75
SCS Global Services Report
Overall, estimated interactions with trawl gear have gone down with the exception that in 2014 the longfin inshore squid fishery saw elevated observed interactions; otherwise the average annual interactions for the longfin inshore squid bottom trawl fleet have been stable.
Management Measures
Oceana has challenged the adequacy of NMFS’ 2013 Biological Opinion on these 7 FMPs regarding the likelihood that continued operation of these fisheries will be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles (Oceana, Inc., v. Pritzker, et al., No. 1:12-cv-00041-PLF (D.D.C.)). The Plaintiff, Oceana, Inc., alleged that NMFS's no-jeopardy determination was arbitrary and capricious, and asked the Court to vacate the 2013 BiOp. On August 31, 2015, Judge Friedman ruled in NMFS’s favor in regards to the 2013 BiOp’s no jeopardy finding and incidental take limits set for loggerheads. However, he remanded NMFS to provide (1) further explanation of the agency’s conclusions that the short-term effects of climate change are not significant; and (2) further explanation of how the agency will monitor trawl and gillnet takes effectively when new take estimates are only produced every five years (and why the agency is not simply sending out more observers). He also directed the agency to complete a new BiOp, at the very latest, by the end of this BiOp’s ten-year term (in 2023). As of the publication of this report, submission of the remand response and several additional response by both parties had been submitted, and both parties are awaiting final ruling from the judge.
In the course of these proceedings, the 2013 BiOp ITS has been updated for sea turtle interactions and was lowered from 213 expected interactions to 204 for all trawl gears combined as an annual average, 67 of which may be lethal. This number represents the upper ends of the 95% confidence intervals for all seven fisheries added together (139+37+11+9+5+3+0=2044), and is the total number of loggerhead interactions we expect to occur annually in the trawl component of the seven fisheries (including both observed and unobserved interactions). According to the updated ITS (NMFS 2016b): • for loggerhead sea turtles from the NWA DPS, NMFS anticipates: (a) the take of no more than 1,345 individuals over any consecutive five-year period in gillnet gear, of which up to 835 may be lethal, (b) the take of no more than 1,020 individuals over any consecutive five-year period in trawl gear, of which up to 335 may be lethal; and (c) the annual take of up to one individual in trap/pot gear, which may be lethal or non- lethal1,2;
• for leatherback sea turtles, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual observed take of up to four individuals in gillnet gear, of which up to three per year may be lethal; (b) the annual observed take of up to four individuals in bottom trawl gear, of which up to two per year may be lethal; and (c) the annual observed take of up to four individuals in trap/pot gear, which may be lethal or non-lethal;
• for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, NMFS anticipates the annual observed take of up to four individuals in gillnet gear, of which up to three per year may be lethal, and the annual observed take of up to three individuals in bottom trawl gear, of which up to two per year may be lethal; and
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 76
SCS Global Services Report
• for green sea turtles, NMFS anticipates the annual observed take of up to four individuals in gillnet gear, of which up to three per year may be lethal, and the annual observed take of up to three individuals in bottom trawl gear, of which up to two per year may be lethal.
Use of TEDS is not currently required in the MSB fishery (NMFS 2016) but is an area of ongoing research. In 2010 a large flounder grid TED design was tested in Southern New England. Initially, there was a loss of ~55% but after making modifications the loss decreased to 10%, which was not significant. (DeAlteris 2010) However, this 10% figure was based on only 16 paired tows on a single vessel. Currently, there are field tests ongoing for a cable TED design. A cable TED as it may be more operationally feasible with net reels and vessel configurations used in this area.
NMFS uses 5-year estimates to evaluate annual interactions relative to the ITS, due to the small number of observed interactions that make annually produced estimates less reliable than estimates using multiple years of data. NMFS states that in addition to its 5-year reviews it considers on an annual basis observed takes of loggerhead turtles to consider trends in takes and look for patterns and changes in take levels. For sea turtle species other than loggerheads, NMFS will use all available information (e.g., observed takes, changes in fishing effort, etc.) to assess if the annual incidental take level in the Opinion has been exceeded (Oceana, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, et. al.,. 2016.).
Atlantic sturgeon
In 2012 NOAA’s Fisheries Service announced a final decision to list five distinct population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act. The Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon were listed as endangered, while the Gulf of Maine DPS was listed as threatened. Atlantic sturgeon from any of the five DPSs could occur in areas where MSB fisheries operate, and the species has been captured in gear targeting longfin squid.
Status of Atlantic Sturgeon
According to the 2015-2017 MSB FMP specifications:
Since the ESA listing of Atlantic sturgeon, new stock assessment efforts have been completed (Kocik et al. 2013). Atlantic sturgeon are frequently sampled during the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment (NEAMAP) survey. NEAMAP has been conducting trawl surveys from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in nearshore waters and information from this survey can be directly used to calculate minimum swept area population estimates during the fall, which range from 6,980 to 42,160 with coefficients of variation between 0.02 and 0.57 and during the spring, which range from 25,540 to 52,990 with coefficients of variation between 0.27 and 0.65. These are considered minimum estimates because the calculation makes the unlikely assumption that the gear will capture 100% of the sturgeon in the water column along the tow path. This results in a total population size estimate of 67,776 fish, which is considerably higher than the estimates that were available at the time of listing.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 77
SCS Global Services Report
Quantitative UoA Impacts
Atlantic sturgeon are known to be captured in sink gillnet, drift gillnet, and otter trawl gear. Of these gear types, sink gillnet gear poses the greatest known risk of mortality for bycaught sturgeon. Sturgeon deaths were rarely reported in the observer data set, with an average of 1,771 lb per year (from 2012- 2016), comprising an average of 0.03% of the total catch of the UoA by weight.
Miller & Shepherd (2011) estimated discards for Atlantic Sturgeon for otter trawl and sink gillnet fisheries. Data were limited by observer coverage to waters outside the coastal boundary and north of Cape Hatteras, NC. Sturgeon included in the data set were those identified by federal observers as Atlantic sturgeon, as well as those categorized as unknown sturgeon. At this time, data were limited to information collected by the observer program; limited data collected in the At-Sea Monitoring Program were not included, although preliminary views suggest the incidence of sturgeon encounters was low.
The Miller & Shepherd (2011) analysis estimates that between 2006 and 2010, a total of 15,587 lbs of Atlantic sturgeon were captured and discarded in bottom otter trawl (7,740 lbs) and sink gillnet (7,848 lbs) gear. Of the takes by trawl gear, an estimated 11% were from the MSB fisheries based on a correlation with fishing effort. (Miller & Shepherd 2011) The level of mortality after release from the gear estimated to be low but highly uncertain (W. Barnhill, pers. comm).
A 2011-2015 study has been completed but not yet released. According to Protected Species Division staff, the bottom trawl discard numbers for 2011-2015 appear to be lower than for the 2006-2010 period, although the best performing model used to compute those numbers changed from the 2006- 2010 to the 2011-2015 period (W. Barnhill, pers. comm).
Management Measures
The 2013 Biological Opinion concluded that the MSB fisheries may adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the five DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon. The Biological Opinion included reasonable and prudent measures, as well as terms and conditions which will further reduce impacts to Atlantic sturgeon. The incidental take permitted according to the 2013 BiOp includes incidental take of ~100 Atlantic Sturgeon, with varying amounts allocated across all 5 DPS’.
The updated 2016 ITS estimates interactions with Atlantic Sturgeon according to DPS as follows:
• for Atlantic sturgeon from the GOM DPS, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual take of up to 137 individuals over a five-year average in gillnet gear, of which up to 17 adult equivalents per year may be lethal; (b) the annual take of up to 148 individuals over a five-year average in bottom trawl gear, of which up to 5 adult equivalents per year may be lethal;
• for Atlantic sturgeon from the NYB DPS, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual take of up to 632 individuals over a five-year average in gillnet gear, of which up to 79 adult equivalents per year may be lethal; (b) the annual take of up to 685 individuals over a five-year average in bottom trawl gear, of which up to 21 adult equivalents per year may be lethal;
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 78
SCS Global Services Report
• for Atlantic sturgeon from the CB DPS, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual take of up to 162 individuals over a five-year average in gillnet gear, of which up to 21 adult equivalents per year may be lethal; (b) the annual take of up to 175 individuals over a five-year average in bottom trawl gear, of which up to 6 adult equivalents per year may be lethal;
• for Atlantic sturgeon from the Carolina DPS, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual take of up to 25 individuals over a five-year average in gillnet gear, of which up to four adult equivalents per year may be lethal; (b) the annual take of up to 27 individuals over a five- year average in bottom trawl gear, of which up to one adult equivalent per year may be lethal; and
• for Atlantic sturgeon from the SA DPS, NMFS anticipates (a) the annual take of up to 273 individuals over a five-year average in gillnet gear, of which up to 34 adult equivalents per year may be lethal; (b) the annual take of up to 296 individuals over a five-year average in bottom trawl gear, of which up to 9 adult equivalents per year may be lethal.
Seabirds: Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was enacted in 1916 to implement the convention for the protection of migratory birds between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada). The statute makes it unlawful without a waiver to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell birds listed therein as migratory birds. The statute does not discriminate between live or dead birds and also grants full protection to any bird parts including feathers, eggs, and nests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues permits for otherwise prohibited activities under the act. These include permits for taxidermy, falconry, propagation, scientific and educational use, and depredation, an example of the latter being the killing of geese near an airport, where they pose a danger to aircraft. There is no general exemption granted to U.S. commercial fisheries.
The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (MBTRA) (Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3071-72), all species native to the United States or its territories, which are those that occur as a result of natural biological or ecological processes are now included (See 70 FR 12710, March 15, 2005). Birds of Management Concern are a subset of Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and comprise protected species which pose special management challenges because of a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts with human interests, societal demands).
The U.S. FWS have also identified ‘birds of conservation concern’ for species likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA and focal species for which management plans are created. FWS also spearheads broader initiatives for seabird protection including the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. There is no established or regulatory linkage between these initiatives and NMFS fishery management operations at GARFO, NEFSC, or the Councils, but there is a staff member at GARFO with primary responsibility for liaising on seabird issues, and historical collaborations between the management agencies.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 79
SCS Global Services Report
The NEFOP data provided data on a low level of incidental interactions seabirds, all of which are listed on the MBTA and some of which are listed as birds of management concern.
Status Adapted from: USFWS 2011 and audobon.org.
Greater Shearwater
Greater Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) are among the world’s longest distance migrants, breeding on remote islands in the southern Atlantic Ocean, and migrating to the northwest Atlantic for the austral winter. The total population of Greater Shearwaters is thought to exceed 5 million breeding pairs. However, as the species nests in cliff burrows on extremely remote islands, populations are nearly impossible to accurately census and monitor, thus a decline may not be readily apparent. Despite the large population estimate, Greater Shearwaters are considered a Species of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are on National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy watch lists. As with many marine birds, Greater Shearwaters are long-lived with a low productivity. Thus, the cumulative impact of human threats could cause rapid declines in Greater Shearwater numbers that would be difficult or impossible to recover.
Red-Throated Loons
Red-throated Loons (Gavia stellata) breed in the arctic and subarctic tundra and winter in temperate coastal and marine waters throughout the northern hemisphere. The species occurs off the U.S. Atlantic coast during winter, primarily in nearshore waters and inlets from Florida to Maine. Despite worldwide population estimates of over 500,000 individuals, the Red-throated Loon is considered a Species of Conservation Concern by the USFWS, due to substantial declines (up to 52%) in many parts of their North American range. While a comprehensive census of Red-throated Loons has not been conducted in eastern U.S., the current population is thought to be 50,000 to 100,000, based on migration counts. Potential population declines have led Red-throated Loon to be included in several state bird conservation plans in the eastern U.S. and considered “in urgent need of conservation action” by the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes Waterbird Conservation Plan.
The cause of Red-throated Loon population declines in North America is unclear. However, the species faces a number of cumulative threats from anthropogenic sources including oil spills, offshore energy development, degradation of nesting habitat, introduced predators, contaminants, and particularly commercial fishing operations.
Northern Gannet
The Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus) is one of the largest seabirds of the North Atlantic. They breed only in eastern Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. From there, they travel south to the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribbean from December to February. In the fall they migrate south across the Gulf of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 80
SCS Global Services Report
Maine and Georges Bank, and travel as far south as the Mid-Atlantic Bight. In April, the spring migration reaches its peak on the Georges Bank and the majority of birds present are adults. According to the Audubon.org profile, populations declined drastically during 19th century owing to taking of eggs and slaughter of adults over much of range, but especially off eastern Canada. With protection, populations began to recover early in 20th century, with increase apparently continuing to present day.
Herring Gull
Herring gulls (Larus argentatus) are an abundant and widespread species. According to the species profile on Audubon.org, they occur year round as far north as New England, Great Lakes, and southern Alaska. Some move south as far as Mexico, a few to West Indies and Panama. Young birds tend to migrate farther south in winter than adults. Populations declined in the 19th century when seabirds were hunted for eggs and feathers, but have since increased greatly under legal protections. Herring gull range has extended in recent decades towards the south, a unique occurrence among other similar large gulls.
UoA Impacts
Table 19 provides a summary of data on seabird interactions from observer records for the small mesh bottom trawl fleet from 2012=2016.
Table 19. Incidental Interactions with Seabirds by the Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fleet (Source: NEFOP Data 2012- 2016).
Average IUCN FWS Species Mortality Status of Conservation 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Concern BIRD, NK 1 1 50% NA NA GANNET, NORTHERN 2 3 3 88% LC* N GULL, HERRING 2 1 2 100% LC N LOON, RED-THROATED 1 100% LC Y SHEARWATER, GREATER 1 100% LC Y *LC= Least Concern
A 2017 study by Hatch provides a summary of all observed interactions with seabirds in the northeast from 1996-2014. Bottom trawl (all mesh sizes) comprised 17%, 32%, 0.4%, and 2% of interactions of Northern gannet, herring gull, red-throated loon, and greater shearwaters, respectively. According to the 2017 studies, bottom trawl had the second highest level of interactions with sea birds behind gill nets. According to the USFWS 2011, data from the NMFS Fisheries Observer Program indicates that Greater Shearwaters make up the vast majority of marine bird bycatch in northern U.S. Atlantic waters, particularly within the New England groundfish fishery. According to the same report, In U.S. Atlantic waters Red-throated Loons are regularly killed particularly in gillnets in nearshore and
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 81
SCS Global Services Report inshore commercial fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic. Some data have indicated that >70% of these bycatch mortalities are adult birds, which could have a strong adverse impact on the population as a species with low reproductive capacities and slow maturation. A peer-reviewed analysis of bycatch data from the NMFS Fishery Observer Program found an average of nearly 900 Red- throated Loons killed by commercial mid Atlantic gillnet fisheries each year (Warden 2010). A study using NMFS observer data estimated an average of nearly 900 red-throated loons killed in gillnet fisheries each year, and concluded that such bycatch is 62 to 83% of the “potential biological removal level (PBR)” for the U.S. Atlantic Red-throated Loon population.
Management Measures
The MBTA offers broad protection to listed seabird species; however, there is not a clear and established system to provide for and monitor incidental takes by commercial fishing operations. The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan identifies fisheries bycatch as a serious threat to at least 17 species of marine birds in the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes, and Southeastern regions, an area including all U.S. Atlantic waters. Several of these birds are also considered Species of Conservation Concern by the USFWS and are on National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy watch lists. However, there is no systematic or regulatory linkage that combines monitoring with impact evaluation and consideration of necessary management measures as seen in the MMPA via the LOF.
There have been several interagency and national and international collaborations to mitigate seabird impacts, particularly on longline fisheries in the Pacific, but overall there is a paucity of information for seabird–fishery interactions occurring in the US Northeast and mid‐Atlantic regions, including gear types that are often overlooked (e.g. gillnets and trawls) and that may pose serious threats to seabird populations (Hatch 2017). The primary source for seabird interactions is the NEFOP data but there are concerns that low observer coverage provides for inadequate estimations of total interactions and impacts.
3.4.8 Habitat Impacts
Habitat Impact Evaluation under the MSC Framework When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes). In this case, the relevant management agency is the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and the managed area is the state and federal waters stretching from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras.
According MSC FCRV2.0 SA3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]:
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 82
SCS Global Services Report
. “A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA; and . A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines7 (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.215) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.”
Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes (GSA3.13.3).
Habitat conservation in the Greater Atlantic is driven by the requirements to identify and conserve Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all federally managed species. The Councils are required to incorporate EFH into all FMPs, including determining fishing impacts on all EFHs and steps to minimize impacts. The legislative basis for habitat conservation under fisheries management resides in the MSA. Habitat protections can be set forth in individual FMPs, where the promulgated management measures may apply to the FMP itself and/or all FMPs.
Commonly Encountered Habitat The specifications for the MSB FMP consider two distinct areas along the Altantic seaboard: The New England-Middle Atlantic Area and the South Atlantic Area. The MSB fishery operates in the New England-Middle Atlantic Area. According to the 2014 specifications (MAFMC 2014): Within the New England-Middle Atlantic Area, the principal area within which the MSB fisheries are prosecuted is the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem which includes the area from the
15 According to MSC FCRV2.0 GSA 3.13.3.2: “VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: . Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems
. Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species
. Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities
. Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived
. Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features”
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 83
SCS Global Services Report
Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, extending from the coast seaward to the edge of the continental shelf, including the slope sea offshore to the Gulf Stream. A number of distinct subsystems comprise the region. The Gulf of Maine is an enclosed coastal sea, characterized by relatively cold waters and deep basins, with various sediment types. Georges Bank is a relatively shallow coastal plateau that slopes gently from north to south and has steep submarine canyons on its eastern and southeastern edge. It is characterized by highly productive, well-mixed waters and fast-moving currents. The Mid-Atlantic Bight is comprised of the sandy, relatively flat, gently sloping continental shelf from southern New England to Cape Hatteras, NC.
The four subregions commonly described are displayed in the figure below:
Figure 17. Northeast Shelf Subregions. MAB= Mid-Atlantic Bight, SNE= Southern New England, GB= Georges Bank, and GOM= Gulf of Maine. Source: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/scispot/ss1404/nelme.jpg
There have been numerous efforts to characterize the benthic environment of the Northeast Shelf, primarily driven by Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the MSA, established in the 1996 amendments to the Act. Stevenson et al (2004) provides a “Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), developed to provide assistance in meeting the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The NEFMC used a Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) model to support the development of its Omnibus EFH Amendment 2 that will update EFH designations, designate new HAPCs, and revise current management areas. The Northeast Ocean Data Portal, launched in 2011, provides open access to a variety of regional ocean planning data provided by working group members: members are RPS ASA, The Nature
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 84
SCS Global Services Report
Conservancy, NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM), Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC), Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS), and Waterview Consulting. Data is available at: http://www.northeastoceandata.org/data-explorer/. All of these sources provide maps with an overview of sediments of the northeast shelf. Figure 19 provides such a map from Stevenson et al 2004.
Figure 18. Northeast Region sediments. (From: http://www.northeastoceandata.org/data-explorer/).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 85
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 19. Northeast Region sediments. (From: Stevenson et al 2004).
The SASI model characterizes top ten geological and biological features according to sediment type. These three characterizations (sediment, geological and biotic features) align with the MSC definition for benthic habitat characteristics for assessment (SA3.13.2). Low and high energy environments in the SASI model are inferred from shear stress computations based on modelled velocity and a depth based estimate of bottom roughness (NEFMC 2011). For more detail on the methodology behind the SASI model, see section below on Information on Impacts of the Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishing Gear .
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 86
SCS Global Services Report
Table 20. Ten habitat types identified in the Vulnerability Assessment. (From: NEFMC 2011)
The SASI model incorporates spatial fishing effort data from observer reports and VTRs. Trip report lat/long coordinates are assumed to correspond to the average fishing location for a trip, where all tows are inferred to this single point. When lat/long data is not available, fishing effort can only be inferred to a statistical area. Therefore, the spatial distribution of fishing effort is highly generalized.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 87
SCS Global Services Report
The data update for squid in 2016 (Hendrickson) provides an estimate of distribution of fishing effort by the directed longfin inshore squid fishery by trimester (Figure 20). As shown in the figure, there is an inshore and offshore component of the fishery, where in wintertime the fishery occurs more offshore, and in the summary and early fall the fishery occurs more inshore. As demonstrated above, there are differences in habitat and depth between these two fisheries, and the inshore fishery attracts smaller vessels than the offshore fishery.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 88
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 20. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with Doryteuthis pealeii landings > 1.134 mt (2,500 lbs), by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2011- 2014. The Southern Gear Restricted Area (GRA) is in effect from January 1 to March 15 (Trimester 1) and the Northern GRA is in effect from November 1 to December 31. Squid fishing does not occur in these GRAs when they are in effect because bottom trawls with a codend mesh size < 127 mm diamond mesh (5.0 in., inside stretched mesh) are prohibited. East of 72º 30’ N, squid fishing is only permitted in small-mesh exemption areas. (From: Hendrickson 2016)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 89
SCS Global Services Report
According to the 2011 SASI report (NEFMC 2011), dominant substrates in areas fishable by trawl gear in low energy environments are dominated by 42.9% sand, 37.5% mud, 15.1% granule-pebble; with just 3.2% and 1.4% of cobble and boulder, respectively. In the same order of substrate for high energy environments, the percentages are: 52.9%, 15.0%, 22.9%, 7.2% and 2.1%. The top biological features (>10%) in the fishable trawl area included, in low energy areas: hydroids (12.8%), Modiolus (12.8%), cerianthid burrowing anemones (12.2%), tube-dwelling amphibpods (10.3%), and sea pen corals (10.3%). In high area environments, top biological features included: hydroids and Modiolus (10.8% each), and ~9% distribution of polychaetes (2 forms), sponges, cerianthid burrowing anemones, ascidians, and Placopecten magellanicus. Industry contacts likewise report that MSB effort is generally over sand/mud bottoms that will not damage nets and that “hangs” or areas with structure have been mapped over the years and are avoided.
Therefore, the commonly encountered habitat of the UoA include sandy and muddy substratum, with the associated biological and geological characteristics described in Table 20.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 90
SCS Global Services Report
Information on Impacts of the Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishing Gear
Towed bottom fishing gears, including small mesh bottom trawl, have the potential to cause significant and long-lasting impacts to benthic habitats and communities (Jennings & Kaiser 1998). Repeated disturbance by fishing gear can remove high biomass of seabed organisms that contribute to seabed complexity and provide shelter for fish and other species (Kaiser et al. 2002). The overall impact of towed gears and the recovery time of the ecosystem vary depending on intensity of the interaction (the total area impacted and the frequency of tows), the composition of the seabed habitat, and the level of natural perturbation (DeAlteris, 2005). Habitats and communities that are subject to high levels of natural perturbation are more likely to recover quickly from towed gears (Hiddink et al. 2006). For a general description of bottom trawl gear, see Section 3.2.3 above.
A 2017 study (Hiddink et al) compared otter trawls (OTs), beam trawls (BTs), towed (scallop) dredges (TDs), and hydraulic dredges (HDs) to estimate depletion and recovery rates of biota after trawling. The study found that otter trawls caused the least depletion, where depletion of biota and trawl penetration are highly correlated. Median recovery times for all gear types ranged from 1.9-6.4 years. Study sites were focused in the northwest and northeast Atlantic. The analyses did not identify any variables other than trawling frequency that affected community biomass. The findings suggest that differences in time to recovery and expected biomass (B/K) will be driven primarily by gear type (and hence, d) and trawling frequency (F). The study finding that community recovery rates increase with trawling frequency due to a shift to communities with faster life histories, but notes that this increased resilience does not indicate faster recovery to a pre-trawled state.
Bottom otter trawls used to catch species like squid and scup that swim over the bottom are rigged very lightly, with loops of chain suspended from the sweep. This gear is designed to skim along the seafloor with only two or three links of each loop of chain touching the bottom. (NEFMC 2011) According to client representative Jeff Kaelin, squid bottom trawlers are more commonly using pelagic doors and sweeps configured with 3” rubber discs, or cookies, strung on a wire footrope to protect the wire from abrading. The configuration for squid fishing is considered to decrease contact and impacts on benthic habitats. Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP
Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP (including the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment) (2008) provided explicit consideration of impacts of the MSB fisheries on EFH for all federally managed species. This report built on the characterization and evaluation of fishing effects on EFH in Stevenson 2004.
The Amendment in its summary of available literature identified several potential impacts from bottom trawl gear: In studies examining the effect of bottom otter trawling on a variety of substrate types, it was demonstrated that the physical effects of trawl doors contacting the bottom produced
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 91
SCS Global Services Report
furrows and some shifts in surface sediment composition, although there is a large variation in the duration of these impacts. Typically the more dynamic environment and less structured bottom composition, the shorter the duration of impact. This type of fishing was demonstrated to have some effects on composition and biomass of benthic species in the effected areas, but the directionality and duration of these effects varied by study and substrate types. Studies conducted examining the effects of traps and pots in a variety of mixed substrates concluded that while attached epibenthic megafauna (in this case sea pens) were bent over or up-rooted when pots were fished or dragged over mud sediments, the effects were short term and did not appear to effect the abundance of attached benthic epifauna.
The report found that due to a high number of life-stage specific EFH designations and high numbers of days fished with bottom otter trawls in the Longfin inshore squid fishery, the following areas were considered vulnerable to adverse fishing effects from bottom otter trawls from the managed resource fisheries: Long Island Sound, Inshore areas off of Massachusetts, mouth of Hudson canyon, tilefish HAPC and particularly the northeast corners where clay outcroppings are vulnerable to permanent impact. These four areas, as well as the entire EEZ, were considered as alternatives for designation as Gear Restricted Areas, and a Habitat Protection Index was calculated for each alternative calculated such that the numerator is calculated as the sum of EFH designations (ten minute squares) for all species life stages with EFH that are moderate to highly vulnerable to bottom otter trawling, overlap significantly with the four fisheries, and are contained within each of the alternative’s proposed GRAs. The denominator is the sum of EFH designations (ten minute squares) for all species life stages with EFH that are moderately to highly vulnerable to bottom otter trawling and overlap significantly with the four fisheries (see Table 20 of the Amendment 9 FSEIS). EFH designations considered were those that are moderately to highly vulnerable to bottom otter trawling and overlap significantly with the four fisheries (see Table 19 of the Amendment 9 FSEIS). While the GRA encompassing the entire EEZ was obviously most protective it was deemed infeasible. Of the other alternatives, the inshore areas off of Long Island and MA had the highest index score, followed by the Tilefish HAPC, Mouth of Hudson Canyon, with the Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons obtaining the lowest index score (Table 20 of Amendment 9 FSEIS). The inshore closures were not considered as alternatives based on the understood high recovery rates (based on sediment type) and regulation under states. Compared to the effects of natural forces, the Council considered this habitat to be minimally affected by disturbance from bottom otter trawl activity.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 92
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 21. Comparison of the EFH overlap component and the Longfin inshore squid effort overlap component. Longfin inshore squid effort overlap component is calculated as days fished by ten minute square with bottom otter trawls in the Longfin inshore squid directed fishery based on VTR data, 1996 to 2004. EFH overlap component is defined as the total number of EFH life stages designated by ten minute squares, which overlap with the Atlantic mackerel, Illex, Longfin inshore squid, and butterfish fisheries, and have at least one life stage greater than minimally vulnerable. (Source: Amendment 9 FSEIS)
The SASI Model
Information to inform habitat management has been bolstered by the recent Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2, which assessed seabed vulnerability to fishing gear impacts was evaluated using the Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) approach (NEFMC, 2016). Though the Amendment and use of the model is based out of the NEFMC (versus the MAFMC), the model evaluation includes the UoA because the managed areas and stock range of species managed by the two Councils overlap. SASI results for different gear types can be compared in order to evaluate the benefits and costs of restricting fishing in particular areas for one or more gear types. Because SASI is based on an annual time step, model outputs are not useful for considering seasonal closures. Status quo habitat closed areas can be evaluated by considering whether adverse effects accumulate in those areas to a greater degree than across the portions of the model domain as a whole.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 93
SCS Global Services Report
The SASI approach consists of a vulnerability assessment16 and a spatial model. The vulnerability assessment reviewed the habitat impacts literature relevant to Northeast U.S. fishing gears and seabed types, and created a framework for organizing and generating susceptibility and recovery values for seabed features based on a scale of relative differences for use in the SASI model. A basic summary of the methodology used in the SASI approach is provided here, and a complete description of the methodology is available online here: https://www.nefmc.org/library/omnibus-habitat-amendment-2.
The vulnerability17 assessment reviewed relevant habitat impacts literature to Northeast U.S. to organize seabed features (e.g. sponges, biogenic burrows, bed forms, etc.) according to susceptibility18 (initial effect by single pass of fishing gear) and recovery19 values. A value of 10 years is selected as the potential recovery times for the features incorporated in the SASI model, which may be an underestimate of the recovery for some features. To examine distribution of vulnerable seafloor habitats, seabed features were inferred to occur in particular combinations of seafloor substrate (mud, sand, granule-pebble, cobble or boulder) and seafloor energy (high or low). The susceptibility and recovery of each ‘seabed feature-gear-substrate-energy’ combination was scored on a 0-3 scale (Table 21). To read more about the methodology of the SASI model See Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2.
Table 21. Susceptibility and Recovery values. Reproduced from NEFMC 2011
The vulnerability assessment identified low-energy granule-pebble, cobble- and boulder-dominated habitats as being the most vulnerable to fishing impacts (Appendix D, Grabowski et al 2014). According to
16 16 Vulnerability “represents the extent to which the effects of fishing gear on a feature are adverse. ‘Vulnerability’ is defined as the combination of how susceptible the feature is to a gear effect and how quickly it can recover following the fishing impact (NEFMC 2011) 16 Susceptibility : “the percentage of total habitat features encountered by fishing gear during a hypothetical single pass fishing event that have their functional value reduced (NEFMC 2011) 16 Recovery: “the time in years that would be required for the functional value of that unit of habitat to be restored”: Recovery does not necessarily mean a restoration of the exact same features, but that after recovery the habitat would have the same functional value. (NEFMC 2011) 17 Vulnerability “represents the extent to which the effects of fishing gear on a feature are adverse. ‘Vulnerability’ is defined as the combination of how susceptible the feature is to a gear effect and how quickly it can recover following the fishing impact (NEFMC 2011) 18 Susceptibility : “the percentage of total habitat features encountered by fishing gear during a hypothetical single pass fishing event that have their functional value reduced (NEFMC 2011) 19 Recovery: “the time in years that would be required for the functional value of that unit of habitat to be restored” :Recovery does not necessarily mean a restoration of the exact same features, but that after recovery the habitat would have the same functional value. (NEFMC 2011)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 94
SCS Global Services Report the 2011 SASI report (NEFMC 2011), these vulnerable habitats represent ~20% of the distribution of areas assumed to be fishable by generic trawl gear.
This vulnerability is driven primarily by the estimated recovery times, i.e., the amount of time it takes for structural habitat features to return to their prior state (NEFMC 2011) Bar charts comparing susceptibility and recovery scores for geological and biological features in high and low energy environments for otter trawls are shown (Figure 22) (taken from Grabowski et al. 2014). It is necessary to note that the modeled effects are per unit of area impacted. Further it is useful to note that sensitivity analyses demonstrated that recovery scores are an important driver of model results, with longer recovery times contributing to higher estimates of vulnerability.
Figure 22. Mean susceptibility (% damaged) and recovery (time in years) of biological and geological features from otter trawls impacts; hatched verticals error bars are ±1 SE, (taken from Grabowski et al., 2014). Shaded bars represent high energy environments while open bars represent low energy environments.
Realized model outputs use empirical estimates of contact-adjusted area swept (A) based on VTR data from 1996-2008. They are intended to represent the actual impact of fishing on the seabed. SASI identifies four subtypes of trawl gear, including generic, shrimp, squid, and raised footrope. However, there is limited disaggregated information available for the gear subtypes and limited ability then to discern the differential impacts of the trawl gears as modified for the squid fishery. Contact indices are used as a basis for differentiation, where the squid otter trawl is identified on the basis of VTR reports, including trips where 75% of catch by weight was Illex or Longfin inshore squid (M. Bachman, pers comm). Figure 23 provides modeled accumulated habitat impacts map based on data from 1996-2009. Note that the figure below suggests relatively high adverse impact on the nearshore
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 95
SCS Global Services Report fishing areas excluded from consideration in Amendment 9 as described above. Figure 24 provides a summary comparing estimated realized adverse impact from the SASI model by gear type and calendar year.
Figure 23. Realized adverse effect of squid trawls based on data from 1996-2009. The larger magnitude numbers/redder areas of the map indicate greater accumulation of adverse impacts. (Source: M. Bachman, email)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 96
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 24. Comparison of estimated realized adverse effects from the SASI model by gear type and calendar year. All values in km2. (Available from: http://archive.nefmc.org/habitat/cte_mtg_docs/10040102/doc%207%20%20SASI_Outputs.pdf)
Management
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) there is a formal framework in place for federally managed fisheries to evaluate and manage the impact of fisheries on habitat. Habitat conservation in the Greater Atlantic is driven by the requirements to identify and conserve Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all federally managed species. Additionally, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are also used as a tool to conserve important biodiversity hotspots and provide protection to spawning aggregations of important species for fisheries.
The MSFCMA defines EFH as the waters and substrate necessary for fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The waters are defined as the associated physical, chemical, and biological properties. Substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities. Adverse effect refers to “direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH.” (50 CFR 600.810(a)). EFH that merit special attention because of the importance of their ecological function, sensitivity to degradation, the level of stress that they are subject or the rarity of the habitat type are categorized as Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 97
SCS Global Services Report
Management systems in place ensure that vulnerable and important habitats are identified, and that impacts are considered on a fishery-specific and cumulative basis within federal FMPs. Every federally managed fishery is required to identify EFH and evaluate all potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH designated within the FMP as well as all other EFH of federally managed fisheries, including consideration of cumulative impacts. The EFH Regulatory Guidelines further require each FMP to minimize such adverse effects to the extent practicable. The EFH final rule further outlines the types of management measures that might be proposed, including fishing equipment restrictions, time/area closures, and harvest limits. (50 CFR Ch. VI § 600.815) Section 600.815(a)(9) of the final rule to revise the regulations implementing the EFH provisions of the MSA (the “EFH Final Rule”) states that Councils should conduct reviews of all EFH information as recommended by the Secretary, but at least once every five years.
EFH has not been reviewed in full since the update to EFH provided in Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP (2011), but the MAFMC is currently undertaking a review of EFH and HAPC text and map designations. A Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) in March of 2017 convened a group of experts from the NEFSC and state agencies to develop recommendations for short and long term actions to this end. A summary of recommendations resulting from this meeting can be found online: http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2017/efh-fmat-data-meeting. The Council expects to begin actively engaging in the EFH review over 2018-2019, with a goal of producing technical deliverables for 2020 for Council consideration (J. Coakley, pers. comm).
There have been several habitat management measures implemented to minimize habitat impacts by the UoA in accordance with the EFH requirements described above. Amendment 9 of the MSB FMP implemented in 2008 addressed habitat impacts of squid trawl fisheries using the findings of Stevenson (2004) described above. In Amendment 9 the MAFMC determined that bottom trawls used in MSB fisheries do have the potential to adversely affect EFH for some federally-managed fisheries in the region and closed portions of two offshore canyons (Lydonia and Oceanographer) to squid trawling. These areas were chosen to align with Monkfish management via the NEFMCS and on the basis that although there was likely not significant impacts to date, the canyon areas were vulnerable to impacts and the presence of target MSB species could attract significant fishing effort in the future. Subsequent to the MSB FMP Amendment 9, Amendment 1 to the Golden Tilefish FMP defined a subset of areas with HAPC designation, where HAPCs were defined as clay outcrop/pueblo habitats within four canyon areas: Norfolk, Veatch, Lydonia, and Oceanographer. This HACP designation itself did not confer any habitat protections, but Amendment 1 separately established gear restricted areas (GRAs) for bottom trawling gear within and adjacent to the four canyons (Figure 25). Amendment 11 added a consideration of impacts on longfin inshore squid egg EFH, which had been identified in Amendment 9 but not evaluated for impacts. No management measures were deemed necessary.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 98
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 25. Canyons protected by bottom trawling gear restriction via Amendment 1 to the Golden Tilefish FMP. Source: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/tilefish/index.html
In addition to these closures, according to the NOAA Greater Atlantic Fisheries website (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html) vessels fishing for mackerel, squid, and/or butterfish in Federal waters must also comply with closed areas for other fisheries, including NE multispecies, unless using gear defined as not capable of catching NE multispecies. These include seasonal and year-round closures, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) closures, and transiting/gear stowage requirements. This includes the NE multispecies regulated mesh area (RMA) restrictions that regulate gear use in the four subregions. Specific regulations including where MSB can be retained are available online at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/infodocs/small_mesh_exemption.pdf.
Significant inshore fisheries occur in Massachusetts and the Long Island Sound, NY, though the fishery in Long Island Sound has been less significant in recent years and effort off of Nantucket, MA, has increased. In Massachusetts state waters, State-permitted small mesh bottom trawl is only permitted north of Loran C line using <6.5in codend between April 23-June 9th. Management closes the fishery in June in part to avoid increased levels of bycatch of squid as the squid season tapers off (D. McKiernan,
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 99
SCS Global Services Report pers. comm). No vessels >72 feet in length are permitted to fish in state waters. State regulations are always equally or more stringent than Federal measures. There are additional rolling area closures. A map of these closures is provided in Section 3.5.4.
Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) Considerations
The definition of VME provided by MSC SA3.13.3.21 and related guidance is based on the 2009 FAO International Guidelines for the management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Although the FAO Guidelines were written for deep-sea fisheries, for MSC purposes the Guidelines’ VME characteristics also considered to apply to non-deep-sea fisheries, and the definition of VME could include other species groups and communities for MSC assessment purposes. MSC guidance further states that it intends that the CAB consider VME’s and ‘potential’ VMEs as accepted, defined, or identified by relevant management authorities. Only defined VME’s are considered under 2.4.1, while ‘potential’ VME’s should be additionally recognized under 2.4.2 as a precautionary measure.
In the United States, there is no explicit VME designation. NOAA’s website identifies 5 types of habitat in their Habitat Protection website (http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/index.html): Coastal wetlands, corals, essential fish habitat (EFH), rivers: hydropower and fish passage, and Cape Fear River Partnership. Of these, only coral and EFH are relevant to the marine fisheries within UoA jurisdiction.
EFH are identified, described, and mapped for every federally managed fish species. Designation of EFH does not confer particular protections, rather management councils use EFH designations to identify sensitive habitats and apply appropriate regulations (such as gear restrictions) where appropriate because all FMPs are required to evaluate and minimize to the extent practicable fishing impacts on all EFH. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), are a subset of EFH, and are habitat types and/or geographic areas identified by any of the eight regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries as priorities for habitat conservation, management and research. The criteria used to define HAPCs generally aligns with those of VMEs (ecological function, sensitivity, exposure to development stress, and rarity); however, management regions are not required to define HAPCs based on habitats of highest importance relative to these criteria. This flexibility is intended to allow management to use the HAPCs as a habitat conservation tool based on local priorities. As in EFH, HAPC designation does not confer any inherent protection measure. HAPCs can be defined as habitat types, or discrete geographical sites. (Regional HAPC Report – May 2016). For more information on habitat management according to EFH requirements see: Management.
The assessment team considers the EFH and HAPC designations as effective in focusing habitat protection regulations, but considers the designation of EFH too broad given the designations are made for all federally managed species, and that the EFH definition doesn’t align well with the VME definition as EFH pertain more to fish species specific characteristics rather than habitat-specific characteristics described in the FAO guidelines above. HAPC criteria align with the VME definition, but the identification and designation process is not based on a systematic characterization and ranking of HAPC candidates, and the process is purposefully flexible to allow for management regions to use the designation as a management tool as appropriate in the local context, where management measures
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 100
SCS Global Services Report spurred by the designation may or may not intend to address fishing impacts. Thus, this is not considered an appropriate basis for VME classification for MSC assessment.
Deep sea corals have been recognized as a priority for conservation, with discretionary authority for conservation action provided with the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1853 § 303 (b) (2)). In 2013, the NEFMC, MAFMC, and SAFMC signed an MOU20 regarding the management of deep sea corals. The background to this document notes deep sea coral fragility, structural complexity, slow-growing life history, functional significance, and vulnerability to fishing impacts as the rationale for the creation of an MOU to establish a framework for coordination and cooperation to protect deep coral ecosystems.
Deep sea corals found in the Greater Atlantic region are found within the Class Anthozoa, with major types including stony corals (Order Scleractinia), sea pens (Order Pennatulacea), true soft corals and gorgonians (Orders Alcyonacea), and black corals (Order Antipatharia). Types of deep sea corals observed to date in the Greater Atlantic range from small, solitary corals to larger colonies including complex structure-forming corals.
According to Packer et al (2017) most fishing is conducted on the shelf, or along the shelf break, and in the Gulf of Maine. The fisheries that have the highest likelihood of occurring near concentrations of known deep-sea coral habitats in canyon and slope areas are the bottom trawl fishery for monkfish and the bottom longline fishery for tilefish, and the pot fisheries for Atlantic deep-sea red crab and offshore lobster. Bottom trawl fisheries for squid, whiting (includes silver hake, and offshore hake, and butterfish, and pot fisheries for Jonah crab occur along the shelf break. In the Gulf of Maine, lobster fishing occurs in all known coral habitats, and gillnet and bottom trawl fisheries for groundfish such as pollock, redfish, and white hake occur offshore. The annual number of interactions between fishing gear and deep-sea corals and sponges is not known, but bycatch data indicate that a relatively small number of trips interact with deep-sea corals.
In 2016, the Deep Sea Corals Amendment (Amendment 16) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSP) FMP was finalized, and identifies two types of coral zones for protection (see http://www.mafmc.org/actions/msb-am16 for further information, Figure 26): . A broad coral zone, consisting of a large, deep area, the vast majority of which is beyond the depths of current fishing effort. This area is intended to limit and prevent the expansion of current commercial gear use into these deeper areas. . A set of discrete coral zones, which are smaller areas of known or highly likely coral presence. These include specific offshore canyons and slope areas.
20 http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/MOUdsc_2013.pdf
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 101
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 26. Effective broad and discrete deep sea coral zones in the Mid-Atlantic Council Region as of January 13, 2017 (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable). The combined area is approximately 99,000km2.
In both types of coral zones, the use of most types of bottom-tending gear are prohibited, including both mobile and stationary/passive gear types. This action does not impact the lobster trap fishery, nor does it apply to recreational gear types. An exemption from gear restrictions is provided for the red crab fishery indefinitely in the broad zones and for a period of at least two years in the discrete zones. The final rule includes a provision allowing for vessel transit through or across all deep sea coral zones with a requirement that the vessel’s fishing gear be stowed during transit. The action also requires the use of Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for all Illex squid moratorium vessels regardless of whether fishing activity is occurring within or outside of any proposed deep sea coral zones. The Amendment is written under the MSB FMP, but the protections apply to all federally managed fisheries operating with relevant gear types in the designated coral zones.
On September 15, 2016, President Obama designated the first marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, using his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The monument consists of two units (Fig 10), representing distinct geological features that support vulnerable ecological communities, including deep-sea coral and sponge communities. The Canyons Unit covers approximately 2,437 km2 (941 square miles) on the edge of Georges Bank, including Oceanographer, Gilbert, and Lydonia submarine canyons. The Seamounts Unit encompasses 10,287 km2 (3,972 square miles) and includes the four New England Seamounts in the U.S. EEZ: Bear, Mytilus, Physalia, and Retriever. Commercial fishing in the monument is prohibited with the exception of existing red crab and lobster fisheries, which were granted a grace period for up to
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 102
SCS Global Services Report
7 years. The designation is undergoing review on the basis of an April 2017 executive order. (Packer et al 2017)
3.4.9 Ecosystem Impacts
Key ecosystem elements: The UoA resides within what NOAA identifies as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), which spans the area from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine. LMEs are defined by four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically linked populations. It is by these characteristics that the ~260,000km2 area known as the NES LME is defined and distinguished from adjacent ecosystems. The NES LME is further characterized into subunits by NEFSC, including: Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf, and Mid-Atlantic Bight.
The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem is a dynamic, highly productive, and intensively studied system providing a broad spectrum of ecosystem goods and services. This region supports some of the highest revenue fisheries in the U.S. The system historically underwent profound changes due to very heavy exploitation by distant-water and domestic fishing fleets. Further, the region is experiencing changes in climate and physical forcing that have contributed to large-scale alteration in ecosystem structure and function. Projections indicate continued future climate change related to both short and medium terms cyclic trends as well as noncyclic climate change. (MAFMC 2014)
The assessment team has considered that the ecological criteria used to define the UoA as an LME is an appropriate parallel for identifying key ecosystem elements, where SA 3.16.3 defines key ecosystem elements as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity.”
Fisheries do not impact all of these criteria: bathymetry and hydrography are examples of key ecosystem characteristics that are not subject to material fishery impact. Productivity at the base of the foodweb is certainly related to fisheries, though whether dynamics are bottom-up or top down can vary by system. For instance, Mcowen et al (2014) found that bottom-up and top-down effects vary consistently with past fishing pressure and oceanographic conditions; where bottom-up control predominates within productive, overfished regions and top-down in relatively unproductive and under- exploited areas. Trophically linked populations is the criteria most vulnerable to fishing impacts, and the assessment team considers this key ecosystem element to encompass a consideration of impacts of ecological community structure.
This assessment has focused on these two biological LME defining criteria as the key ecosystem elements vulnerable to fishery impacts in assessing ecosystem status relative to UoA impacts. Management and information evaluations will consider the extent to which management systems monitor and manage to also account for the broader range of ecosystem characteristics and dynamics that affect the ecosystem structure and function in fisheries management.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 103
SCS Global Services Report
Status and Information
NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program (www.noaa.gov/iea) evaluates ecosystems in 5 regions where it is currently being implemented, including the Northeast. Information available is synthesized in the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Reports (ESR; available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/sitemap.html). The following text primarily draws from the most recent version of the NES LME Ecosystem Status Report available online at the time of the assessment.
Productivity
Ecosystem productivity begins with production at the base of the food web, including both primary and secondary production. Primary and secondary producers indirectly and directly serve as a food source for longfin inshore squid and several of the species under assessment under Principle 2.
In terms of primary production, phytoplankton are responsible for nearly all primary production in marine ecosystems. Beyond their role as a food source, phytoplankton are an important biological component of the carbon cycle and can significantly affect trophic food-web dynamics. Zooplankton provide the most direct energy transfer pathway up the foodweb, and zooplankton are routinely monitored in the NES LME with six surveys per year covering 120 stations across the entire ecosystem. The time series of zooplankton biovolume among the Georges Bank, Mid-Atlantic, and western Gulf of Maine ecoregions are relatively consistent suggesting large‐scale coherence in zooplankton throughout much of NES LME. The trends in the eastern Gulf of Maine/western Scotian Shelf are somewhat different with lower biovolumes through the 1990s.
Zooplankton, and copepods in particular, also serve as an important food source to forage species, including squid. Recent work has found that the composition of the zooplankton community has changed over time. Specifically, several species of small copepods increased in abundance in the 1990s resulting in an increase in total copepod abundance (see Figure 27). Other species of macrozooplankton are routinely monitored by NEFSC. Trends in abundance of arrow worms (chaetognaths), krill (euphausiids), sand fleas (amphipods), and planktonic sea squirts (appendicularians or larvaceans), indicate generally increasing trends over time. Of note are the large increases in the eastern and western Gulf of Maine over the last few years.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 104
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 27. Zooplankton size index comparing the abundance of small (C. typicus, C. hamatus, T. longicornis, and Pseudocalanus) and large copepods (C. finmarchichus). This relatively simple indicator shows changes in community structure that is consistent with more statistically rigorous methods. (Source: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/primary-secondary-production.html)
A 2002 study by Sherman et al looked at trends in zooplankton abundance during periods of fish stock rebuilding and found there to be no significant decline, suggesting stability in the lower trophic levels of the NES LME over this period. Steele (2010) likewise considers that the lower food web structure of the NES LME is relatively robust compared to other LMEs. The 2011 Ecosystem Assessment Program (NEFSC 2012) update reported that recent increases in primary phytoplankton production are not matched by increases in secondary zooplankton production raising the concern that the phytoplankton community structure is shifting to species that fail to effectively enter the food web. The ‘main findings’ of the current report online concludes that evidence for changes in the relative abundance of small and large zooplankton species points to decadal-scale regime shifts at the base of the food web. The available evidence does not indicate significant top-down impacts by fisheries on primary and secondary productivity.
Trophic Interactions and Community Structure
Longfin inshore squid play a diverse and important trophic role in the NES LME. Squid are considered a forage species by the Council as well, subject to additional considerations under their Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Link et al 2012 found that overlap of longfin squid is high (>70%) with anchovy and round herring), implying these stocks regularly occupy the same place and time.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 105
SCS Global Services Report
Butterfish and longfin inshore squid school together and are considered to share similar predators and diets. Bowman et al (2000) provides a reference document for researchers interested in the types of prey eaten by fishes and two common species of squids in continental shelf waters off the northeastern United States. The stomach contents of 31,567 individuals representing 180 species were analyzed (Table 22): Longfin inshore and northern shortfin squids were the principal squid species identified as prey within all areas sampled except the Middle Atlantic. In the Middle Atlantic, only longfin inshore squid was found to be a major squid prey, although it didn’t make up >50% of the stomach contents of a single species. Several species fed intensively on squid (i.e., the stomachs of all predators noted immediately below contained on average >50% squid by weight). For example, the diet of summer flounder and bluefish sampled in Southern New England was mostly squid. On Georges Bank, squid was an important prey of bluefish and fourspot flounder. In Scotian Shelf waters, predation on squid was noted by pollock and northern shortfin squid. Goosefish was identified as having >50% squid in the diet for the inshore area north of Cape Hatteras. No predators were observed with >50% squid in their diet for the area south of Cape Hatteras.
Houde et al 2014 also considers the importance of squid as a forage species for pelagic species, including sharks, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals. The document reports that squids comprise 36% of the diet of toothed whales and that while total consumption by marine mammals is typically on the same scale as fisheries landings on the northeast U.S. shelf for fished, marine mammals are estimated to consume more than twice the amount of squid that is landed. Squid and plankton are also considered critical prey for seabirds.
Fishing mortality for longfin inshore squid is understood to represent a very small proportion of natural mortality, including predation and cannibalism (See Background Section: Natural Mortality). Nonetheless, because of the important role longfin inshore squid play as predators and prey, and due to the diverse catch composition in the small mesh bottom trawl fleet, ecosystem considerations are critical for fishery management in alignment with the MSC Principles.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 106
SCS Global Services Report
Table 22. Percentage by weight of squid component of diet of predators which eat squid according to geographic area of collection (from Bowman et al 2000)
The online Ecosystem Status Report for the NES LME considers benthic invertebrate communities, fish communities, and protected species communities separately.
Benthic animals play an important role in energy transfer, preying on benthic biomass and serving as prey for fish and upper trophic animals. Several benthic invertebrates are key commercial species, including several MSC certified fisheries (sea scallop, American lobster, surfclam and ocean quahog). Some of the more prominent benthic biomass trends throughout the NES LME include increases in American lobster, Homarus americanus, sea scallop, Placopectin magellanicus, and Astropecten americanus populations, and decreases in ocean quahog, Arcitca islandica, and Atlantic surfclam, Spisula solidissima, populations, especially in recent years.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 107
SCS Global Services Report
Impacts on these commercial species are evaluated in each species’ respective FMP, and as required according to EFH designations and considerations in FMPs. Impacts from the UoA on benthic communities more generally are evaluated primarily through the SASI modeling described in Section 3.4.7. In general the highest relative risk to benthic communities was associated with scallop and hydraulic dredges in sand and pebble habitats (the only two habitat types where these gear operate). Biological communities were generally subject to higher relative risk than physical habitats and risk was uniformly higher in low energy habitats (Figures 10.29-10.32). The latter observation reflects the fact that natural disturbance regimes had already shaped the physical structure of the physical habitat and biological communities in high energy environments.
The evaluation of fish communities has found dramatic increases over time in the small elasmobranch and pelagic fish components. In contrast, an initial decline and subsequent recovery is evident for the groundfish category, while other fish have remained stable or increased. These trends in groundfish are understood to be related to historic overfishing practices and the successful implementation of management measures to rebuild some groundfish species. (Figure 28) A review of the ratio of pelagic to demersal species shows a relative decrease in demersal species in all regions except the Mid-Atlantic Bight in the 1970s and 80s, with trends leveling in the 1990s.
Biodiversity trends are evaluated using Hurlbert’s expected number of species which standardizes the sample size between tows. For the NES LME, trends in the expended number of species follow one of two patterns; expected numbers either increased during the middle of the time series with recent slight declines or vice versa. ( Figure 29) In terms of fish size, Georges Bank has remained relatively stable with some evidence of a slight recent, the Gulf of Maine has had seen relatively continuous decline, and the Mid-Atlantic region showed initial declines followed by a stabilization at low mean size, with a recent increase in this area. Link et al (2012) found declines in several diversity indices in the groundfish community of the NES LME continental shelf. Studies have found varying results on compensatory dynamics within feeding guilds, but overall In the NES LME, despite declines in species diversity it appears that functional diversity has been mostly preserved and that the compensatory process has functioned to replace commercial species that have declined to maintain the basic ecosystem functions of the NES LME food web (Link et al 2012). Mean trophic levels have been stable across most areas, with the exception of the Mid-Atlantic Bight which underwent a decline in the early 90s, followed by a rebound and another recent decline.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 108
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 28. Survey indices (mean catch per tow) of aggregate species groups caught during NEFSC autumn bottom trawl surveys. From: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/fish-communities.html
Figure 29. The mean expected number of species from the NEFSC autumn bottom trawl survey by ecological production units. Tows were standardized using 100 individuals. From: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/fish-communities.html
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 109
SCS Global Services Report
While historical trend data provides evidence that fisheries can have a significant effect on the ecological community, this evidence also indicates that management has had success in rebuilding some stocks, suggesting that such overfishing impacts can be considered ‘reversible’. The ecosystem is also undergoing significant changes due to the changing ocean climate. There have been shifts in distribution and regional productivity largely attributed to climate change, including a southwestern movement in the Gulf of Maine and northeasternly movement across the coast as a whole. In addition this this movement, there has been notable shifts in depth distribution with species moving to deeper water due to warming waters.
The Ecosystem Status Report features a synthesis section that integrates climate, physical and ecological indicators that evaluates drivers and pressures related to these factors as well as management interventions and other factors, by 7 major species groups (Figure 30). There is a general overall positive trend, with a period pattern shows in the second composite score in red. The report notes that there are key fisheries management actions or changes that correspond with these periodic shifts. The report further states that data also indicate decadal ecosystem changes in the LME, that together with management interventions strongly affect fishery performance.
Figure 30. Composite fishery index values for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The first composite index is shown in the blue line. The second composite index is shown in the red bars. The composite indices are based on landings data for species groups. Source: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/synthesis.html.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 110
SCS Global Services Report
Management According to the NEFSC Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch website (https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/), the importance of implementing marine Ecosystem-based Management in the United States has recently been highlighted with the adoption of a new National Ocean Policy, established under presidential order on July 19, 2010. This policy identifies nine objectives, the first of which establishes Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as its guiding principle. The second priority highlights the importance of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning as a tool for EBM.
As further detailed in Section 3.5 below, every federal fishery management action requires either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). This process includes the identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), which include:
1) Managed resources
2) Non-target species
3) Habitat including EFH for the managed resource and non-target species
4) Endangered and protected resources
5) Human Communities
Impacts to VECs are analyzed relative to both short-term impacts and from a cumulative effects perspective, which is in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
In addition, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) articulated objectives for the living marine resources under its management authority in its Strategic Plan in 2011 (Gaichas et al 2016). Foremost among these objectives is the need to advance ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic. In June 2015, the Council convened a workshop with scientists and managers to discuss potential strategies to more fully consider species interactions and climate drivers in the stock assessment and management process (including determination of catch limits), and to build capacity within the region to conduct comprehensive management strategy evaluations (MSEs) as part of the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The workshop reviewed existing single species approaches as well as information and analytical tools available to address key interactions between species and their environment, between species within the food web, and between the ecosystem and fisheries, and between fleets due to technical or management issues. A white paper has been produced as a step towards creating a plan to operationalize a decision-making process and framework for incorporating species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions into fishery management. In addition to this document, the EAFM section of the Council website features a white paper on managing forage fishes, which would include managed and unmanaged species, and includes considerations for longfin inshore squid. (Houde et al 2014).
In 2016, the Council approved a Guidance Document for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. This document does not in and of itself operationalize any changes in management, but is rather considered a “how-to” guide, though it could be converted into a regulatory document in the
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 111
SCS Global Services Report future (MAFMC 2016). According to the updated MSB FMP specifications (in draft; from j. Didden pers. comm) some highlights from the EAFM Guidance Document that could apply to MSB management include: . It is the policy of the Council to support the maintenance of an adequate forage base in the Mid- Atlantic to ensure ecosystem productivity, structure and function and to support sustainable fishing communities. . The Council could adopt biological reference points (overfishing levels or OFL) for forage stocks that are more conservative than the required MSA standard of FMSY. . The Council could modify the existing risk policy to accommodate ecosystem level concerns for forage species by reducing the maximum tolerance for risk of overfishing. . The Council will promote the timely collection of data and development of analyses to support the biological, economic and social evaluation of ecosystem-level connections, tradeoffs, and risks, including those required to establish an optimal forage fish harvest policy. . Habitat and climate change considerations will be more fully integrated into fishery management decisions.
At the point of writing this report, none of these potential policies have been adopted by the MAFMC or applied to the management of the UoA.
In March of 2017 the NEFSC Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch provided a ‘State of the Ecosystem’ report focused on the Mid-Atlantic, reviewing trends and available information based on ecosystem objectives spanning economic, social, and environmental considerations, including elements identified above as key ecosystem elements (i.e. productivity, biomass, trophic structure). Also in 2017, the Council has introduced Risk Elements to be evaluated according to defined indicators in support of its Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. A Risk Element is an aspect that may threaten achieving the biological, economic, or social objectives that the Council desires from a fishery. These documents and related materials are found online here: http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/october-2017.
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background
3.5.1 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions
The Unit of Assessment includes one species (longfin inshore squid) harvested by small mesh otter trawls in federal waters (3-200 miles) off the coast of the United States from Cape Hatteras, NC to the Gulf of Maine. Longfin squid is considered a single stock throughout its range in U.S. waters (MAFMC 1978). The longfin squid fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone fall under a single, U.S. federal jurisdiction and is managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). The fishery is also regulated by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) with regard to habitat protection in areas under the jurisdiction of the NEFMC. Legislative authority and requirements are provided by Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 112
SCS Global Services Report
Procedures Act (APA), and various U.S. Executive Orders. Individual states manage the longfin squid fisheries within 3 miles of shore. Federally-permitted vessels account for approximately 98% of coastwide longfin squid landings and must adhere to the more restrictive of state or federal regulations. States also have memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the National Marine Fisheries Service and other federal agencies that authorize them to enforce federal fishery regulations.
Since 1978 the Atlantic longfin squid fisheries have been managed by the MAFMC, first under a single- species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and then under the merged Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP since 1981. The FMP was approved, implemented, and enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The FMP established the management unit as all longfin squid in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. The FMP was amended once prior to being merged with the mackerel and butterfish FMPs and the merged FMP has been amended 18 times. The merged FMP has also been modified 9 times through framework actions.
3.5.2 National Level Management
Federal fisheries management in the U.S. takes place under the requirements of the MSFCMA and NEPA and must also meet the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When preparing an FMP or FMP amendment, the fishery management councils also must comply with the applicable requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Information Quality Act (IQA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and various Executive Orders. These other applicable laws and executive orders help ensure that in developing an amendment, the councils consider the full range of alternatives and their expected impacts on the marine environment, living marine resources, and the affected human communities.
The MSFCMA includes 10 national standards. These can be considered as explicit and clear long term objectives that guide decision-making and are consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. The 10 national standards under MSFCMA are as follows:
Conservation and management measures shall:
1. Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield.
2. Be based upon the best scientific information available.
3. Manage individual stocks as a unit throughout their range, to the extent practicable; interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.
4. Not discriminate between residents of different states; any allocation of privileges must be fair and equitable.
5. Where practicable, promote efficiency, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 113
SCS Global Services Report
6. Take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
7. Minimize costs and avoid duplications, where practicable.
8. Take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for the sustained participation of, and minimize adverse impacts to, such communities (consistent with conservation requirements).
9. Minimize bycatch or mortality from bycatch.
10. Promote safety of human life at sea.
The MSFCMA also created eight regional fishery management councils (councils) responsible for the fisheries that require conservation and management in their region. The councils are composed of both voting and non-voting members representing the commercial fishing, recreational fishing, environmental, academic, and government interests. Under the MSFCMA, councils are required to:
. Develop and amend Fishery Management Plans
. Convene committees and advisory panels and conduct public meetings
. Develop research priorities in conjunction with a Scientific and Statistical Committee
. Select fishery management options
. Set annual catch limits based on best available science
. Develop and implement rebuilding plans
Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities, and Decision Making Processes
The longfin squid fishery is managed primarily through the Longfin Squid Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the MAFMC under the MSFCMA. The fisheries in state-waters are regulated by the respective state but the annual catch limit includes both state and federal landings. Real-time information on commercial fishery landings are collected through the SAFIS electronic data collection system managed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), which is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. (http://www.accsp.org/safis)
Under the MSFCMA, fisheries management plans contain legal requirements that are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (USOFR 2016). NMFS has legal responsibility for implementing FMPs developed under the MSFCMA, and can be subject to lawsuits, during which the public “administrative
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 114
SCS Global Services Report record” (the basis for decision making—including everything in the public record on all fisheries related issues) is used to demonstrate how NMFS made its decisions. NMFS also has legal responsibility for reviewing and approving (or not) FMPs, implementing and enforcing regulations, and administering supporting programs. This legal framework requires decision-makers to consider a range of alternatives and their impacts as well as their compliance with the ten National Standards. As part of the process, NMFS publishes a "Notice of Proposed Rule-making" that invites comments from the public. When a final rule is published, NMFS routinely includes all comments received on proposed rules and the NMFS response to those comments.
The Council process is fully public and there are regular opportunities for public involvement. The roles and responsibilities of the respective Councils, their committees and staff, and the regional NMFS science centers are clear and understood by all relevant parties. Key roles and functions for longfin squid are as follows:
. National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") (NOAA) – final approving authority for the Longfin Squid Fishery Management Plan ("FMP") and amendments thereto; final approving authority for annual quotas; authority for issuance of administrative rules implementing management decisions.
. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC/Woods Hole) – responsible for at sea surveys, estimating volume of biomass, age/length relationships, recruitment, etc.; responsible for periodic formal (peer reviewed) stock assessments, evaluating all characteristics of the biomass, based on the at sea surveys, and providing projections of future volume of biomass under varying hypothetical harvest scenarios, all for the use of regulators in setting quotas.
. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ("MAFMC") – entity with jurisdiction under the Magnuson Act for the development of management measures for the longfin squid fishery through the initiation, development, and approval of all amendments to the FMP, as well as the setting of annual quotas (see website www.mafmc.org).
. Scientific and Statistical Committee ("SSC") of the MAFMC – a group of approximately 15 scientists and academics required by the Magnuson Act to review annual reports from the MAFMC staff and NEFSC regarding the status of the stocks, and then to set the ABC ("Acceptable Biological Catch") for each species. The ABC is the maximum level at which the MAFMC may set the harvest quota each year. The SSC additionally recommends improvements for the assessments and notes parameters – such as biological reference points – that they believe need further study.
. Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Committee of the MAFMC – committee comprised of MAFMC members charged with initial responsibility for interacting with industry, and for recommending to the full Council proposed changes in FMP/management regulations and proposed annual quotas. A representative of the NEFMC also sits on the Committee.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 115
SCS Global Services Report
. MSB Advisory Panel – comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the public who use their knowledge and experience in the fishery to advise the MSB Committee and the MAFMC concerning the performance of the fishery and any proposed changes in the management system. . Individual States – federal and state management are closely coordinated through state membership on the MAFMC, through joint catch reporting systems and through complimentary state regulations.
Fishery management councils are required by law to “Review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the assessments and specifications contained in each fishery management plan for each fishery within its geographical area with regard to: (1) The present and probable future condition of the fishery; (2) The maximum sustainable yield from the fishery; (3) The optimum yield from the fishery…” Current FMPs contain harvest control rules that establish automatic responses to changes in the status of fish stocks. The status of fish stocks is determined through a peer-reviewed stock assessment process. The results of stock assessments are further reviewed by the councils’ Scientific and Statistical Committees, which set the maximum catch that may be taken from a stock. Councils then develop annual catch limits for each managed fishery. Annual catch limits may not exceed the fishing level recommendations established by the Scientific and Statistical Committee. Annual catch limits may be set each year or for a multi-year period. For longfin squid, catch limits are set for a 3-year period.
The procedure for closing the fishery as the catch approaches pre-determined limits for each trimester is set forth in the FMP and the decision to close the fishery is made by the Regional Administrator, based on quota-monitoring. NMFS maintains a quota-monitoring web page to allow the public to see the rate at which a fishery is climbing toward its catch limit.
Longer-term decision-making processes, such as amendments to FMPs may be initiated in response to scientific research, changing conditions in the fishery, changes in law, or requests from the Advisory Panel. Amendments are developed by a Plan Development Team composed of Council and NMFS staff and other sources of expertise. Amendments are then considered by the Advisory Panel and by the Council’s MSB Committee. Following Committee Action the Council either approves an amendment for public hearings or sends it back to the PDT and Committee for further development. Public hearings are held throughout the regions affected by the amendment and additional opportunities for public comment are provided. Following the public comment period the MSB Committee reviews the public comments and makes any revisions thought to be necessary. The full Council then considers the amendment for final action and transmittal to NMFS.
Management proposals must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement that analyzes the impacts, both immediate and cumulative, of the action on a variety of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). VECs include:
1) Managed resources
2) Non-target species
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 116
SCS Global Services Report
3) Habitat including EFH for the managed resource and non-target species
4) Endangered and protected resources
5) Human Communities
The process through which all regulatory actions go through is dictated by the MSFCMA, NEPA, APA, and various executive orders that assure transparency and multiple opportunities for public input.
3.5.3 Fishery-Specific Management
History of Management
The longfin squid fishery is managed by The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, created by Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (the Act or MSFCMA). The MSFCMA requires councils to prepare and submit to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) or his or her delegate a fishery management plan with respect to each fishery requiring conservation and management within the Council's geographic area of authority and such plan amendments as are necessary. The MAFMC manages the Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish (MSB) fisheries under a single Fishery management Plan (FMP). The management unit includes all U.S. waters off the U.S. East Coast. There is substantial uncertainty regarding these species because their distribution and productivity are likely highly dependent on environmental variables. The Council uses annual quotas based on recommendations from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee for all four species. These quotas account for both scientific and management uncertainty. (http://www.mafmc.org/msb/) The complete timeline for longfin squid fishery management can be found at: http://www.mafmc.org/msb/. An annotated list of MSB management actions is provided below.
Squid Management Timeline
Squid FMP (1978): Established management of squid fisheries Atlantic Mackerel Amendment 1 (1979): Continued management of the Atlantic mackerel fishery Squid Amendment 1 (1979): Continued management of the squid fishery Atlantic Butterfish Amendment 1 (1980): Continued management of the Atlantic butterfish fishery Atlantic Mackerel Amendment 2 (1980): Continued management of the Atlantic mackerel fishery Atlantic Butterfish Amendment 2 (1980): Continued management of the Atlantic butterfish fishery Merged FMP (1983): Consolidated management of Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries under a single FMP Amendment 1 (1984): Implemented squid OY adjustment mechanism; Revise Atlantic mackerel mortality rate
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 117
SCS Global Services Report
Amendment 2 (1986): Revised squid bycatch TALFF allowances; Implemented framework adjustment process; Converted expiration of fishing permits from indefinite to annual; Equated fishing year with calendar year Amendment 3 (1991): Established overfishing definitions for all four species Amendment 4 (1991): Limited the activity of directed foreign fishing and joint venture transfers to foreign vessels; Allowed for specification of OY for Atlantic mackerel for up to three years Amendment 5 (1996): Adjusted Loligo MSY; Eliminated directed foreign fisheries for Loligo, Illex, and butterfish; Instituted a dealer and vessel reporting system; Instituted an operator permitting system; Implemented a limited access system for Loligo, Illex and butterfish; Expanded the management unit to include all Atlantic mackerel, Loligo, Illex, and butterfish under U.S. jurisdiction. Amendment 6 (1997): Revised the overfishing definitions for Loligo, Illex, and butterfish; Established directed fishery closure at 95% of DAH for Loligo, Illex and butterfish with post-closure trip limits for each species; Established a mechanism for seasonal management of the Illex fishery to improve the yield-per recruit Amendment 7 (1997): Established consistency among FMPs in the NE region of the U.S. relative to vessel permitting, replacement and upgrade criteria Amendment 8 (1998): Brought the FMP into compliance with new and revised National Standards and other required provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act; added a framework adjustment procedure Framework 1 (2001): Created a quota set-aside for the purpose of conducting scientific research Framework 2 (2002): Extended the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional year; Established that previous year specifications apply when specifications for the management unit are not published prior to the start of the fishing year (excluding TALFF specifications); Allowed for the specification of management measures for Loligo for a period of up to three years Framework 3 (2003): Extended the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional year Framework 4 (2004): Extended the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional five years Amendment 12 (2007): Standardized bycatch reporting methodology Amendment 9 (2008): Allowed for multi-year specifications for all four managed species (mackerel, butterfish, Illex, and Loligo) for up to 3 years; Extended the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, without a sunset provision; Adopted biological reference points for Loligo recommended by the stock assessment review committee (SARC); Designated EFH for Loligo eggs based on available information; Prohibited bottom trawling by MSB-permitted vessels in Lydonia and Oceanographer Canyons Amendment 10 (2010): Implemented a butterfish rebuilding program; Increased the Loligo minimum mesh in Trimesters 1 and 3; Implemented a 72-hour trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery. Amendment 13 (2011): Implemented Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Annual Catch Targets (ACTs), and Accountability Measures (AMs). Longfin and Illex squids are exempt from the requirement for accountability measures because of their short life history. Amendment 11 (2011): Implemented Limited Access in the Atl. mackerel fishery; Updated EFH for all MSB species; Established a recreational-commercial allocation. Framework 5 (2012): Broadened the scope of individuals who can perform hold measurements for limited access mackerel vessels
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 118
SCS Global Services Report
Framework 6 (2012): Clarified the Council's risk policy and describes the limited circumstances under which acceptable biological catch (ABC) can be increased for stocks without status determination criteria on overfishing. Framework 7 (2013): Converted the butterfish mortality cap from a catch cap to a discard cap Amendment 14 (2014)/ Appendices/ Final Rule: Implemented a variety of reporting and monitoring requirements for Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid fisheries; Implemented a river herring and shad catch cap for the Atlantic mackerel fishery Amendment 17 (2013)/ Final Rule: Modified accountability measures for the Council's recreational fisheries, including Atlantic mackerel Framework 8 (2014)/ Final Rule: Implements changes to improve operation of the butterfish discard cap in the longfin squid fishery and the directed butterfish fishery Amendment 15 (2015)/ Final Rule: Implemented Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Amendment 19 (2015)/ Final Rule: Eliminated the requirement for vessel owners to submit "did not fish" reports for the months or weeks when their vessel was not fishing; Removed some of the restrictions for upgrading vessels listed on Federal fishing permits Framework 9 (2015): Established measures to enhance catch monitoring and address slippage (catch that is discarded before it has been sampled by observers) in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Amendment 16 (2016) - Deep Sea Corals Amendment/ Final Rule: Established management measures to protect deep sea corals from the impacts of commercial fishing gear in the Mid-Atlantic region Amendment 18 (2017) – Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment. Amendment 18 contains a summary and analysis of management measures considered by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to prohibit the development of new and expansion of existing directed commercial fisheries on certain unmanaged forage species in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The Council intends to prohibit such fisheries until they have had an adequate opportunity to assess the scientific information relating to any new or expanded directed fisheries and consider potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.
Objectives for the Fishery
The original squid fishery management plan (MAFMC 1978) laid out the following objectives:
1. Achieve and maintain optimal stocks for future recruitment. 2. Prevent destructive exploitation of squid species. 3. Minimize capture of non-target species. 4. Achieve efficiency in harvesting and use. 5. Maintain adequate food supplies for predator species, recognizing that squid are also predators. 6. Minimize user conflicts. 7. Improve understanding of the condition of the stocks. 8. Encourage increased American participation in the squid fishery. (MAFMC 1978)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 119
SCS Global Services Report
In 1979 the MAFMC adopted Amendment 1 to the Squid FMP, combining objectives 5 and 7 above and designating objective 8 as objective 7.
In 1981 the Council adopted Amendment 3 to the FMP for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries, merging the three plans into one. The objectives of the merged plan were to:
1. Prevent the exploitation of these resources from exceeding those levels which reduce the probability of successful (i.e., the historic average) recruitment to the fisheries. 2. Promote the growth of the U.S. commercial fishery, including the fishery for export. 3. Provide the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this Plan. 4. Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of recreational fishing to the national economy. 5. Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fisheries. 6. Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational, and foreign fishermen.
Fisheries Regulations to Meet Objectives
A variety of regulations have been put into place at the federal level for squid fishery management. The following general categories of regulations are listed below and are further described in the context of their relevance to Principles 1 and 2.
Annual quota divided into trimesters. Limited permits (see detailed description under “Access Rights,” below. Mesh size by trimester. Trimester I -- 2 1/8 inches (54 mm) Trimester II -- 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) Trimester III -- 2 1/8 inches (54 mm) Net strengtheners must be 5 inches (127 mm) or greater square or diamond mesh Catch Reporting and Vessel Trip Reports (VTR): Owner/operators participating in the Atlantic mackerel, Illex squid, and Longfin squid/butterfish fisheries must submit trip reports weekly. Reports must be postmarked or received by midnight of the Tuesday following the reporting week (Sunday through Saturday). If reported in the week the catch was offloaded. Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements: Longfin squid/butterfish*: The owner or operator of a vessel issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit must report catch (retained and discarded) of longfin squid daily via VMS. Reports are required even if longfin squid caught that day have not yet been landed. VTRs: Copies of fishing log reports must be kept on board the vessel and available for review for at least 1 year, and must be retained for a total of 3 years after the date the fish were last possessed, landed, and sold.. (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html#el111022)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 120
SCS Global Services Report
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) share responsibility for the enforcement of fishing laws and regulations by US vessels. These agencies have land-based and seagoing enforcement officers and a complete system of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) for the groundfish fisheries, including: At-sea surveillance by patrol vessels and fixed-wing aircraft; Prescribed on-board observer coverage with protocols to monitor catch, species, etc; Unannounced dockside monitoring of landings; Submission of vessel fishing log books (vessel trip reports); Catch and Effort database to track catch against allocations; Electronic vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on each vessel; And, potential catch seizure and significant fines and loss of fishing privileges for violations of regulations. There is an explicit and statutory sanction framework that is applied for violations of fishery regulations. Sanctions for violations in the Northeast Region of the U.S. are listed in 50 CFR 600.740. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides four basic enforcement remedies for violations, in ascending order of severity, as follows: (1) Issuance of a citation (a type of warning), usually at the scene of the offense (see 15 CFR part 904, subpart E). (2) Assessment by the Administrator of a civil money penalty. (3) For certain violations, judicial forfeiture action against the vessel and its catch. (4) Criminal prosecution of the owner or operator for some offenses. It shall be the policy of NMFS to enforce vigorously and equitably the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by utilizing that form or combination of authorized remedies best suited in a particular case to this end. Other than assaults on fishery officers, violations of federal fishery regulations are treated as civil cases, using a “preponderance of the evidence” rule. Cases are adjudicated by administrative law judges.
Access Rights
Amendment 5 in 1996 established a limited access system for longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish. To be eligible for a moratorium permit in the Loligo squid and butterfish fishery a vessel had to meet the following criteria: 1. The vessel landed and sold 20,000 pounds of Loligo or butterfish (including joint venture landings) in any consecutive 30 day period between 13 August 1981 and 13 August 1993.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 121
SCS Global Services Report
2. The vessel is replacing a vessel of substantially similar harvesting capacity which involuntarily left the squid or butterfish fishery during the moratorium, and both the entering and replaced vessels are owned by the same person. "Substantially similar harvesting capacity" means the same or less GRT and vessel registered length for commercial vessels. 3. Vessels that are judged unseaworthy by the Coast Guard for reasons other than lack of maintenance may be replaced by a vessel with the same GRT and vessel registered length for commercial vessels. Amendment 5 allowed vessels that did not qualify for a Loligo/butterfish or Illex moratorium permit to land Loligo, Illex, and or butterfish if: (1) it possessed an incidental catch permit, (2) fished with a net legal in the directed fishery, (3) landed no more than 2,500 pounds of each species (Loligo, Illex, and/or butterfish) per trip, and (4) the operator of the vessel filed the appropriate trip reports. The bycatch allowance could be adjusted by the Regional Director based on the recommendation of the Council. In June 2017 the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council approved the Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The amendment includes measures to reduce latent (unused) permits in the longfin squid fishery and modify management of longfin squid during Trimester 2. Below are summaries of the issues addressed and the Council’s preferred alternatives as described by the Council. This Amendment is not yet implemented. It is described here but the actions of the amendment have not been evaluated as existing measures for scoring purposes. (MAFMC 2017)
Longfin Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification In recent years, a relatively small portion of vessels with limited access (“moratorium”) squid permits have accounted for most of the landings. Some fishery participants have expressed concern that activation of latent permits could lead to excessive fishing effort. The amendment considered options for removing latent permits from the directed fishery to limit derby fishing. Under the alternative selected by the Council, current longfin squid/butterfish limited access moratorium permits would be allowed to retain their permit if they landed at least 10,000 pounds of squid in one year from 1997 to 2013. This would reduce the number of moratorium squid permits by more than 40% but would not affect vessels that have been historically active in the fishery. However, moratorium permit holders that do not requalify to retain the longfin squid moratorium permit would be eligible for a permit that allows a 5,000-pound longfin squid trip limit when the fishery is open. In addition, the Council recommended separating the butterfish part of the longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit to allow current moratorium permits the opportunity to continue to target and land butterfish. The Council also approved a one-time “permit swap” opportunity which would allow owners of multiple longfin squid moratorium permits as of May 26, 2017 to swap active requalifying and non-requalifying moratorium permits among their vessels. Longfin Squid Incidental and Open Access Permits The Council voted to replace the current open access incidental longfin squid permit with a limited access incidental permit. Qualifying vessels must have landed at least 5,000 pounds of longfin squid in one year from 1997 to 2013. Currently about 1,400 vessels possess open access incidental permits, and about 325 are expected to qualify for the limited access incidental permit. The daily trip limit for the incidental permit would remain at 2,500
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 122
SCS Global Services Report
pounds. In addition, to minimize regulatory discarding of squid bycatch, non-qualifying vessels would still be able to obtain an open access permit that would allow up to 250 pounds of longfin squid per trip. Trimester 2 The amendment also includes measures to modify management of longfin squid during Trimester 2. Currently, the trip limit in Federal waters after a Trimester closure is 2,500 pounds. Directed fishing after a closure can lead to substantial trimester quota overages, such as in 2016 when a 48% overage occurred. Because fishing during Trimester 2 occurs on the inshore spawning grounds for longfin squid, excessive fishing effort during Trimester 2 may adversely affect the overall productivity of the longfin squid stock by reducing spawning or egg hatching. To avoid future excessive longfin squid catch during Trimester 2, the Council voted to reduce the longfin squid trip limit to 250 pounds per day, a 90% reduction, for all permits once the Trimester 2 quota has been reached. The Council will also continue to work with relevant states to encourage them to match this limit after such a closure.
Review and Audit of the Management Plan The management plan is regularly reviewed and amended if necessary through the MAFMC council process. The following entities have relevant roles:
. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ("MAFMC") – entity with jurisdiction under the MFCMA for operational management of the longfin squid fishery, including development, review, and approval of all amendments to the FMP, as well as the setting of annual quotas (see website www.mafmc.org).
. Scientific and Statistical Committee ("SSC") of the MAFMC – a group of up to 20 scientists and academics required by the Magnuson Act to review annual reports from the MAFMC staff and NEFSC regarding the status of the stocks, and then to set the ABC ("Acceptable Biological Catch") for each species. The ABC is the maximum level at which the MAFMC may set the harvest quota each year. The SSC additionally recommends improvements for the assessments and notes parameters – such as biological reference points – that they believe need further study.
. Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC – committee comprised of MAFMC members charged with initial responsibility for interacting with industry, and for recommending to full Council proposed changes in the FMP, regulations, and proposed annual quotas.
. Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Advisory Panel – representatives of the industry who meet at least annually to review the performance of the fishery and make recommendations to the MAFMC regarding management actions that may be needed. Council staff annually prepares a Fishery Information Document for the consideration of the Advisory Panel. The Fishery Information Document contains relevant data pertaining to the recent status of stocks and developments in
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 123
SCS Global Services Report
the fishery. Based on the deliberations of the Advisory Panel, Council staff prepares an annual Fishery Performance Report that is transmitted to the MSB Committee and to the full Council.
3.5.4 State Management of Longfin Squid Federally-permitted vessels landed an average of 98.6% of all coastwide longfin landings during the years 2011-2015 and are therefore covered by federal regulations whether they are fishing in state or federal waters. (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/59073cc9be65945087783a84/1 493646537724/Doryteuthis_update_April_2017.pdf)
Prior to the adoption of the MAFMC Squid Amendment in June 2017, the longfin squid trip limit during period when the fishery was closed as the result of meeting its trimester quota was 2,500 lbs. Because most boats with state squid fishing licenses only (no federal squid fishing permit) tend to be smaller vessels that would not generally exceed the 2,500 lb trip limit, the absence of matching state regulations in some squid producing states did not materially change the effectiveness of the closure. With the adoption of the pending Squid Amendment, which reduces the incidental catch limit to 250 lbs, the absence of complimentary state regulations may create a disparity between federally-permitted and state-licensed boats but would still not be likely to significantly impact the effectiveness of the squid FMP. The MAFMC has indicated its intent to work with states to develop matching state regulations. Massachusetts has a significant state-waters squid fishery and currently has complimentary closure regulations.
Maine – Maine has no regulations on the longfin squid catch. State vessels must have a Maine state harvesting license with a pelagic fishing endorsement to fish for squid.
New Hampshire – New Hampshire has no regulations on longfin squid catch and State law prohibits the use of mobile gear in state waters, meaning that there would be no small mesh bottom trawl fishing and thus no UoA fishing in NH state waters.
Massachusetts – To use small mesh in MA state waters a vessel must hold a Coastal Access Permit. The small mesh trawl season is from 4/23 - 6/9 in the small mesh exempted fishing area (i.e., south of the cape) for squid. There is a 100 lb mixed flatfish limit if squid or small meshes are onboard. There are no retention limits for longfin squid until NMFS implements its incidental limit, which the state mirrors.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 124
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 31. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Mobile Gear Restricted Areas.
Rhode Island- Rhode Island has no regulations on longfin squid catch. Squid is considered a non- restricted finfish in the state of RI so a fisherman would need to possess a multipurpose fishing license
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 125
SCS Global Services Report
(MPURP), a Principal Effort License (PEL), or Commercial Finfish License (CFL) license with a non- restricted finfish endorsement to fish in state waters.
Connecticut – Connecticut has no squid fishing regulations. To fish for squid with a trawl a vessel must have a limited access (trawl) permit, which are limited but transferable.
New York – New York is in the process of developing squid fishing regulations that will mirror federal regulations. Vessels fishing in NY state waters are required to have a commercial food fishing license in order to retain squid.
New Jersey – New Jersey has no squid-specific permit requirement. Fishermen must have a permit for whatever gear they intend on using.
Pennsylvania – Pennsylvania has no squid fishing regulations. Pennsylvania has no commercial fishing ports and is only connected to the Atlantic by the Delaware River.
Delaware – Delaware issues permits for authorized fishing gears. The use of trawls in state waters is prohibited by law so there is no UoA fishing in Delaware.
Maryland – Maryland has no regulations pertaining to squid fishing.
Access Rights to the Longfin Squid Fishery in State Waters Landings by state-licensed, rather than federally permitted vessels comprise <2% of total landings according to dealer permit data provided by the MAFMC. Very little UoA squid fishing takes place in state waters other than MA, RI, and NY. The following state regulations govern access to the squid fishery. Maine- The squid fishery in Maine is open access. Individuals require a commercial fishing license. New Hampshire- NH’s commercial saltwater license is for individuals to take, possess, land, or transport on the waters of the state any marine species for the purpose of sale, regardless of where the catch was taken. The exceptions are lobsters and crabs and Northern shrimp which require a separate license. To take squid in state waters for the purpose of sale Individuals would need a commercial saltwater license. The use of mobile gear is prohibited in state waters, meaning that no UoA fishing can take place in NH. Massachusetts- MA does not have a species-specific permit endorsement for squid. Access to the fishery depends on gear type. Mobile gear coastal access permits (CAP) in MA are limited access. Any CAP permit holder may obtain an endorsement (CAP-Squid) to fish in the MA April 23 – June 9 small mesh trawl fishery for squid south and west of Cape Cod. MA also has a limited entry weir fishery permit and weir fishermen may retain and land squid taken in the fish weirs. Any individual with a commercial boat or individual permit holder may take squid by other means (e.g., jigging) and rod and reel permit holders may take squid by this gear. Most commercial squid landings come from the mobile gear fishery; weir fishery landings vary year to year based both on the inshore availability of the resource and activity by the permit holders; and landings from other gears (e.g., jigging) are nominal. Rhode Island- Squid is a non-restricted finfish species, meaning that anyone can get a permit for squid. The only caveat is that fishing licenses are only issued during a small part of the year, so once the renewal period is over, no new licenses can be purchased.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 126
SCS Global Services Report
New Jersey- NJ requires that commercial fishing gear be licensed but there is no special permit to fish for squid within state waters. New York- NY doesn’t have a specific squid permit. Squid can be harvested from state waters and landed in NYS with a commercial food fishing license, which are limited. If all Food Fish licenses issued a previous year are not renewed, then un-renewed license become available to applicants via random drawing (unless there are enough licenses for all applicants, which doesn’t happen). To be eligible for a Food Fish License an applicant must be able to show an average of $15,000 earnings from fishing over the last 3 years or have served in the armed forces and received a general or honorable discharge. MD-Open access VA-Open access PA-Open access NC-Open access
3.5.5 Recognized Interest Groups and Arrangements for Consultations
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) created eight regional fishery management councils (councils) responsible for the fisheries that require conservation and management in their region. The councils are composed of both voting and non-voting members representing the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in addition to environmental, academic, and government interests. The MAFMC Council is made up of 21 voting and 4 non-voting representatives. Voting members include one Federal representative, seven members from the constituent states' fish and wildlife agencies, and 13 private citizens who are knowledgeable about recreational or commercial fishing, or marine conservation. These 13 citizens are nominated by the governors of their respective states and are appointed to the Council by the Secretary of Commerce. The four non-voting members representing the ASMFC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Of the thirteen voting members who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, seven obligatory seats are state-specific and must be filled by one individual from each of the Council’s constituent states, and six at-large seats may be filled by individuals from any constituent state. Appointed members are appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed. Members may not serve more than three consecutive terms. All council members have an equal vote and any council member may serve as the chairman or a member of the council’s various committees. (MAFMC.org)
A statement of financial interests is required to be filed by all voting council members and by members of the council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee. These forms can be accessed through the Council web site.
The Council process is fully public and there are regular opportunities for public involvement. Public notification procedures are specified by law and all meetings must be open to the public. The consultation process includes a formal advisory panel that meets regularly and provides an opportunity for relevant information, including local knowledge, to be brought forth and considered in the development and adjustment of fishery management plans.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 127
SCS Global Services Report
The MAFMC publishes its Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures on its web site.
The MAFMC maintains a list of interested stakeholders, which was provided to SCS for purposes of stakeholder outreach. Stakeholders include a broad range of stakeholders from environmental NGOs, the squid fishing industry, other fishing industries, government, and individuals.
Non-fishery Uses or Activities and Arrangements for Liaison and Coordination
The areas within which squid fishing takes place are subject to multiple-use by a wide range of activities. Squid fishery representatives take part in liaison and coordination with other user groups as appropriate. The MAFMC includes representatives of the major fisheries on its Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee, which reviews ocean activities that potentially conflict with fishery resources or fishing. Offshore wind developers interact with squid fishing interests through a number of government and non-government forums.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 128
SCS Global Services Report
4. Evaluation Procedure
4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment
FCR v2.0 requires CABs to harmonize overlapping fishery assessments in order to ensure consistency of outcomes. The nature of overlap with other fisheries that are MSC certified or under MSC assessment may vary based on MSC Principle. Harmonization requirements are governed by FCRv2.0 Annex PB. A complete list of fisheries overlapping with the Units in Assessment is provided in Table 23.
For this assessment, harmonization is required as follows:
Principle 1: Not applicable. Atlantic longfin inshore squid is not assessed under Principle 1 in any other certified or under assessment fishery.
Principle 2: Not applicable. The gear classification is unique to this UoA. The small mesh bottom trawl fleet is a subset of the spiny dogfish UoA, but is not scored as a unique fleet but rather is evaluated as part of the entire bottom trawl fishery (i.e. all mesh sizes), and therefore the catch composition and footprint of the fleet is meaningfully different. Further, the spiny dogfish UoA has not been scored under V2.0.
Principle 3: There are several U.S. fisheries and fisheries managed under the MAFMC that are currently certified or under assessment. U.S. fisheries subject to management under the MAFMC and NEFMC are considered for harmonization purposes due to their overlapping management jurisdictions. Harmonization is considered for PIs 3.1.X only, as PIs 3.2.X consider the fishery specific management system and there are no other fisheries that are certified or under assessment under the jurisdiction of the MSB FMP.
Table 23. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization.
Principles for MSC Assessment Conformity Fishery Status Harmonization Tree Version Assessment Body Certified 2012, Suspended 1 U.S. Atlantic February 19, P3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) CRV1.3 SCS Global Services Spiny Dogfish 2015, Re-instated May 28, 2015 2 U.S. Atlantic Sea Certified 19 Dec P3(3.1.1-3.1.3) CRV1.3 SCS Global Services Scallop 2013 3 U.S. Acadian Redfish, Haddock, P1, P2, & P3 (3.1.1- Certified July 2016 CRV1.3 SAI Global and Pollock Otter 3.2.4) Trawl 4 U.S. Atlantic Certified 16 Surfclam and P3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) CRV2.0 SCS Global Services December 2016 Ocean Quahog
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 129
SCS Global Services Report
5 Gulf of Maine & Georges Bank Haddock, Pollock, Under Assessment P3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) CRV2.0 Acoura and Redfish Bottom Trawl 6 U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Under Assessment P3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) CRV2.0 SCS Global Services Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery
Table 24. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization
U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Atlantic Gulf of Maine Longfin Squid Atlantic Atlantic Acadian Surfclam and Georges Bottom Trawl Spiny Sea Redfish, and Ocean Bank Fishery off the PI Dogfish Scallop Pollock and Quahog Haddock, Northeast OTB Fishery Haddock Fisheries Pollock and Coast of the Fisheries OTB Redfish Trawl U.S. Fisheries 3.1.1 90 95 95 100 100 100 3.1.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.1.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.1.4 (Not a PI in FCRV2.0) 80 100 100 NA NA NA
All scores as shown in Table 22 are within 10 points of each other and within the same outcome range of ‘unconditional pass’ (with the exception of 3.1.4 which does not exist under V2.0). Therefore, harmonization discussions with other CABs to align scores was deemed unnecessary.
4.2 Previous Assessments
The U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid bottom trawl fishery is undergoing MSC full assessment for the first time. Thus, there are no previously open conditions to report.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies This assessment was conducted by SCS Global Services, an accredited MSC certification body. The fishery was assessed using the MSC Certification Requirements Version 2.0, October 1, 2014, and the reporting template used in this report is also V2.0. The default assessment tree was used without adjustments. The fishery will be subject to any updated process requirements (currently FCR 2.0 and GCR 2.1) at the time of any next surveillance. The fishery will remain on V2.0 (Annex SA) of the Certification Requirements for all performance requirements (PISGs) for the five year duration of the certificate cycle, should the fishery be found capable of scoring at a level that confers certification.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 130
SCS Global Services Report
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
4.4.1 Site Visits The assessment team selected site visit locations and interviewees based on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, compliance, and habitat protection personnel and agency representatives. Before the site visit and meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders. The on-site meetings took place in Gloucester and Woods Hole, MA, and Narragansett, RI, September 5-7, 2017. The assessment team visited agency offices including the NMFS Greater Atlantic Fisheries Regional Office (GARFO) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and also visited The Town Dock offices in Narragansett. An open stakeholder meeting was conducted at the hotel in Narragansett, but no stakeholders attended.
Table 25. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations
Table 3: Meeting Itinerary Meeting Location Time Topic Attendees Date 1 September GARFO, 9:00am- General Management Peter Christopher 5, 2017 Gloucester, MA 10:00am Updates Doug Christel Jeff Kaelin Richard Allen Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 2 10:00am- Enforcement and Office Don Frei 11:00am of General Counsel Jeff Kaelin (TBC) Mark Capone Jeff Ray Tim Donovan Richard Allen Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 3 11:00am- Protected Species Focus Dave Gouveia 12:00pm Jeff Kaelin Mark Minton Ellen Keane Danielle Palmer Bill Barnhill Richard Allen Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 4 12:00pm- Habitat Focus David Stevenson 12:30pm Jeff Kaelin
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 131
SCS Global Services Report
Richard Allen Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 5 September NEFSC, 9:00am- Observer program Susan Wigley 6, 2017 Woods Hole, 9:30am Glenn Chamberlain MA Richard Allen Jeff Kaelin Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 6 10:00am- Longfin Stock Lisa Hendrickson 11:30am Illex Stock and Jeff Kaelin preliminary RBF Richard Allen discussion* Joe DeAlteris Jennifer Humberstone 7 Hampton Inn 5:00pm- Open Stakeholder No attendees Narragansett, 6:30pm Meeting RI 8 September The Town Dock 11:00am- Meeting with Jason Jason Didden 7, 2017 Narragansett, 12:00pm Didden Jeff Kaelin RI Richard Allen Jennifer Humberstone Joe DeAlteris 9 12:30pm- Closing Meeting Jeff Kaelin 2:00pm Katie Almeida Jason Didden Richard Allen Michael Roderick Joe DeAlteris Jennifer Humberstone
In the weeks immediately following the on-site visit additional phone calls were held with Ryan Silva of NMFS regarding seabird management, Dan McKiernan of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) regarding state management considerations, and John Manderson of NEFSC regarding cooperative research with the industry study fleet to help inform the summary on bycatch management in the fishery (See Section 3.4.5).
The assessment team worked with the client group to organize a webinar held on October 4, 2017, to conduct a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for northern shortfin squid as a data deficient Main Secondary species. The team elected to pursue a webinar instead of an in-person meeting to accommodate attendance by a wider and more representative audience. Details regarding the webinar, including attendees, preparation, and summary, is provided in Appendix 1.2.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 132
SCS Global Services Report
4.4.2 Consultations In addition to the meetings and attendees list above (Section 4.4.1), consultations have included large numbers of phone and email exchanges. A number of key organizations were contacted in advance of the fishery’s formal entry into public full assessment, primarily via email. SCS worked with the MAFMC to obtain a comprehensive list of stakeholders based on parties registered for fishery updates through the Council. The email outreach list includes over 85 individuals from a range of organizations spanning the government, private, and non-profit sectors. Several stakeholders responded to the announcement of the fishery to express interest in receiving assessment updates. No stakeholders registered interest in attending the on-site meetings, but several stakeholders expressed concerns over management of Trimester 2: specifically impacts of the fishery on the inshore spawning grounds off of Nantucket in terms of impacts on longfin inshore squid egg mops and resource sustainability as well as impacts on other species in the area and fisheries targeting such fisheries (with particular attention to impacts on the striped bass fishery). Stakeholders expressing such concerns prior to and after the on-site meetings included: . The Pew Charitable Trusts (Call July 14, 2017; Comments received August 1, 2017) . Peter Kaizer (email received April 21, 2017) . Cam Gammill of Fisher Real Estate (Call received September 26, 2017) . Capt. John McMurray (Email received October 3, 2017) . Tobias Glidden (Call received October 5, 2017) The assessment team responded to all stakeholders with concerns via email and spoke on the phone with Purcie Bennett-Nickerson of Pew, Cam Gammil, and Tobias Glidden directly. SCS recommended to all stakeholders to submit written comment for inclusion in the report. Of these stakeholders, only Pew submitted written comment prior within 30-days of the fishery announcement (by July 29, 2017) and prior to development of the client draft. A brief email was also submitted by Peter Kaizer and is included along with Pew’s submission in Appendix 3. A summary of call notes provided after a phone conversation with Cam Gammill is also included. Due to late receipt of contact from the additional stakeholders, lack of written comment, and because Pew’s comments reflect the concerns expressed by these additional parties, the assessment team has included a formal response to the Pew submissions that are intended to address all submitted stakeholder concerns, in Appendix 3. These stakeholders have been invited to provide further comment at future stages.
4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques
Documentation and Information Gathering
One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 133
SCS Global Services Report fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures. Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested, or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location. Information for the assessed was gathered based on client document submission and receipt of stakeholder comments prior to the onsite visit (and after), via on-site meetings with key management representatives and via subsequent phone and email conversations with management representatives and stakeholders. MAFMC, GARFO, and NEFSC, with the support and guidance of the client representatives from The Town Dock and Lund’s Fisheries Inc., were key in providing the assessment team with documents as requested, and were generous with their time to accommodate phone and in-person meetings and email exchanges.
This assessment also required the conduct of a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) under the Risk- Based Framework (RBF), which involved additional document requests to the client representatives and science and management personnel, and time for a range of stakeholders that also included fishers to participate in an RBF consultation. See Appendix 1.2 for details regarding the RBF consultation process.
Scoring and Report Development Process
1. Onsite Visit: Scoring was initiated prior to and during the 3 day site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between September and November 2017.
2. Additional Document Submission: Following the onsite visit, the team compiled meeting summaries that included follow-up questions and document requests for submission. All meeting attendees were asked to respond with any corrections to the meeting notes and to submit information according to the follow-up requests where available within one week of receipt. The assessment team received further clarifications and documentation from meeting attendees upon this request.
3. Client Draft: Rationales and associated background was developed by respectively assigned assessment team members, and then cross read by team members and SCS staff for production of the client draft report. Scoring was completed by consensus through this review process and team meetings by phone and email. The fishery received a total of 2 conditions within 2 performance indicators. The team finalized scoring and submitted the Client Draft in December 2017. The client fishery then worked with SCS to generate an acceptable client action plan.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 134
SCS Global Services Report
4. Peer Review: Based on comments from peer reviewers the team modified content related to all three Principles, and adjusted scores downwards on PI 1.2.3 and PI 2.3.1, though these changes did not result in additional conditions.
Scoring Methodology
The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCR v2.0 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues are considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 26 determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements21’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 26.
Table 26. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCRV2.0 Table 4)
Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there. 75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCRV2.0 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology utilized.
When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS interprets the terms in the Table 2 as following:
21 MSC FCRV2.0 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 135
SCS Global Services Report
. Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few. . Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some. . Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.
Elements evaluated in the scoring of the fishery are as follows:
Table 27. Scoring elements
Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not Primary Silver hake Main Not Data-deficient Primary Scup Main Not Data-deficient Primary Skates Main- Little & Not Data-deficient Winter only (others are minor) Primary Butterfish Main Not Data-deficient Primary Atlantic herring Main Not Data-deficient Primary Spiny dogfish Main Not Data-deficient Primary Red hake Minor^ Not Data-deficient Primary Summer flounder Minor Not Data-deficient Primary Black sea bass Minor Not Data-deficient Primary Haddock Minor Not Data-deficient Primary Atlantic croaker Minor Not Data-deficient Primary Monkfish (goosefish) Minor Not Data-deficient Secondary Northern shortfin squid Main Data-deficient Secondary Atlantic mackerel Minor Data-deficient Secondary Horseshoe crab Minor Data-deficient Secondary Northern sea robin Minor Data-deficient Secondary Spotted hake Minor Data-deficient Secondary Smooth dogfish Minor Data-deficient Secondary Striped sea robin Minor Data-deficient Secondary Fourspot flounder Minor Data-deficient ETP* Marine Mammals Main Not Data-deficient ETP Sea Turtles Main Not Data-deficient ETP Atlantic Sturgeon Main Not Data-deficient ETP Seabirds Main Not Data-deficient Commonly Encountered Sandy Main Not Data-deficient Habitats** Commonly Encountered Muddy Main Not Data-deficient Habitats VME Deep coral habitat Main Not Data-deficient Key Ecosystem Elements Productivity Main Not Data-deficient Key Ecosystem Elements Community Structure/ Main Not Data-deficient Trophic Linkages ^ Minor species elements have been scored together based on the ‘all or none approach’ described in the MSC interpretation titled “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100.” (http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/minor- species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-sg100/) Only minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch are considered explicitly in the background and scoring. For a full list of species encountered in the fishery see appendices 6 & 7.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 136
SCS Global Services Report
*ETP elements were grouped into categories comprising one or more species. Where a group consists of more than one species, all species are considered (see background), and scores are determined based on the species of highest risk.
**Sandy and muddy habitats scored together as a group element based on similar impact risk and management structure.
Data Deficient Elements and Use of the RBF
Secondary species, by definition, will almost always be considered data deficient and trigger the RBF on the basis of Table 3 in V2.0. Of the Secondary species in the catch of the UoA, only Northern Shortfin Squid was considered “Main” on the basis of catch composition (where northern shortfin squid is the only Secondary species that comprises >5% of the UoA catch by weight.
All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. Minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch include: Horseshoe crab, Northern sea robin, Spotted hake, Atlantic Mackerel, Smooth Dogfish, Striped sea robin, and Fourspot flounder. The assessment team elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score for PI 2.2.1 is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1).
The potential use of the RBF was flagged during the document gathering stage and announced with the full assessment on June 29, 2017. No stakeholder comments were received with regards to use of the RBF for the scoring of PI 2.2.1.
Prior to, during, and after the on-site meeting documents were gathered in accordance with the requirements of Annex PF 2.2. The U.S. fisheries management system contains a wealth of information relevant to the documentation required, and northern shortfin squid, albeit data deficient due to a lack of reference points, has been actively managed under the same FMP as the target species for this assessment. Thus, much of the documentation required under Annex PF 2.2 was already submitted within the initial document checklist prior to the fishery announcement.
Stakeholders were consulted regarding the conduct of the RBF to assess northern shortfin squid informally and preliminarily during the on-site meetings in discussions with lead stock assessment scientist Lisa Hendrickson, MAFMC representative Jason Didden, and client liaisons Jeff Kaelin and Katie Almeida. It was agreed during the on-site meetings that northern shortfin squid merited consideration as an RBF species, that no other elements qualified for RBF consideration, and the most effective means of engaging the broadest range of stakeholders and facilitating the highest levels of participation would be to conduct a webinar.
A date for the webinar was agreed shortly after the on-site: October 4, 2017. All registered stakeholders were notified and invited to participate, and the assessment team and client group identified and invited specific key stakeholders to ensure a broad range of perspectives, including: fishers, industry, science, and management. All registered participants were provided access to a DropBox folder with a preliminary RBF findings summary and PowerPoint to serve as the basis for discussion, RBF training materials, and key supporting documentation. During the webinar, all participants were provided the opportunity to discuss the available information on each aspect of the PSA evaluation and provide input
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 137
SCS Global Services Report on results. A summary of discussions held during the webinar and a list of webinar attendees may be found in Appendix 1.2.
All attendees engaged actively and provided applicable and relevant input, including follow-up documentation where appropriate. Stock assessment scientist Lisa Hendrickson in particular provided a wealth of input and resources to support the analysis.
Decision Rule The MSC provides a mandatory Excel template that facilitates the calculation of Principle level scores. Within the Excel template (and provided in Section 6.2) PIs are organized into components, where each PI within a component is weighted equally (PI weight), where the sum of PI weights per component equals 1. Multiple components make up each Principle, and components are likewise weighted (evenly, except in Principle 1) (Component weight), where the sum of component weights per Principle equals 1. The PI weight within the component multiplied by the component weight within the Principle provides a weight for each PI within the Principle (PI weight * Component weight= PI Principle weight). Each PI score is then multiplied by its weight within the Principle (PI Principle weight), and all weighted PI values are summed to generate a Principle level score, reported to the nearest one decimal place in accordance with MSC FCRV2.0 (7.10.3)
The decision rule for MSC certification is based on the resulting Principle level scores and is as follows: . No PIs score below 60 . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 138
SCS Global Services Report
5. Traceability
5.1 Eligibility Date
The target eligibility date is the date of release of the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), projected for early March 2018. Any products harvested from this fishery after release of the PCDR and prior to certification could be considered “Under MSC Assessment Fishery” or UMAF. The client has been informed that under-assessment product must be handled in conformity with the relevant requirements in the MSC CoC Standard (V4.0 Section 5.6), as per FCRV2.0 clause 7.6.2. At present, both fishery client group members hold current MSC CoC certificates. Lund’s Fisheries Inc. is certified for packing and repacking, processing (primary and secondary), storage, trading, and transportation of Atlantic, queen and yesso scallops (MSC-C-53408-1 & MSC-C-53408-2). The Town Dock holds a valid MSC certificate for primary processing, storage, trading and transportation of Atlantic cod, Haddock, North Pacific hake, Northern prawn, golden redfish, sablefish, chum and pink salmon, yesso scallop and Oregon pink shrimp (MSC-C-54519).
5.2 Traceability within the Fishery The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering the U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery. Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the UoC fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step:
Capture of Product
Catch Reporting and Vessel Trip Reports (VTR): Owner/operators participating in the Atlantic mackerel, Illex squid, and Longfin squid/butterfish fisheries must submit trip reports weekly. Reports must be postmarked or received by midnight of the Tuesday following the reporting week (Sunday through Saturday). If reported in the week the catch was offloaded. Copies of fishing log reports must be kept on board the vessel and available for review for at least 1 year, and must be retained for a total of 3 years after the date the fish were last possessed, landed, and sold.. Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements: Longfin squid/butterfish: The owner or operator of a vessel issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit must report catch (retained and discarded) of longfin squid daily via VMS. Reports are required even if longfin squid caught that day have not yet been landed. (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html#el111022) State-only permitted vessels are not necessarily subject to the same reporting requirements, but landing ports are licensed via States and thus product from a State-permitted trip and federally permitted trips are landed in the same locations. States may have different reporting forms or requirements, and the client group is aware of their obligation to demonstrate provenance to a licensed state or federal small mesh bottom trawl vessel. Both States and Federal fishery landings are reported to and warehoused in the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). GARFO staff report that several states voluntarily use the federal VTR form, including states known to have the significant squid fisheries in
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 139
SCS Global Services Report state waters such as Massachusetts and New York (D. Christel, pers. comm). State fisheries are understood to contribute <2% of total commercial landings of longfin squid (See Section 3.5.4).
Product Unloading, Sale, and First Change of Ownership
Dealers that buy and sell longfin squid from federally-permitted vessels must have a federal permit issued by NOAA Fisheries. Dealers must report transactions weekly and annually through the Internet. Required dealer records must be kept for three years. Both client group members are federally licensed dealers, and it is expected that most eligible product will be received directly from vessels by the client group members. (http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/infodocs/.pdf)
Federally permitted dealers, and any individual acting in the capacity of a dealer, must submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a detailed report of all fish purchased or received for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land, on a weekly basis, by one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by NMFS, unless otherwise directed by the Regional Administrator. The following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator, must be provided in each report (USOFR 2016a):
(i) All dealers issued a dealer permit must provide: Dealer name; dealer permit number; name and permit number or name and hull number (U.S. Coast Guard documentation number or state registration number, whichever is applicable) of vessel(s) from which fish are purchased or received; trip identifier for each trip from which fish are purchased or received from a commercial fishing vessel permitted for the fishery; date(s) of purchases and receipts; units of measure and amount by species (by market category, if applicable); price per unit by species (by market category, if applicable) or total value by species (by market category, if applicable); port landed; cage tag numbers for surfclams and ocean quahogs, if applicable; disposition of the seafood product; and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. If no fish are purchased or received during a reporting week, a report so stating must be submitted.
The VTR has several carbon copies for sharing different key information with different parties. A copy of the VTR is provided to the dealer at the first change of ownership, but the copy provided to dealers has most fields redacted and only provides the dealer with basic operational detail (vessel name, permit number, VTR number, date sailed/landed. An alternative copy of the VTR (e.g. one labeled for dockside monitoring) would include gear information, and the vessel owner may choose to share this copy with a dealer as well. A screenshot of the electronic VTW may also present a means to convey the full VTR data. Sharing of information beyond that included in the dealer copy of the VTR is at the vessel’s discretion, but it will be necessary for the client group members to be able to demonstrate provenance to a small mesh bottom trawl vessel.
Dealers, if not buying from federally permitted fisheries, may be licensed by the state in which they operate, and in this case will be subject to the reporting requirements of the respective state. As noted above, non-federally permitted longfin inshore squid landings is understood to comprise <2% of total landings on average.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 140
SCS Global Services Report
Product Transport and Storage
The client group reports that a bill of lading accompanies the product in transport and that product is labelled with a lot number. The adequacy of traceability systems of the client group during transportation and storage activities are beyond the scope of the fishery certificate, and are to be evaluated as part of the scope of an MSC CoC audit.
Table 28. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:
Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) The UoA comprises the modern commercial directed fishery for longfin inshore squid. Fish weirs and floating fish traps capture squid, and squid may occasionally be Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used caught incidentally by other gear types as well. The product from these trap gear enters different marketing within the fishery channels from the trawl-caught squid, and all non-UoA gears combined comprise ≤5% of landings. The client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a UoA vessel, see traceability description above. NA. The UoA covers the range of the entire fishery and Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish includes both state and federal waters. outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) All vessels with permits to catch squid with small mesh Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or bottom otter trawls are included in the UoA. This client group fishing the same stock comprises nearly all landings of the target species. The only non-UoA gear traditionally known to longfin inshore squid is trap gear. According to client group Risks of mixing between certified and non- members, there is little chance of mixing trawl-caught certified catch during storage, transport, or squid and trap squid because trap squid is landed at handling activities (including transport at distinct sites and the product enters different marketing sea and on land, points of landing, and sales channels. Incidental landings by all other gear types, at auction) including traps, are very low (≤5% of total landings). The client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a UoA vessel, see traceability description above. There is little chance of certified and non-certified catch being mixed before Chain of Custody because the UoA Risks of mixing between certified and non- encompasses nearly all longfin inshore squid landings and certified catch during processing activities the entire directed federal fishery. Landings data from dealer reporting confirms there are no other gears that (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of target longfin squid, and incidental landings by other gear Custody) types are very low (≤5% of total landings). The client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a UoA vessel, see traceability description above.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 141
SCS Global Services Report
Vessels may transfer longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish within the EEZ if both vessels participating in the transfer have been issued a valid longfin squid and butterfish or Illex moratorium or incidental permit and a letter of authorization (LOA) to transfer such species from the Regional Administrator. Vessels may only transfer species for which the vessels are permitted. From 2013-2017 between 8-12 LOAs have been issued for squid transfers per year. Despite the issuances of Risks of mixing between certified and non- these LOAs, the client group and GARFO were not aware of any transfers occurring in the fishery in recent years. certified catch during transshipment In any case, the vessel receiving product at sea is treated as a dealer, and a VTR may be forward in the same manner as a land-based dealer. In all cases the client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a small mesh bottom trawl vessel, see traceability description above.
Any vessel purchasing or processing squid at sea must submit a dealer report as described above.
The risk of substitution between fish from the UoC and fish from outside this unit before Chain of Custody is Any other risks of substitution between fish minimal because the UoA comprises >95% of all from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from commercial landings of longfin inshore squid, and because product will be most commonly landed directly outside this unit (non-certified catch) at the client group members, who are licensed dealers. before subsequent Chain of Custody is Trap-caught squid, as the only other gear known to target required squid historically according to client group members, is landed at different locations and enters different marketing channels. See traceability description above.
5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the UoC will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The point of intended change of ownership of product is the point where the client group takes ownership of the product, and this is the point where Chain of Custody begins.
In the case of the client group buying the product directly from the vessel, either at a client group facility or at a remote offloading site, the change of ownership takes place when the product is offloaded from the vessel and Chain of Custody commences at that point. In the case of product purchased from a UoA
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 142
SCS Global Services Report vessel by a licensed dealer other than a client group member22 (that is not a member of the client group but whose operations are described above), and the product is subsequently sold to a member of the client group, the fishery certificate will cover such dealer in this trading operation, such that CoC will begin at the point of change of ownership to a member of the client group. The assessment team considers that interim dealer operations described above may be included in the scope of the certificate on the basis of the extremely low volume of non-UoA product landed (where gears other than small mesh bottom trawl are estimated to comprise <5% of total commercial longfin inshore squid landings and the UoA comprises the entire directed fishery), and the confirmed ability of the client group to obtain pass-through documentation from dealer purchases that can identify product back to a UoA vessel and trip. SCS considers that this satisfies the criteria found in FCRV2.0 7.12.1-2.
In both cases, the client group is responsible for demonstrating provenance to the UoA, i.e. that the longfin inshore squid was caught by a state or federally permitted small mesh (<5.5in codend mesh size) bottom otter trawl vessel. The client group currently plans to require that MSC eligible product be accompanied by a copy of the VTR that identifies the vessel name, gear fished including mesh size, hail weight, and port and state of landing. See above for a description of the different VTR copies, where the expectation is that the client group will arrange to obtain a copy that contains the sufficient detail regarding the gear type, vessel, and licensing information.
Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label: . Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., Cape May, NJ . The Town Dock, Inc., Narragansett, RI
The client group is to be maintained as current on the fishery certificate on the MSC website.
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody IPI considerations were not deemed relevant to this UoA. See Section 3.1 for more detail.
22 Eligible product may be landed at any licensed dealer with a permit for Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish. A current list of dealers may be found on the GARFO Dealer Permit website: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/permits/data/index.html. In the rare event that the client group purchases eligible product from a state-only permitted vessel (<2% of landings), that sells through a state- only licensed dealer, such a dealer may not be listed in the above database. In this case, it will be the client group responsibility to provide evidence that the purchase was made through a valid licensed dealer (in addition to provenance to a UoA vessel). Like the federal database, many states provide public databases of permitted dealers online.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 143
SCS Global Services Report
6. Evaluation Results
6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 29. Final Principle Scores
Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 88.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 82.3 Principle 3 – Management System 96.9
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 144
SCS Global Services Report
6.3 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 30. Summary of PI Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores.
Principle Component Wt. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt. Score 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 95 One Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 95 Management 0.667 tools 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 100 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 95 Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 85 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 85 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 85 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 2.4.3 Information 0.333 80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 85 2.5.3 Information 0.333 90 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 100 framework Governance and policy 0.5 Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 0.333 100 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 100 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 100 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 100 Fishery specific 0.5 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 85 Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 90 performance evaluation
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 145
SCS Global Services Report
6.4 Summary of Conditions Table 31. Summary of Conditions
Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence 1 that the measures/strategy is being implemented 2.3.2d NA successfully for long-finned pilot whales. By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, that there is some objective basis 2 2.4.2b NA for confidence that the measures/partial strategy in place for habitat protection based on the EFH will work.
6.5 Recommendations Not Applicable.
6.6 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement To be provided at the Final Draft and Public Certification Report stages.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 146
SCS Global Services Report
7. References Adams, Charles F. 2017. Butterfish 2017 Stock Assessment Update. NEFSC. Available from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/59023169e58c62ce286e5d9b/14 93315948452/Butterfish+2017+Stock+Assessment+Update.pdf
AArkhipkin, A., P. G. K. Rodhouse, G. J. Pierce, W. Sauer, M. Sakai, L.Allcock, J. Arguelles, J. R. Bower, G. Castillo, L.Ceriola, C. Chen, X. Chen, M. Diaz-Santana, N. Downey, A. F. González, J. Amores, C. P. Green, A. Guerra, L. C. Hendrickson, C. Ibáñez, K. Ito, P. Jereb, Y. Kato, O. N. Katugin, M. Kawano, H.Kidokoro, V. V. Kulik, V. V. Laptikhovsky, M. R. Lipinski, B. Liu, L. Mariátegui, W. Marin, A. Medina, K. Miki, K. Miyahara, N. Moltschaniwskyj, H. Moustahfid, J. Nabhitabhata, N.i Nanjo, C. M. Nigmatullin, T. Ohtani, G. Pecl, J. A. A. Perez, U. Piatkowski, P. Saikliang, C. A. Salinas-Zavala, M. Steer, Y. Tian, Y. Ueta, D. Vijai, T. Wakabayashi, T. Yamaguchi, C. Yamashiro, N. Yamashita, L. D. Zeidberg. 2015. World Squid Fisheries, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 23:2, 92-252, DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2015.1026226, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015.1026226
Black, G.A.P., T.W. Rowell, and E.G. Dawe. 1987. Atlas of the biology and distribution of the squids Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei in the northwest Atlantic. Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 100. 62 p.
Bowman, Ray; Stillwell, Charles E; Michaels, William L; Grosslein, Marvin D. 2000. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-155.
Brodziak, J.K.T. and W.K. Macy, III. 1996. Growth of long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 94: 212-236.
Cohen, A.C. 1976. The systematics and distribution of Loligo (Cephalopoda, Myopsida) in the western North Atlantic, with descriptions of two new species. Malacologia 15: 299-367.
Dawe, Earle G.; Brodziak, Jon K.T. 1998. Chapter 7: Trophic relationships, ecosystem variability and recruitment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 376: Squid recruitment dynamics: The genus Illex as a model, the commercial Illex species and influences on variability. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/w9000e/w9000e00.pdf
DeAlteris, 2005. Alternative paradigm for the protection of essential fish habitat based on availability and vulnerability. In: Benthic Habitats and the Effects of Fishing, Barnes and Thomas Eds., pp. 785-795, American Fisheries Society, Md.
DeAlteris J, Parkins C. 2010. Evaluation of the effect on catch performance of the NMFS flounder Turtle Excluder Device (TED) with a large opening in the Southern New England long fin squid trawl fishery. [Final report; 19 p.] NOAA Contract No. EA133F08CN0182.
Deroba, Jonathan. 2015. Atlantic herring Operational Assessment Report 2015. NEFSC CRD15-16.
Didden, J. 2015, Longfin AP Informational Document, MAFMC, dated April 2015
Didden J. Illex AP Information Document, MAFMC, dated April 2015
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2017. Unpublished data. http://www.myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 147
SCS Global Services Report
Fossette, S., L. Kelle, M. Girondot, E. Goverse, M.L. Hilterman, B. Verhage, B. de Thoisy, and J-Y. Georges. 2008. The world’s largest leatherback rookeries: a review of conservation oriented research in French Guiana/Suriname and Gabon. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356:69-82.
Froerman, Yu. M. 1983. Feeding Spectrum and Trophic Relationships of Short-finned Squid (IIex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies, 7: 67-75: Based on a paper presented at the NAFO Special Session on "Trophic Relationships in Marine Species Relevant to Fisheries Management in the Northwest Atlantic", held at Leningrad, USSR, 14-16 September 1983.
Gaichas, S; Seagraves, R; Coakley, J; DePiper, G; Hare, J; Rago, P; Wilberg, M. 2016. A framework for incorporating species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions into fishery management: A DRAFT white paper for the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Grabowski,J., M. Bachman, C. Demarest, S. Eayrs, B. Harris, V. Malkoski, D. Packer, D. Stevenson. 2014. Assessing the Vulnerability of Marine Benthos to Fishing Gear Impacts, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 22:2, 142-155.
Hatch, Joshua. 2017. Comprehensive estimates of seabird-fishery interactions for the US Northeast and mid-Atlantic. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 10.1002/aqc.2812.
Hendrickson, Lisa C. 2004. Population biology of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and intial documentation of a spawning area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 252-266. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2003.10.010
Hendrickson, L. C. and E. M. Holmes. 2004. Essential fish habitat source document: northern shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus, life history and habitat characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-191. 36 p.
Hendrickson, Lisa C. 2011. Effects of a codend mesh size increase on size selectivity and catch rates in a small-mesh bottom trawl fishery for longfin inshore squid, Loligo pealeii, In Fisheries Research, Volume 108, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 42-51, ISSN 0165-7836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.11.019. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783610003048)
Hendrickson, Lisa C. 2016. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council: Fishery and Survey Data Updates Regarding the Northern Shortfin Squid (Illex illecebrosus) and Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) stocks through 2015. NEFSC.
Hendrickson, Lisa C. 2017. Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) Stock Assessment Update for 2017, NEFSC report dated 25 April 2017
Hiddink, J.G., S. Jennings, M.J. Kaiser, A. M. Queirós, D.E. Duplisea, and G.J. Piet. 2006. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63: 721–736.
Houde, Edward; Gaichas, Sarah; Seagraves, Richard. 2014. Managing Forage Fishes in the Mid-Atlantic Region: A White Paper to Inform the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 148
SCS Global Services Report
Jacobson, L. 2005, Longfin inshore squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. EFH source Document, Second edition, NMFS TM NE-193.
Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 34 (eds J.H.S. Blaxter, A.J. Southward & P.A. Tyler), pp. 203-354. Academic Press, London.
Kaiser, M.J., Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Jennings, S. and I.R. Poiner. 2002. Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, V. 3, pp. 114-136.
Kashef, Neosha. 2016. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch: Longfin Squid, Shortfin Squid: East Coast Bottom Trawl.
Kocik, John; Lipsky, Christine; Miller, Tim; Rago, Paul; Shepherd, Gary. 2013. An Atlantic Sturgeon Population Index for ESA Management Analysis. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 13-06.
Link, JS; Bell, RJ; Auster, PJ; Smith, BE; Overholtz, WJ; Methratta, ET; Pranovi, F; Stockhausen, WT. 2012. Food Web and Community Dynamics of the Northeast U.S. Large Marine Ecosystem. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-15.
Macy, W.K., and J.K.T. Brodziak. 2001. Seasonal maturity and size at age of Loligo pealeii in waters of southern New England. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 58: 852-864.
MAFMC. 1978. Squid Fishery Management Plan. Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/53e3cd73e4b006554847fa90/14 07438195981/SMB__Squid__Original_Plan.pdf
MAFMC. 2009. Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Final adopted by MAFMC 16 October 2008.
MAFMC. 2011. Amendment 13 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Accessed August 2017 at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nero/regs/frdoc/11/11OmnibusAmendmentEA&Comme ntsFinal.pdf
MAFMC. 2011-2015. Subpart B—Management Measures for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries §648.20 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ABC control rules. CFR 2015 Part 648 Subpart B.
MAFMC 2014. Specifications and Management Measures For: Atlantic Mackerel (2015, Including River Herring and Shad Cap), Illex Squid (2015-2017), Butterfish (2015-2017), and Longfin Squid (2015-2017). Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in collaboration with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
MAFMC. 2015. 2015 Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Performance Reports (FPRs). Accessed August 2017 at:
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 149
SCS Global Services Report https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/55432491e4b0a71b0004bd56/14 30463633727/2015+MSB_FPR.pdf
MAFMC 2016. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document. Approved August 8, 2016.
MAFMC. 2016a. Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/56e32886b6aa60415bb5a1f7/14 57727623819/2016-02-11_MAFMC-SOPP-Final.pdf
MAFMC. 2016b. 2016 Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Performance Reports (FPRs). Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/572ce5a760b5e9b35b7d9c06/14 62560167550/2016+MSB_FPR.pdf
MAFMC. 2016c. Description and Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule. SSC, draft for discussion `13 Sept 2016
MAFMC. 2017. Squid Amendment Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Measures to Reduce Latent Squid Fishery Permits and Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid management. Public Hearing Document – April 2017. Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/58f76612f7e0ab3d069cfe64/149 2608534010/Squid+Hearing+Doc+2017_04_18.pdf
MAFMC. 2017b. 2017 Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Performance Reports (FPRs). Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5937ff8ce3df2854ac51b1f8/149 6842125902/2017+MSB+Fishery+Performance+Report.pdf
MAFMC. 2017c. MSB AP Informational Document – APRIL 2017. Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5907231d9de4bb35a6d1c9ab/14 93639966952/MSB_APInfo-2017.pdf
MAFMC. 2017d. MSB Specifications - June 2017. Accessed November 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5938041ce3df2854ac51f383/149 6843295310/07_JTD+MSB+2017+.pdf
MAFMC 2017e. Omnibus Framework to Modify the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Risk Policy and ABC Control Rule Framework https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5928417fbebafb23ea67992c/149 5810431748/Tab04_Risk-Policy-Framework.pdf
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Public Law 94-265 as amended through January 12, 2007 by Public Law 109-479. May 2007 Second Printing, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 150
SCS Global Services Report
Mandelman, J.W.; Cicia, A.M.; Ingram, G.W.; Driggers, W.B.; Coutre, K.M.; Sulikowski, J.A. 2013. Short- term post-release mortality of skates (family Rajidae) discarded in a western North Atlantic commercial otter trawl fishery, In Fisheries Research, Volume 139, 2013, Pages 76-84, ISSN 0165-7836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.09.020. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783612003062)
Mcowen, C. J., Cheung, W. W. L., Rykaczewski, R. R., Watson, R. A. and Wood, L. J. (2015), Is fisheries production within Large Marine Ecosystems determined by bottom-up or top-down forcing?. Fish Fish, 16: 623–632. doi:10.1111/faf.12082
Murray, KT. 2006. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004. US Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-19; 26 p.
Murray, Kimberly. 2015. The importance of location and operational factors in estimating and reducing loggerhead (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S. bottom trawl gear. Fisheries Research 172:440-451
NEFMC 2011. Appendix D: The Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) approach: a tool for analyzing the effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat. OMNIBUS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) AMENDMENT 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. New England Fishery Management Council.
NEFMC 2014. Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) for Fishing Year 2013, Small-mesh multispecies. Northeast Fisheries Management Council. September 2014.
NEFMC 2016b. DRAFT Framework Adjustment 3 To the Northeast Skate Complex FMP and 2016-2017 Specifications. New England Fishery Management Council. June 1 2016.
NEFSC. 2006. ASSESSMENT OF NORTHERN SHORTFIN SQUID ON THE EASTERN USA SHELF DURING 2003 and 2004. Report of the 42nd Assessment Working Group. Pages 202-284.
NEFSC. 2011. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-01; 70 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026. Accessed August 2017 at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1101/partb.pdf
NEFSC. 2012. Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem – 2011. Ecosystem Assessment Program for NOAA NMFS NEFSC.
NEFSC. 2014. Butterfish Benchmark Stock Assessment for 2014. 58th SAW Assessment Report. Pgs 12- 21.
NEFSC. 2015. Scup Benchmark Stock Assessment for 2015. 60th SAW Assessment Report. Pgs 12-334.
NEFSC 2017. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report with Observer Sea Day Allocation. Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 151
SCS Global Services Report
NEFSC 2017b. Atlantic mackerel update for 2017 Specifications. NEFSC Population Dynamics Branch. To MAFMC 28 April 2016
NMFS, NEFSC 2006. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW) Stock Assessment Report Part A: Silver Hake, Mackerel, & Northern Shortfin Squid. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 06-09a
NMFS 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Second revision. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 pp.
NMFS 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 156 pp. + appendices.
NMFS. 2011b. U.S. national bycatch report (W. A. Karp, L. L. Desfosse, S. G. Brooke, editors). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_nationalreport.htm
NMFS, NEFSC, 2011, 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW), Assessment Report for Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 11-02.
NMFS. 2012. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 1 [L. R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E. E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., 57 p. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-1
NMFS 2013. DRAFT Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries [Consultation No. F/NER/2012/01956]. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office.
NMFS 2015. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Kemp’s ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 62 pp.
NMFS, NEFSC. 2015, Landings and survey data, through 2014 for northern shortfin squid and longfin inshore squid. NMFS NEFSC report dated 17 April 2015:
NMFS 2016. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Prosecution of Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the Issuance of a Letter of Authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Pursuant to those Research Activities. National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Regional Office.
NMFS 2016b. Incidental Take Statement (including RPMs, T&C). Amended March 10, 2016 in response to the decision of the D.C. District Court in Oceana, Inc., v. Pritzker, et al., No. 1:12-cv-00041-PLF, 2015 WL 5138389 (D.D.C., August 31, 2015), and the particular circumstances of that Court’s remand order.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 152
SCS Global Services Report
NMFS. 2016c. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 2 [L. R. Benaka, D. Bullock, J. Davis, E. E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., 90 p. Online edition: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-2.
NMFS, 2017. Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Information Sheet. Accessed August 2017 at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html
NOAA Office of General Counsel, 2017. Enforcement Decisions and Orders. Accessed August 2017 at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html#alj
Oceana, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, et. al.,. 2016. Defendants’ Response in Support of Notice of Completion of Remand. Civil No. 1:12-cv-0041-PLF. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2016.
Orphanides, Christopher D.; Magnusson, Gisele M. 2007. Characterization of the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic Bottom and Mid-water Trawl Fisheries Based on Vessel Trip Report (VTR) Data. NEFSC Reference Document 07-15. National Marine Fisheries Serv, Woods Hole Lab, 166 Water St, Woods Hole MA 02543-1026.
Packer DB, Nizinski, MS, Bachman MS, Drohan AF, Poti M, Kinlan BP (2017) State of the Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems off the Northeast United States. In: Hourigan TF, Etnoyer PJ, Cairns SD (eds) The State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States: 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OHC-X, Silver Spring, MD. pp. 9-1 – 9-65.
Rago, Paul & Sosebee, Katherine. 2015. Update of Landings, Discards and Survey Indices for Spiny Dogfish in 2016. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee. Distributed solely for the purpose of pre‐dissemination peer review. Not formally disseminated by NOAA
Rago, Paul & Sosebee, Katherine. 2016. Update of Landings, Discards and Survey Indices for Spiny Dogfish in 2016. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee. Distributed solely for the purpose of pre‐dissemination peer review. Not formally disseminated by NOAA
Seminoff, J.A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H.L. Haas, S.A. Hargrove, M.P. Jensen, D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S.L. Pultz, E.E. Seney, K.S. Van Houtan, R.S. Waples. 2015. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAANMFS-SWFSC-539. 571pp.
Sherman, Kenneth; Kane, Joseph; Murawski, Steven; Overholtz, William; Solow, Andrew. 2002. 6 The U.S. Northeast shelf large marine ecosystem: Zooplankton trends in fish biomass recovery. Elsevier Vol 10., pgs 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-0461(02)80058-1
Shaw, P. W., L. Hendrickson, N. J. McKeown, T. Stonier, M.-J. Naud, and W. H. H. Sauer. 2010. Discrete spawning aggregations of loliginid squid do not represent genetically distinct populations. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 408: 117–127.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 153
SCS Global Services Report
Steele, John H. 2010. Marine Policy & Economics. Elsevier 2010. Pgs. 33-34. Accessed from: https://books.google.com/books?id=AQ6hCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=fishery+impacts+on+se condary+productivity+northeast+lme&source=bl&ots=JsaZ_x474I&sig=PNQ7AhwUfrKyDXOMPZuSvjD5P 2c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiol82x3evWAhVqjFQKHVAzDh0Q6AEIQzAE#v=onepage&q=fishery%20im pacts%20on%20secondary%20productivity%20northeast%20lme&f=false
Stevenson D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, and M. Pentony. 2004. Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the northeast US shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential habitat. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 181; 179 p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm181/
Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011. Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications 21(1):263-273.
Thunberg, Eric M.; Correia, Steven J. 2015. Measures of fishing fleet diversity in the New England groundfish fishery. Marine Policy 58(2015)6–14. Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.005.
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555, 116 pp. USCG First District, 2014. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Sept 2014. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC April 2015. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC June 2015. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Sept 2015. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Dec 2015. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Jan 2016. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC April 2016. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC June 2016. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Nov 2016. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Jan 2017. Boston.
USCG First District, 2015. First Coast Guard District Report to the NEFMC Apr 2017. Boston.
USFWS 2011. Business Plan for Addressing & Reducing Marine Bird Bycatch in the U.S. Atlantic Fisheries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 154
SCS Global Services Report
USOFR (U.S. Office of the Federal Register). 1998. Enforcement Policy. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 600.740. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
USOFR (U.S. Office of the Federal Register). 1998. Enforcement Policy. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 600.740. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Accessed: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/600.740 (February 2016)
Vidal, Erica A.G. 2014. Advances in Marine Biology: Advances in Cephalopod Science: Biology, Ecology, Cultivation and Fisheries. Vol. 67. Elsevier. 32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK. Available from: https://books.google.com/books?id=6tjEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=density+dependence+o f+Illex+and+its+predators&source=bl&ots=xTDdVAWj0j&sig=ym7qEaEg4j9TZ1mweOrOUWlFfOU&hl=en &sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMutqE0dfWAhWJ5YMKHUfiBKEQ6AEIcDAN#v=onepage&q=density%20depende nce&f=false
Warden, ML. 2011a. Modeling loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions with US mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear for fish and scallops, 2005-2008. Biological Conservation. 144:2202-2212. Warden, ML. 2011b. Proration of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawls for fish and scallops, 2005–2008, by managed species landed. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-04; 8 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/
Wigley, SE; Tholke, C; Shield, G. 2016. Discard Estimation, Precision, and Sample Size Analyses for 14 Federally Managed Species Groups in the Waters off the Northeastern United States. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 16-03. April 2016.
Wigley, SE; Tholke, C. 2017. Discard Estimation, Precision, and Sample Size Analyses for 14 Federally Managed Species Groups in the Waters off the Northeastern United States. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 17-07. February 2017.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 155
SCS Global Services Report
8. Appendices
Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationales Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Principle 1
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 (Y/N) Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guidep It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of ost above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).
Met? Y Y N Justific The L. Hendrickson 2017 stock assessment update for longfin squid notes that the squid ation species exhibit large inter-annual fluctuations in biomass. During 1976-2016, annual biomass (the average of NEFSC spring and NEFSC and NEAMAP fall survey biomass) ranged between 25,806 mt and 175,894 mt. The average of annual biomass during 2015-2016 was 73,762 mt (80% CL = 67,198, 80,327) and was much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt (PRI) and the target BMSY proxy of 42,205 mt. PRI is taken as the threshold BMSY proxy level of biomass, and clearly the 2015-2016 estimated average estimated annual biomass of 73,762 mt (80% CL = 67,198, 80,327) is well in excess of PRI.
Therefore the fishery meets the SG60 and 80 level requirements in that is both likely and highly likely that the stock is above PRI. However the fishery does not meet the SG 100 level requirements as there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI, because of uncertainties in the stock assessment model related to the life history of the species.
b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justific The results 2017 stock assessment update (using data through 2016) indicates a rebound ation in the relative abundance in the last year, and that the 2015-2016 average annual biomass of 73,762 mt was almost more than 1.5 times the BMSY of 42,205 mt.
Therefore the fishery meets the SG80 level requirement that the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with BMSY. However, the fishery does not meet the SG 100 level
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 156
SCS Global Services Report
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 requirement that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, again due to uncertainties in the stock assessment model relative to the life history of the species. A more complete explanation of the assessment model uncertainties is provided in PI 1.2.4, SIc.
References Hendrickson 2017
Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point
Reference point PRI is taken to be the 21,203 mt 73,762 mt/B25%=3.47 used in scoring biomass threshold (B25%) stock relative which is 50% of BMSY, or to PRI (SIa) 25% of K
Reference point BMSY is the biomass 42,205 mt 73,762/B50%=1.73] used in scoring target (B50%), which is stock relative 50% of K to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 157
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding (NOT APPLICABLE) Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guidep A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable ost specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 years or specified which does not 2 times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justific Not relevant. The stock does not require rebuilding. ation b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified modelling, exploitation based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justific Not relevant. The stock does not require rebuilding. ation
References Click here to enter text.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 158
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justific The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages the squid fishery with Acceptable ation Biological Catch (ABC) control rules. The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) assigns the squid stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC reviews the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for all stocks. ABC and other fishery regulations are set out in FMP specification documents, according to the procedure described below.
The risk policy, last updated in 2012 with the MAFMC’s Framework 6, is used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process, specifically when no OFL or OFL proxy is available. For longfin squid, the ABC for any fishing year must be either the maximum Optimum Yield (OY), or a lower amount, if stock assessments indicate that the potential yield is less than the maximum OY. The OYs specified during a fishing year may not exceed the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of FThreshold (See Figure 12).The MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) meets annually to develop and recommend specifications for consideration by the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC. Specifications include commercial and research annual and seasonal quotas, trip limits, mesh sizes, size limits (where relevant), etc,
The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee reviews the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC reviews these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator will review the recommendations and will publish a proposed rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 159
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Both the longfin squid and butterfish catch cap are divided into three trimesters: 43% for Trimester I (January-April), 17% for Trimester II (May-August), and 40% for Trimester III (September-December).
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) monitors the harvest of all mackerel, squid, and butterfish quotas. NMFS announces closures of the directed fisheries for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and shortfin squid, and when catch reaches a particular quota closure threshold.
Gear restrictions are used to control the minimum size of entry of squid into the fishery. For longfin squid, the minimum mesh sizes differ by Trimester, but are required to be diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net. For codends less than 150 meshes, one-third of the net must be the minimum mesh measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope. No net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear can be used that reduce the mesh size. The rationale for the smaller mesh size is to reduce escapee mortality on slightly smaller squid found the Trimester II.
Season Minimum Mesh Size Trimester I 2 1/8 inches (54 mm) Trimester II 1 7/8 inches (48 mm) Trimester III 2 1/8 inches (54 mm)
Participants in the squid fishery must maintain on board the vessel and submit an accurate Federal Vessel Trip Report (VTR) for all fishing trips. VTRs must be submitted monthly and must be postmarked within 15 days after the end of the reporting month.
Vessels with a limited access longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit must declare into the longfin squid fishery through Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) prior to leaving port. Vessels with a limited access Atlantic mackerel and/or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit must complete, sign, and submit a Released Catch Affidavit following any slippage event (events in which catch is discarded before it has been sampled by an observer).
As part of the harvest control rule, NMFS has the following fishery closure and accountability measures in place for longfin squid: NMFS closes the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested before April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, and when 95 percent of the longfin squid Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) has been harvested in Trimester III. On or after April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of that fishing trimester period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at CFR §648.26.
For the fishing years 2015-2017, the specifications for the squid fishery are as follows:
Species Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) Longfin squid 23,400 mt 22,445 mt
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 160
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Therefore the squid fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60, 80 and 100 levels, specifically that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and argument. achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justific Longfin squid is managed under a FMP that is supported by an operational framework with ation scientific research, monitoring, regular stock assessments with outside peer review, and stakeholder participation. There are biologically based reference points; there is a control rule, and demonstrated capacity to take corrective management actions to limit catch and/or effort, as necessary. The recent 2017 updated stock assessment, updated through 2016 data, demonstrates that the longfin squid resource is healthy, with good recruitment and high productivity, and abundance levels above levels that required to achieve MSY. The management plan is clearly achieving a stock status consistent with the management objectives. While there is evidence that to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels, the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated using a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60 and 80 requirements that is the harvest strategy is both likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument, and while it may not have been fully tested, the evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives, including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. However, the fishery does not fully meet the SG 100 level requirement because the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justific The NMFS NEFSC has a program of fishery independent, seasonal scientific trawl surveys ation for fishery resources on U.S. northeast coast. This is complemented with a program of fishery dependent surveys including an at-sea observer program, dockside sampling, log- books, vessel trip reports (VTRs), and dealer reports from shore-side buyers. There are regular stock assessments with outside peer review conducted by staff at the NEFSC. There is a sound enforcement program to ensure the regulations are being followed both at sea and on land. There is a high degree of stakeholder participation in the management process including commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental NGOs, and academic scientists. There appears to be general consensus that the fishery management plan with its operational framework as managed by the NEFMC is working well.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 161
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG60 requirements that the monitoring that is in place will determine whether the harvest strategy is working d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justific The harvest strategy is based on the Magnuson Stevens Act and is implemented by the ation MAFMC through the Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish FMP, with its period updates in amendments and frameworks that respond to changing conditions. The fishery dependent and independent monitoring provides real time information used to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. The SSC meets annually and reviews the status of the stock, landing in the fishery, discards, etc, and sets the OFL, if possible, or simply specifies the ABC. In 2017 that SSC recommended an ABC for a three-year period (2018- 2020) equal to the catch in the year of the highest exploitation ratio (1993). Thus, the recommended ABC is 23,400 mt, the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC, which occurred during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation (1976-2009) according to the 2010 Longfin Squid assessment. Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG100 requirements that the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific NA. ation f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biannual review ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of the target stock. of the target stock and they unwanted catch of the are implemented as target stock, and they are appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.
Met? Y Y Y Justific As part of the annual monitoring program of northeast region fisheries as conducted by ation the NEFSC, there is the evaluation and analysis of the discards in the trawl fishery based on observer data (Wigley et al 2016 Wigley & Tholke 2017). The Wigley & Tholke (2017) NOAA report on discards gives information on the proportion of the longfin inshore squid that is discarded in the otter trawl small-mesh fishery, as 5.7% in Mid-Atlantic and only 0.7% in New England. This discard information is used in subsequent stock assessments as losses to the stock, and the degree of discarding is evaluated in terms of trawl codend mesh size regulations.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 162
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Evidence of the management agency's intent to minimize both discarding and unobserved mortality of the target species that interact with the trawl net is the use of seasonally differences in the minimum mesh size allowed in the fishery. As noted previously, in Trimester 2, the minimum mesh is 1 and 7/8 inches, while in Trimesters 1 and 3 the minimum mesh size is 2 and 1/8 inches. Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP was the primary amendment that targeted minimization of bycatch of all species encountered in the MSB fisheries. A review of the Annual Fishery Performance Reports on the Council website (http://www.mafmc.org/msb/) demonstrates that fishery trends and issues, including unwanted mortality and gear configurations, are regularly discussed. The purpose of these reports is to provide catch history context for the SSC and record information that may affect catches and that may be useful for setting future specifications.
In 2011 the NMFS published the National Bycatch Report, and it is periodically updated (NMFS 2011b; NFMS 2012). In 2016, update 2 was released (NMFS 2016c). Evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. The report specifically evaluates squid small mesh otter trawl fishery, among many other U.S. fisheries. There is also the requirement in the national standards to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and establishes the ability of FMPs to regulate other fisheries with mortality caps, closed areas, etc.
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG100 requirements that there is at least biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock, and that there is evidence of measures being implemented, as deemed appropriate.
NMFS. 2011b. NMFS. 2012. NMFS. 2016c. MAFMC. 2011-2015. References MAFMC. 2014. Wigley SE, Tholke C, Shield G. 2016 Wigley & Tholke 2017
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Condition
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 163
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place a Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating that are expected to reduce exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level the exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y Justific The current regulations, which were implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens ation Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. The MSRA requires the MAFMC to determine Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) for all managed stocks. This action implements a process for calculating an ACL in addition to the Overfishing Level (OFL) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for each managed stock.
Recommendations for the values of the ACL, OFL and ABC are developed by the Plan Development team (PDT). The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommends ABC levels, and the MAFMC approves final ACLs, but cannot exceed the SSC’s recommended levels. In the case of longfin squid, where there are no fishing mortality reference points, the OLF cannot be estimated, so the SSC has recommended the ABC for a three-year period (2018-2020) equal to the catch in the year of the highest exploitation ratio (1993). Thus, the recommended ABC is 23,400 mt, the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC, which occurred during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation (1976-2009) according to the 2010 Longfin Squid assessment.
As explained in 1.2.1a both the longfin squid quota is divided into three trimesters: 43% for Trimester I (January-April), 17% for Trimester II (May-August), and 40% for Trimester III (September-December).
The best evidence that the existing management process has been working is that the stock is at the SG80 level for PI 1.1.1, that is it is fluctuating at a level consistent with or above MSY. As noted previously, the longfin squid stock has cycled or fluctuated widely over the last 40 years (Figure 12). In only four of those years has the index of abundance been below the BMSY proxy level (B target), and the index has never been below the 50% BMSY level (Bthreshold).
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG100 requirements, that is the HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time.
b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 164
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justific The longfin squid HCR is considered to be robust to the main uncertainties. As noted in ation prior justifications related to the HCR, the management current regulations were implemented under the MSRA of 2006. This legislation requires the MAFMC to determine ACLs and AMs for all managed stocks. This action also initiates the process of estimating the OFL and ABC for each stock. Recommendations for these values are developed by the PDT, and the SSC recommends the ABC levels, while the MAFMC approves the final ACL, but that value cannot exceed the SSC's recommended value.
ABC recommendations for the longfin squid fishery, MSY targets and ACLs are now subject to adjustment by SSC evaluation according to MSRA. ABC are used for rebuilding stocks and are usually lower than currently established MSY targets or ACL. Uncertainties in management (i.e. landings) and scientific (i.e. model error) are now identified, quantified and must be accounted for in setting ACLs. Given all the checks and balances in the management process, the HCR is likely to be robust the main uncertainties. However, MSE has not been used to date to evaluate harvest strategies. The HCR, while likely to account for the main uncertainties, does not take account for a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is no evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties, other than performance to date.
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG80 requirements, that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, but not the SG 100 requirements, that is the HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. c HCRs evaluation Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to indicates that the tools in the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are use are appropriate and in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the levels required under the controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required HCRs. under the HCRs. Met? Y Y Y Justific The evidence (stock status) clearly demonstrate that the tools in use are effective in ation achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. The most recent stock assessment update of the stock status for the longfin squid fishery by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Hendrickson 2017), states that: Squid species exhibit large inter-annual fluctuations in biomass. During 1976-2016, annual biomass (the average of NEFSC spring and NEFSC and NEAMAP fall survey biomass) ranged between 25,806 mt and 175,894 mt. The average of annual biomass during 2015-2016 was 73,762 mt (80% CL = 67,198, 80,327) and was much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt and the target BMSY proxy of 42,205 mt. Additionally, and as noted previously, the longfin squid stock has cycled or fluctuated widely over the last 40 years (Figure 12). In only four of those years has the index of abundance been below the BMSY proxy level (B target), and the index has never been below the 50% BMSY level (Bthreshold).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 165
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place The use of the Trimester system to manage the catch with seasonal quotas has served as an effective tool in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Trimesters 1 and 2 have limited quotas, that if exceeded are subtracted from the Trimester 3 quota. NMFS monitoring of the dealer reports of landings of squid are used to track the status of the fishery and project closure dates so as to not exceed the seasonal or annual quota. Although the trimester quotas have triggered closures and have been exceeded on occasion via incidental take, the annual quota has not (Figure 7).
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60, 80, and 100 requirements, that is the evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.
References Hendrickson, L. 2017. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 166
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justific There is a comprehensive range of information available information (on stock structure, ation stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy. This information is used in stock assessments, and in particular the benchmark assessment of longfin squid in 2010, and the most recent update in 2017.
As noted in previous P1 PI justifications, the NMFS NEFSC has had a program of research studies over the last 50 years directed to understanding the life history characteristics, the population biology, habitat requirements, and ecosystem interactions, as well as providing stock productivity and abundance assessments based on fishery dependent and independent information. The scientific studies and surveys also include the collection of extensive data on environmental conditions, and it is this long term data that is now being used to study the impacts of climate change on northeast fisheries. In the case of the longfin squid stock assessment, environmental information is not used in the assessment, as the stock is assessed based on catchability-adjusted swept-area biomass computed using daytime tows from Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring (March-April), NEFSC fall (September-October) and Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) fall (September) bottom trawl surveys. These surveys are comprehensive over the range of the fishery and the stock, and reflect the stock abundance at the time of the survey.
Fishery information includes the number and types of vessels in the fishery fleet. The temporal and spatial patterns of the fishery by gear type are well documented. Most vessels involved in this fishery are required to have an operational Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board. The VMS unit transmits positional information to the communication service provider that then makes the information available to the NMFS. The NEFSC observer program provides about 10% coverage by sea days of the small mesh bottom trawl fishery in the New England and mid-Atlantic areas. Dockside monitoring includes weighout information on landings and biological sampling. This data is corroborated with dealer reports and vessel trip reports (VTRs).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 167
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy However, there are relevant some gaps in understanding the effects of bottom trawling on the inshore spawning grounds and on the egg massess attached to the seabed. This unknowns are very relevant to support the harvest strategy especially during the T2 on inshore waters, wich is actually a current issue. Additionally there are gaps in information, the 51st SAW Assessment summary report points out that no overfishing threshold has been recommended, which leaves overfishing status officially unknown, until a better understanding of seasonal cohort recruitment, growth rate, mortality, catch and effort, might allow within-season or within-year management schemes
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60 and 80 level requirements, as there is sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data available to support the harvest strategy, However, there is not a comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, available, so the SG 100 level is not met. b Monitoring Guidep Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by ost removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in available and monitored the information [data] and with sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest control assessment and rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justific ation Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Both the longfin squid and butterfish catch cap are divided into three trimesters: 43% for Trimester I (January-April), 17% for Trimester II (May-August), and 40% for Trimester III (September- December). As part of the harvest control rule, NMFS has the following fishery closure and accountability measures in place for longfin squid:
NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested before April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, and when 95 percent of the longfin squid Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) has been harvested in Trimester III. On or after April 15 of Trimester I and/or August 15 of Trimester II, NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for longfin squid when the Regional Administrator projects that 95 percent of the longfin squid quota is harvested. The closure of the directed fishery shall be in effect for the remainder of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 168
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy that fishing trimester period, with incidental catches allowed as specified at CFR §648.26.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) monitors the landings of all mackerel, squid, and butterfish, relative to the trimester quotas. NMFS announces closures of the directed fisheries for Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and shortfin squid, and when catch reaches a particular quota closure threshold. Weekly landings reports are available at: http://www.great-eratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitor¬ing/atlanticmackerel.html.
Real-time information on commercial fishery landings are collected through the SAFIS electronic data collection system managed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), which is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. (http://www.accsp.org/safis)
Additionally, NMFS, NEFSC monitors stock abundance with its fishery independent surveys, including the NEFSC and NEMAP bottom trawl surveys. These surveys are the basis for the abundance and biomass developed in the stock assessment. Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60 and 80 level requirements, however the SG100 level requirements are not met, as there is not a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.
c Comprehensiveness of information Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justific The gears used to prosecute other fisheries for longfin squid tend to capture a variety of ation groundfish species, whether they are the target of the fishery or not. Federal management agencies are responsible for accounting for all fishing mortality relative to the overall land trimester-specific quota. All fishery landings are monitored at the dockside point of offloading. Monitors verify the weight and the species of fish offloaded. A variety of information must also be reported to the NMFS in fishery monitoring documents completed by the captain for each trip (VTRs).
The catch inputs include landings and discards from both the commercial and recreational fleets in federal and state waters. Most other gear types that may also incidentally remove the UoC species are required to have some level of observer coverage, so the levels of discarding are also well documented in these fisheries. All this information is used regularly in NMFS stock assessments for longfin squid.
Therefore the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 80 requirements.
Hendrickson, L. 2017. References Jacobson, L. 2005. NMFS, NEFSC. 2015. NMFS, NEFSC. 2011.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 169
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 170
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justific The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and takes into ation account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Longfin squid is a short lived species, less than one year, and while there is evidence of almost continuous spawning, there are two major cohorts. The assessment is a survey- based index assessment that relies on the average of two seasonal surveys to estimate a single year average abundance, thus capturing the abundance of both major seasonal cohorts.
Details of the assessment methods are described in NEFSC SAW 51 report. The stock was assessed based on catchability-adjusted swept-area biomass computed using daytime tows from Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring (March-April), NEFSC fall (September-October) and Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) fall (September) bottom trawl surveys. Only daytime catches were used to compute the biomass estimates because the capture efficiency of bottom trawls is highest for longfin squid during the day. For the 2017 updated assessment, catches were included for 2010- 2016 with discards and landings. Seasonal and annual relative exploitation indices, computed as catch divided by survey biomass, were also updated for 2010-2016. Biomass estimates for NEAMAP fall surveys during 2009-2016 were added to the biomass estimates derived from the NEFSC fall surveys, assuming no migration between the two survey areas during September. Sampling during NEAMAP surveys covers the two shallowest inshore strata sets (primarily ≤18m and between Block Island Sound and Cape Hatteras, NC) that were sampled during NEFSC surveys prior to 2009 but that can no longer be sampled because the current NEFSC survey vessel (SRV H.B. Bigelow) cannot sample these shallow depths. Biomass estimates from the spring NEAMAP surveys, which occur primarily in May, were not used in the stock assessment because longfin squid distribution maps from NEFSC spring surveys suggest that sampling of squid in May would result in the double-counting of squid that were previously sampled during March-April in the NEFSC spring surveys.
Biomass estimates for 1976-2009 were updated with data for 2010-2016. Following NEFSC SAW 51 assessment approach, catchability (q) was estimated as the median of the prior distribution which was computed using upper and lower bounds on effective tow distance, width of the area swept by the gear, capture efficiency and stock area. Catchability estimates may be greater than 1.0 because their estimation included a multiplier to convert stratified mean kg per tow indices to thousands of metric tons. Biomass indices for NEFSC spring and fall surveys conducted during 2009-2016 were converted from FSV H.B. Bigelow units to R/V Albatross units by applying spring and fall conversion factors. There is no conversion factor to standardize the 2009-2016 stratified mean kg per tow indices from the NEAMAP fall surveys to R/V Albatross units. Therefore, the median q-prior (= 1.894) was computed using values specific to the fall NEAMAP surveys. In particular, the upper and lower bounds on effective tow distance were 1.85-1.86 km, respectively. The lower bound for the width of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 171
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status the area swept by the gear was the average wingspread during 2007-2016 (= 0.0134 km) and the upper bound was the average door spread (= 0.0323 km). The bounds for capture efficiency were 0.20 and 0.95 and the stock area was the area of the fall survey longfin squid 2 strata set (= 12,097 km ).
The spring and fall biomass estimates represent average biomass estimates of the seasonal cohorts available to the January-June and July-December fisheries, respectively. Relative exploitation indices for the two fisheries were computed on a seasonal basis, for 1987-2016, as January-June catch/March-April biomass and July-December catch/September-October biomass.
Stock status was determined based on the 2015-2016 average of the spring and fall biomass. Annual exploitation indices were computed as the 2016 catch divided by the 2015-2016 mean of the average of the NEFSC spring and fall survey biomass.
The existing biological reference points for longfin squid were derived in 2010 during SAW 51 and assumed the stock was lightly exploited during 1976-2008. The median of the average biomass for the NEFSC spring and fall surveys during 1976-2008 (76,329 mt) was assumed to represent 90% of the stock’s carrying capacity (K) and the B proxy (42,405 mt) MSY was estimated as 50% of K (i.e., 0.50*(76,329/0.90)). The biomass threshold is 21,203 mt, which is 50% of B . MSY
Fishing mortality reference points could not be recommended in the 2010 assessment due to the lack of evidence that annual catches impacted annual biomass estimates during 1976-2009 and due to the lack of a theoretical basis for linking F to natural mortality or MSY F from per-recruit models for short-lived species like longfin squid. The stock is believed %SPR to be lightly exploited because annual catches during 1987-2016 were less than annual biomass and did not result in a multi-year decrease in biomass. In addition, estimates of natural mortality for this semelparous species were very high in relation to exploitation indices. A limitation of the assessment is that there are no Fishing Mortality reference points, and this precludes the SSC from establishing an Overfishing Limit (OFL). However, the MAFMC risk policy accommodates this situation, and the ABC is set without an OFL according to Level 3 criteria (MAFMC 2017e).
Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 80 and 100 level requirements, that is the assessment is both appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.
b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Y Y
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 172
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Justific The 2017 longfin squid updated stock assessment estimates stock status relative to both ation generic reference points appropriate to the species category, and reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. In particular, as was described in the responses and justifications for PI 1.1.1, the following reference points are estimated in the models and used in the HCR. The existing biological reference points for longfin squid were derived in 2010 during SAW 51 and assumed the stock was lightly exploited during 1976-2008. The median of the average biomass for the NEFSC spring and fall surveys during 1976-2008 (76,329 mt) was assumed to represent 90% of the stock’s carrying capacity (K) and the B proxy (42,405 MSY mt) was estimated as 50% of K (i.e., 0.50*(76,329/0.90)). The biomass threshold is 21,203 mt, which is 50% of B . MSY Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60 and 80 level requirements that is the assessment estimates stock status relative to both generic reference points appropriate to the species category, and to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into ost major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justific Squid species exhibit large inter-annual fluctuations in biomass. During 1976-2016, annual ation biomass (the average of NEFSC spring and NEFSC and NEAMAP fall survey biomass) ranged between 25,806 mt and 175,894 mt. The average of annual biomass during 2015-2016 was 73,762 mt (80% CL = 67,198, 80,327) and was much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt and the target BMSY proxy of 42,205 mt.
The Terms of Reference for stock assessments require explicit description of uncertainties in sources of data, and results (including but not limited to estimates of fishing mortality, recruitment, biomass, and status reference points).
The stock is assessed based on catchability-adjusted swept-area biomass computed using daytime tows from Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) spring (March-April), NEFSC fall (September-October) and Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) fall (September) bottom trawl surveys. Only daytime catches were used to compute the biomass estimates because the capture efficiency of bottom trawls is highest for longfin squid during the day. Uncertainites related to this methodology include the establishment of catchability coefficients for the different survey gears, the issue of averaging the seasonal survey abundance estimates, and how well this reflects the average annual abundance of a species with a sub-annual lifespan, and semelparous life history. These contribute to the uncertainty in the annual estimate of abundance, the specified confidence limits or error bars. As noted previously, the current stock abundance of longfin squid is estimated in a probabilistic way, and is compared to point estimates of the reference points.
Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 60, 80 and 100 level requirements, that is the longfin squid assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 173
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justific The longfin squid assessment model described in the NEFSC SAW 51 report is subject to ation ongoing rigorous review and evaluation. Alternative models are considered, and the most appropriate models is selected for the assessment. Adjustments are made as necessary and appropriate to correct any bias, retrospective trends, or any other uncertainty that is detected. For example, in this 2010 assessment the stock assessment team decided on a new strategy for the reference points, and revised approach to the index model, including a new estimation of the critical catchability coefficient. Changes in the assessment model and associated justifications are summarized in all stock assessment reports. Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meet the SG 100 level requirements, that is the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justific ation The most recent benchmark assessment of longfin squid was the 51st SARC was convened in Woods Hole at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, November 29 – December 3, 2010, and included a review of the benchmark stock assessments of longfin squid and three other species. Reports that are produced following SAW/SARC meetings include: An Assessment Summary Report - a summary of the assessment results in a format useful to managers; an Assessment Report – a detailed account of the assessments for each stock; and the SARC panelist reports – a summary of the reviewer’s opinions and recommendations as well as individual reports from each panelist. SAW/SARC assessment reports are available online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/series/crdlist.htm. The CIE review reports and assessment reports can be found at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/”. The external peer review comment on the longfin squid assessment included the following: the majority of SARC panelists consider the Longfin inshore squid assessment to be adequate for developing annual management advice as long as the exploitation rate stays low. The SARC accepted a newly proposed BMSY proxy, but expressed concerns. During 2009, the Longfin inshore squid stock was not overfished and overfishing was probably not occurring. No overfishing threshold has been recommended, which leaves overfishing status officially unknown. Better understanding of seasonal cohort recruitment, growth rate, mortality, catch and effort, might allow within-season or within-year management schemes.
The NMFS NEFSC conducts internal reviews of all stock assessment updates, and external peer review by a panel of experts of all benchmark or full assessments is conducted. Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the SG 80 and 100 level requirements that is that the assessments are internally and externally peer reviewed.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 174
SCS Global Services Report
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Hendrickson, L. 2017. References NMFS, NEFSC. 2011. MAFMC. 2017e.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 175
SCS Global Services Report
Principle 2 Note on scoring of Primary and Secondary Species: Minor species elements have been scored together based on the ‘all or none approach’ described in the MSC interpretation titled “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100.” (http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/minor- species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-sg100/) Only minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch are considered explicitly in the background and scoring. For a full list of species encountered in the fishery see Appendices 6 & 7.
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guidep Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the in place that are expected PRI, there is either evidence to ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Silver Hake Y Silver Hake Y Silver Hake N Scup Y Scup Y Scup Y Atlantic Herring Y Atlantic Herring Y Atlantic Herring Y Spiny Dogfish Y Spiny Dogfish Y Spiny Dogfish Y Little Skate Y Little Skate Y Little Skate Y Winter Skate Y Winter Skate Y Winter Skate N Butterfish Y Butterfish Y Butterfish Y Justific Silver Hake- According to the 2014 stock status update for the small mesh multispecies ation fisheries, both the northern and southern stocks of silver hake are considered not overfished and overfishing is not occurring (NEFSC 2014). The northern stock is fluctuating well above the target, while the southern stock now appears to be fluctuating around the target, recovering a fluctuation around the threshold in the early 1990s (Figure 13). Both stocks are considered to have exploitation rates well below threshold. Both stocks meet the SG80, but the status of the southern stock does not meet the requirement for a high degree of certainty.
Scup- The most recent scup benchmark stock assessment took place in 2015 and found that scup were not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2014 (NEFSC 2015). Spawning stock biomass was estimated to be about 210% of the target biomass. Fishing mortality in 2014 was estimated to be about 57% of the overfishing threshold. It can be
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 176
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. said with a high degree of certainty that the species is above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY: SG100 is met.
Atlantic Herring- The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2015 (Deroba 2015). Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points were based on the fit of the Beverton-Holt stock- recruitment relationship, estimated internally to the ASAP model, and inputs (e.g., weights-at-age, natural mortality) from the terminal year of the assessment (i.e., 2014). Point estimates of the MSY BRPs equaled: MSY = 77,247 mt, FMSY = 0.24, and SSBMSY = 311,145 mt. According to the latest assessment, SSB 2014 is ~2 times the SSBMSY and F2014 is ~half of FMSY (Deroba 2015). The stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. It can be said with a high degree of certainty that the species is above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY: SG100 is met.
Spiny Dogfish- For spiny dogfish, Bmsy (proxy) is the spawning stock biomass that maximizes recruitment (SSBmax) in a Ricker type (dome-shaped) stock-recruitment model. SSBmax is estimated to be 159,288 mt (351 M lb) with ½ of that target corresponding to the biomass threshold (79,644 mt; 175.5 M lb). In September 2011, the NEFSC updated their assessment of the spiny dogfish stock using catch data (2010), and results from the 2011 trawl survey. The updated estimate of SSB for 2011 was 169,415 mt (373.496 M lb), about 6% above SSBmax (159,288 mt). Total removals in 2010 were approximately 21.330 M lb corresponding to an F estimate of 0.09, well below Fmsy = 0.2439. According to the 2015 stock assessment update, the spiny dogfish stock is still not overfished or experiencing overfishing (Rago & Sosebee 2015). This level of certainty meets the requirements of SG100.
Butterfish- According to the 58th SAW Assessment Summary Report (NEFSC 2014) overfishing is not occurring and the stock is not overfished. The current fishing mortality rate (F2012 = 0.02) is well below the overfishing reference point (2/3 M = 0.81). The current SSB (79,451 mt) is well above the accepted biomass target reference point 45,616 mt. These findings were updated in 2017 using data from 2013-2016, concluding that “The current fishing mortality rate (F2016 = 0.05) is 94% below the overfishing reference point FMSY proxy = 0.81 accepted by SARC 58. The current SSB (64,376 mt) is 41% above the accepted biomass reference point SSBMSY proxy = 45,616 mt (100.6 million lb) (CV = 0.25). (Adams 2017)” Based on this most recent assessment, it can be said that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY with a high degree of certainty. SG100 is met.
Winter and Little Skates- The primary species of skate caught in the UoA is little skate at ~5.85% according to NEFOP data. Winter skate also classifies as ‘main’ because it comprises >2% of the catch according to NEFOP data, and is considered a less resilient species. The UoA catches very low volumes of the other four skate species (clearnose, barndoor, rosette, thorny, and smooth) and these are not considered to meet the ‘main’ threshold. As of 2016 (NEFMC 2016b), no skate species under federal management are considered to be experiencing overfishing, and only thorny skate are overfished. According to NEFMC 2016b, little skate are fluctuating above the target biomass, and exploitation is well below the percent change for overfishing status determination. Little skate can be said that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY with a high degree of certainty. SG100 is met.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 177
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. Winter skate is above the biomass threshold, but below the target. Percent changes do not indicate overfishing. Because winter skate is below the target biomass point but above the threshold, SG80 is met, only. b Minor primary species stock status Guidep For minor species that are ost below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justific Minor species include: Summer flounder (fluke), red hake (ling); black sea bass, Atlantic ation croaker, haddock, skates (other than winter and little), and monkfish.
Of the minor species, only thorny skate is considered overfished. Overfishing is not considered to be occurring. (NEFMC 2016b) Thorny skates comprise 0.01% of the catch according to NEFOP data, and retention of thorny (and barndoor) skates is prohibited. Short-term post-release mortality for skates discarded in the northeast otter trawl fishery is generally low, at 19% across all species (Mandelmen et al 2013). Given that thorny skate are not considered to be experiencing overfishing, the UoA catches a very low volume, and there is reasonable expectation of some post-capture survival, the UoA can be considered not to hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG100 is awarded.
References Mandelmen et al 2013; NEFMC 2016b; NEFSC 2014; NEFSC 2015; NEFMC 2014 Deroba 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Silver Hake 80 Scup 100 Atl Herring 100 Score Spiny Dogfish 100 95 Little Skate 100 Winter Skate 80 Butterfish 100 Minor Group 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 178
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to above which are highly likely to be the point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y N Justific ation All Main Primary species are managed under Federal FMP and the following rationale applies to all main scoring elements.
There are a number of measures in place to contribute to the management of all primary species in the UoA, in alignment with the national strategy for bycatch management in U.S. fisheries. The Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) contemplates bycatch effects of existing and planned conservation and management measures, meeting the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP to include considerations to reduce bycatch to the extent practicable. All of these species are also managed directly via their own FMPs according to the same National Standard Guidelines, either via the MAFMC or NEFMC.
The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program directs trips to collect information onboard vessels, based on a number of days per fleet determined in evaluation according to the standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) Amendment. Onboard observers are required to document catch composition and present annual discard reports to the Fishery Management Councils. Bycatch reports allow Councils to review the effectiveness of the SBRM and also serve to inform management issues or actions via the various FMPs in place for longfin inshore squid and for the other bycatch species designated as primary for this UoA.
Bottom trawl gear catches a variety of species, and it is acknowledged that the squid fishery has a high discard rate. Where primary species have fallen below biological reference points historically, there are demonstrated actions on the part of management to implement measures to minimize impacts on those species. Examples include the MSB Amendment 10 measures to minimize bycatch and rebuild butterfish upon its determination as overfished and the Gear Restricted Areas introduced reduce scup bycatch impacts by the squid fishery. Both of these use codend minimum mesh size requirements to minimize bycatch, in conjunction with area-based restrictions and mortality caps. MSB fisheries are also subject to other gear, area, and catch limit restrictions as applied via other FMPs.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 179
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.
Per MSC definition, it can be said there is a strategy in place: there is a cohesive and strategic arrangement comprising monitoring (SBRM, NEFOP, and other fishery dependent sources) and resulting management measures (FMP Amendments and fishery specifications) that are designed to manage the main primary species in accordance with the explicit goals laid out in the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP.
However, the national bycatch management strategy is centered on federally managed species. In the case of this UoA, all main species are federally managed, but there are some minor species that are not, such as Atlantic croaker. Atlantic croaker is managed by the ASFMC and while some aspects of the federal bycatch management program apply (e.g. monitoring via the NEFOP), there is not the same cohesion as provided for federally managed species via the SBRM. SG80 only is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the fishery comparison with similar about the fishery and/or and/or species involved. fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y Y Justific The strategy has been tested for federally managed species, with two examples including ation Amendment 10 that instituted a butterfish rebuilding plan that included a mortality cap in the directed longfin fishery, as well as increased mesh size requirements in trimesters 1 and 3 to reduce bycatch and discarding of butterfish as well as other finfish species. Butterfish is not currently considered overfished or to be experiencing overfishing, and the mesh size regulations have remained in place. Another example of testing of the management system is demonstrated in the implementation of scup gear restricted areas in 2000 to address concerns over discard rates. The GRAs are thought to have contributed to the recovery of scup population in the mid to late 2000s (NEFSC 2015; Scup FMP Framework Adjustment 9 (81 FR 78728)).
Therefore, the management system can be said to have been tested and demonstrated an ability to produce measures targeted to address issues identified through monitoring and evaluation for federally managed species. The lack of non-federally managed species classifying as ‘Main’ provide confidence that the strategy, albeit designed for federally managed species, is appropriate and will work. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 180
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific There is at least some evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully. ation There are examples of the squid fishery management system reacting to non-target species impact concerns identified through monitoring and evaluation (see SIb above), and nearly all main primary species discards can be estimated with <.300 CV based on the achieved observer coverage (Wigley & Tholke 2017). This is considered some evidence of successful implementation. National Standard 9 of minimizing bycatch pertains to all non-target species. In the UoA, however, the bycatch and discard rates remain high. In addition, as described in previous scoring issues there is a relative lack of monitoring and evaluation focused on non- federally managed species. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, in particular for federally managed species. However, it cannot be said that there is clear evidence of the strategy achieving its objective for all minor Primary species due to the focus on federally managed species and persistently high rates of bycatch. SG80, only, is met. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justific Spiny dogfish are caught and retained in this fishery and is an MSC fishery. It has been ation determined by the assessment team for the MSC certification that shark finning is highly likely not to be taking place in this fishery and this UoA is a subset of the spiny dogfish UoA. Sharks must be landed with fins attached to the carcass by law (NMFS HMS 2017). In 2010 Congress passed the Shark Conservation Act (SCA), which requires that all sharks landed in the United States be brought to shore with their fins naturally attached. As part of SCA NOAA created regulations for its implementation. The NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) conducts inspections to enforcing the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (SFPA) of 2000 and implement the ensuing regulations. The observer program also monitors compliance with the 2000 Shark Finning Prohibition Act. In the spiny dogfish fishery are in place regulations pertaining to record keeping and reporting of the landing, sale, transfer, purchase, or other disposition of fins or shark carcasses. All federally permitted seafood dealers are required to report the purchase of dogfish. Lastly, spiny dogfish is not processed at sea. No tailing or finning is allowed in this fishery. Other shark species combined comprise <1% of total catch according to the NEFOP observer data from 2012-2016. See Appendix 7.
This meets the SG100 requirements for a high degree of certainty. e Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 181
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. unwanted catch of main of main primary species and of all primary species, and primary species. they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justific MSC defines ‘unwanted catch’ as “the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch ation but could not avoid, and did not want or chose not to use” (SA3.1.6). The assessment team considers that unwanted catch is best represented by discards. A ‘regular’ review is defined as a review occurring at least every 5 years (SA3.5.3.2), and SA 3.5.3.3 offers contextual factors that may be considered when determining whether measures are implemented ‘as appropriate’.
Bycatch and Discarding in the UoA The 2017 SBRM report estimates that total discards in the small mesh bottom trawl fleet (rows 5 & 7; gear code 050) account for ~28% of total catch and the MAFMC estimates that discards in the directed longfin inshore squid fishery comprise ~33-36% of the catch (Wigley & Tholke 2017; MAFMC 2017). Trace amounts may not be brought on board, but largely this remaining catch is discarded. According to the NEFOP data from 2012-2016, the primary reason for discarding was a lack of market, followed by regulatory requirements. The background for each main species includes the estimated discard rate for the species overall and by the small mesh bottom trawl fleet. Discard rates from the most recent two SBRM reports are as low as 2.35% for Atlantic herring and as high as 90.83% for the skate complex (Wigley et al 2016 & Wigley & Tholke 2017). Discard rates and volumes in the directed longfin inshore squid fishery have dropped for some species since 2007 according to the review of discards in the recent squid capacity amendment, including main species butterfish and scup, but there are not notable decreases for all main primary species (MAFMC 2017). Discard rates for the highly discard spiny dogfish have not dropped as notably in the directed longfin inshore squid fishery, but according to Rago & Sosebee (2016) overall discard rates in 2015 were 36% less than the previous 5 year average and the ratio of discards to landings had decreased to 38% (Figure 16). To facilitate protection and rebuilding of some species in the Skate Complex (barndoor, thorny, and smooth), there are prohibitions on retention. Despite relatively high bycatch rates, no main primary species are below biologically based limits, and several main species have been rebuilt in recent years, including the southern stock of silver hake and scup.
National and Regional Strategy to Minimize Unwanted Mortality There are national-level initiatives focused on bycatch reduction at the regional and national levels. The National Strategy for Bycatch Reduction Strategy produced in 2016 includes objectives to monitor and estimate bycatch, conduct research to improve estimates, conserve and manage fisheries to reduce bycatch, enforce management measures, and communicate to develop of common understanding of bycatch. Under the Strategy, regional implementation plans are to be developed by 2017, but at the time of writing this report the regional offices were awaiting further instruction on development of such plans (D. Christel, pers. comm). Also at the National level, a U.S. National Bycatch Report was produced in 2011 that summarizes available information on bycatch (NMFS 2011b), uses a tier system to categorize fisheries by bycatch data quality, and identify key stocks based on high bycatch ratios, where tier classifications and key stocks may be used as performance measures to monitor over time. There have been two data updates to
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 182
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. this report (NMFS 2012, 2016c), and a comprehensive update is expected in 2017 that would also include updates on the measures of key fish stocks fishery classification tiers, as well as reports on progress on and updates to bycatch estimation improvement plans. At the time of writing this report, this comprehensive update was not available.
As referenced in SIa, National Standard (9) Guidelines require that proposed conservation and management measures prioritize minimization of bycatch to the extent practicable (based on net benefit). Each FMP considers the impacts of bycatch on the species under direct management of the FMP, as well as bycatch impacts on non-target species, and an FMP can impose measures that apply to other fisheries such as quotas, mortality caps, and gear restricted areas.
Any actions taken by the Council under an FMP are evaluated for impacts on non-target species and EFH for all federally managed species. NOAA Fisheries Regional Offices (i.e. GARFO) review all Council actions and monitor changes in the fishery for ongoing compliance with legislative requirements, including the National Standards and EFH. There is no requirement for each FMP to explicitly review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch with set regularity, but SBRM reports in addition to other sources of information provide sufficient information to detect changes in fishery impacts on bycatch species.
Evidence of Consideration of Alternatives and Implementation There is ongoing research to improve the sharing of real-time data on species distribution and consider alternative measures such as bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), much of which is undertaken or funded by NMFS and some of which is directly applicable to this UoA. The NEFSC study fleet is engaging industry to conduct cooperative research and share real-time information from the fleet, where this work is intended to help improve stock assessments and may also serve to improve fishery selectivity and minimize discards. There are periodic studies of the feasibility and effectiveness of BRDs as well as an initiative for fishermen to communicate bycatch ‘hot spots’ in real time as avoidance measures (see http://www.squidtrawlnetwork.com). For 10 years, NMFS has been funding bycatch reduction research nationally through the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. These initiatives are described in greater detail in the Background Section 3.4.4.
Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP was spurred in part by agency review that found the FMP to be non-compliant with National Standard 9 regarding bycatch minimization. The amendment includes the explicit objective of general bycatch minimization in addition to a butterfish rebuilding plan, producing measures targeted at the longfin inshore squid fishery: including a mortality cap on the directed longfin fishery, and increase of the minimum codend mesh size in the longfin fishery to 2 1/8 in in Trimesters 1 and 3. The squid fishery, under the MSB FMP, is also subject to Southern and Northern Scup Restricted Areas (GRA), November 1-December 31 and January 1-March 31, respectively (Figure 5), implemented in 2000 to decrease discarding of scup in the longfin inshore squid and silver hake fisheries.
There have been no MSB FMP amendments or framework adjustments explicitly directed at bycatch or discard reduction in the last 5 years, though the impacts of any framework adjustment or amendment must explicitly consider impacts on bycatch. In the recent Squid Capacity Amendment discussion, the Council infers (on page 50) that it considers
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 183
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. that discards have been reduced to the extent practicable via measures implemented previously including: Scup Gear Restricted Areas, the Butterfish Discard Cap, mesh increases, voluntary avoidance programs, etc., and discards consideration in the management of other fisheries (MAFMC 2017). Annual Advisory Panel meeting notes from the last two years include discussion of the effectiveness of current gear regulations and potential alternatives that should be explored by the Council23.
Both the MSC and National Standard 9 provide a subjective criteria for determining whether implemented measures to minimize bycatch are adequate (“as appropriate” according to the MSC criteria and “to the extent practicable” by NOAA). There is implicit ambiguity in what qualifies as “appropriate” implementation (defined in SA3.5.3.3), but the parallel U.S. guidelines on bycatch minimization to the ‘extent practicable’ generally align in a consideration of “net benefit”- considering environmental, social, and economic factors.
Amendments 10 of the MSB FMP (MAFMC 2009) provide further guidance from NMFS on the interpretation of “practicable” in relation to bycatch: What does “to the extent practicable mean”? From a National perspective, there is too much bycatch mortality in a fishery if a reduction in bycatch mortality would increase the overall net benefit of that fishery to the Nation through alternative uses of the bycatch species. In this case, a reduction in bycatch mortality is practicable and the excess bycatch mortality is a wasteful use of living marine resources. In many cases, it may be possible but not practicable to eliminate all bycatch and bycatch mortality (NMFS 2008).
Conclusion There is evidence of regular and ongoing reviews of bycatch based on regulatory requirements for monitoring and ongoing research initiatives described above. There is evidence of implementation of measures, including for main primary species scup (through GRAs) and for overall bycatch reduction and butterfish rebuilding (through mesh size restrictions and mortality caps). These measures underwent evaluation under the criteria of the MSA and National Standards for effectiveness within the bounds of ‘practicability’ according to NOAA policy. The primary bycatch reduction management measure implemented in this UoA occurred in 2008 via Amendment 10. SG60 is clearly met.
Based on the above, there is ongoing monitoring of discards and research of alternative measures to minimize mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. There have been measures implemented via Amendments to the MSB FMP, and the FMPs for each respective main primary species likewise manages for the impacts of other fisheries, including this UoA. The Council, GARFO, and NEFSC continue to recognize high discard rates (e.g. Section 7.4 of MAFMC 2017), and while there have been no recent measures implemented in the MSB FMP, there are numerous external initiatives to research bycatch reduction devices and engage industry in real-time information sharing to help increase operational gear selectivity. This evidence of ongoing monitoring and research on bycatch trends and avoidance, in addition to the federal management of all main primary species and their respective stock statuses above the PRI, is sufficient to meet the requirements of SG80. As noted previously, the U.S. management strategy does not
23 Annual AP meeting notes available in the ‘Fishery Performance Reports’ found here: http://www.mafmc.org/msb/
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 184
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. provide as thorough consideration of non-federally managed species in bycatch management. Therefore, the SG100 is not met because it cannot be said that there is a biennial review that includes non-federally managed species. MAFMC 2009 MAFMC 2017; National Standard 9 (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial- References fishing/national-standard-guidelines) NMFS 2011, 2012, & 2016b. Background Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3; Appendices 6 & 7
Score OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 185
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adeqaute to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y N Justific All main primary species are federally managed and are subject to the same monitoring ation and information systems. The following rationale therefore applies to all main primary species:
Quantitative information is available in the form of fishery dependent information (VTR, dealer data); NEFOP observer data, and SBRM reports. These sources of information are detailed in the background of the report (Section 3.4.2). Each of these species is also quantitatively assessed directly as a federal managed species, and thus the status of the species is known as well. The biggest area of uncertainty pertains to discarded species. There is not 100% observer coverage and thus discards on observed trips are extrapolated in the SBRM to estimate discards for the entire fleet. The SBRM annual reports provide the CV for the discard estimates for each species by gear type. The goal of the SBRM is to achieve a discard estimate with a precision of 30% coefficient of variation (CV) across all species and fleets. In a review of the 2017 SBRM report (Wigley & Tholke 2017), <30% CV was achieved for all main primary species in the small mesh otter trawl fleet with the exception of Atlantic herring. Otter trawl gear comprises only 2.35% of the Atlantic herring harvest overall.
There are not discard mortality estimates available for most species, and discards comprise a significant amount of total catch for some main primary species (skates and spiny dogfish in particular). In addition, observer coverage for the fleet is around 10%. These limitations precludes the ability to assess the impact of the UoA on main primary species with a high degree of certainty. The SG80, but not the SG100, is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 186
SCS Global Services Report
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species species with respect to status. Met? Y Justific The information available for estimating the impact on Primary minor species is the same ation as for main species generally speaking (see SIa). However, to meet the SG100 for this scoring issue only enough information to ‘estimate’ the impact of the UoA on primary species with respect to status is needed. As noted in SIa, information is considered adequate to estimate, and to assess, the impact of the UoA on primary species. Thus, for SIb the SG100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main Primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justific As noted in SIa, all main primary species are federally managed and are subject to the ation monitoring under the SBRM, and are also subject to direct stock assessment and fishery management plans under the MAFMC or NEFMC, and in some cases additional management under the ASFMC. The management of primary species is further described in PI 2.1.2 and in the background section: 3.4.2.
The monitoring and information system driven by the observer program and SBRM for fleetwide extrapolation and discard estimation is sufficient to support the strategy as designed for federally managed main primary species; however, as noted previously, non- target species management is not as cohesive as it pertains to non-federally managed species. Relevant to this information PI is that the SBRM does not account for non- federally managed species in its discard estimation and precision analysis. Due to this, it cannot be said that information is adequate to support all primary species with a high degree of certainty. SG80, only, is met.
References Wigley & Tholke 2017
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 85 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 187
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not PI 2.2.1 hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guidep Main Secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be within highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based OR OR limits.
If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place rebuilding. such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Justific See Appendix 1.2 for a detailed summary of the PSA evaluation conducted for the only ation Main Secondary species: Northern Shortfin Squid. b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep For minor species that are ost below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species
Met? N
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 188
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not PI 2.2.1 hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Justific Minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch include: horseshoe crab, northern sea robin, ation spotted hake, Atlantic mackerel, smooth dogfish, striped sea robin, and fourspot flounder. See Table 11. All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. The assessment team has elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1). References Section 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5; Appendix 1.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 189
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder species. main secondary species rebuilding of main at/to levels which are highly secondary species at/to likely to be within levels which are highly likely biologically based limits or to be within biologically to ensure that the UoA does based limits or to ensure not hinder their recovery. that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N Justific ation The only Main Secondary species is northern shortfin squid, which is managed under Federal FMP.
There are a number of measures in place to contribute to the management of all Secondary species in the UoA, in alignment with the national strategy for bycatch management in U.S. fisheries. The Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) contemplates bycatch effects of existing and planned conservation and management measures, meeting the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP to include considerations to reduce bycatch. Northern shortfin squid is also managed directly under the MSB FMP according to the same National Standard Guidelines, via the MAFMC.
The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program directs trips to collect information onboard vessels, based on a number of days per fleet determined in evaluation according to the standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) Amendment. Onboard observers are required to document catch composition and present annual discard reports to the Fishery Management Councils. Bycatch reports allow Councils to review the effectiveness of the SBRM and also serve to inform management issues or actions via the various FMPs in place for longfin inshore squid and for the other bycatch species designated as primary for this UoA. The several FMPs, the use of selective gear and bycatch reporting are considered measures working cohesively within the Greater Atlantic Region Council system to ensure FMPs meet the U.S. National Standard Guidelines for sustainable and responsible management of the designated primary species.
Bottom trawl gear catches a variety of species, and it is acknowledged that the directed longfin inshore squid fishery has a high discard rate. Where federally managed species have fallen below biological reference points, there are demonstrated actions on the part of management to implement measures to minimize impacts on those species. Examples include the MSB Amendment 10 measures to minimize bycatch and rebuild butterfish upon its determination as overfished and the Gear Restricted Areas to reduce scup bycatch. Both of these use codend minimum mesh size requirements to minimize bycatch,
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 190
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. in conjunction with area-based restrictions and mortality caps. MSB fisheries are also subject to other gear, area, and catch limit restrictions as applied via other FMPs.
Per MSC definition, it can be said there is a strategy in place: there is a cohesive and strategic arrangement comprising monitoring (SBRM, NEFOP, and other fishery dependent sources) and resulting management measures (FMP Amendments and fishery specifications) that are designed to manage the federally managed species in accordance with the explicit goals laid out in the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP. However, the assessment team notes that the national bycatch management strategy is centered on federally managed species. In the case of this UoA, all main species are federally managed. However, the minor Secondary species (horseshoe crab; northern and striped sea robins, spotted hake, Atlantic mackerel, smooth dogfish, and fourspot flounder), are not commercially managed, with the exception of Atlantic mackerel (MAFCM) and horseshoe crab (ASFMC).
Because the federal strategy is largely based on the SBRM and NEFOP programs, which target federally managed species only, it cannot be said there is a ‘strategy’ available for all Secondary species. SG80, only, is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or and/or species involved. UoAs/species). species involved. Met? Y Y Y Justific ation There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for federally managed species is working primarily on the basis of the stock status of the main species, and the strategy can also be said to have been tested (e.g. Amendment 10 for butterfish rebuilding and scup GRAs descried in SIa). For non-federally managed species, there is monitoring in place that should provide sufficient information to support additional management action where needed, and the lack of prevalence of non-federally-managed species in significant volume in the fishery provides confidence that the strategy as focused on federally managed species is appropriate and will work. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 191
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific There is at least some evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully for ation federally managed species.
There are examples of the squid fishery management system reacting to non-target species impact concerns identified through monitoring and evaluation (see SIb for PI 2.1.2 above), and nearly all federally managed species discards can be estimated with <.300 CV based on the achieved observer coverage, including northern shortfin squid (Wigley & Tholke 2017). Mackerel, as the only other federally managed species, discards in the UoA were estimated with 0.336 precision in 2017 (Wigley & Tholke 2017).
The majority of secondary species are not federally managed, and several components of the management strategy (e.g. SBRM, EFH) only apply to federally managed species. NEFOP data demonstrates that non-federally managed species comprise a relatively small proportion of the catch: northern shortfin squid is the only secondary species that comprises >2% of the catch by weight. The lack of prevalence of non-managed species (i.e. Secondary) in significant volume in the fishery supports that the strategy with its implementation focus on federally managed species is appropriate.
National Standard 9 of minimizing bycatch pertains to all non-target species. In the UoA, however, the bycatch and discard rates remain high. In addition, as described in previous scoring issues there is a relative lack of monitoring and evaluation targeted at non- federally managed species. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, in particular for federally managed species. However, it cannot be said that there is clear evidence of the strategy achieving its objective due to ongoing high bycatch rates. SG80, only, is met. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant Justific Sharks other than spiny dogfish comprise <1% of total catch. Smooth dogfish is the only ation minor secondary shark species >0.5% of the catch. Because of the relatively low catch volumes of sharks as secondary species, shark finning is evaluated under PI 2.1.2d and is considered Not Relevant here. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justific There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ation potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted secondary species. catch of main secondary catch of all secondary species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 192
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Guidep See rationale for SI 2.1.2e for a complete discussion of national, regional, and UoA specific ost discussion of ongoing reviews of potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch. All Main Primary species are federally managed, as is the only Main Secondary species: Northern shortfin squid. Shortfin squid (Illex) are targeted by a subset of the UoA (small mesh bottom trawl fleet), and operationally longfin inshore squid is more so considered bycatch in temporally and geographically focused directed fishery for Illex, where significant co-encountering of shortfin and longfin inshore squid occurs only in some years and typically when the longfin population is particularly large. A smaller mesh size is used for targeting Illex than in the directed longfin fishery, and the fishery for Illex is geographically and temporally focused. In order to minimize regulatory discarding of incidentally caught shortfin squid, where discard mortality is assumed to be very high, vessels holding an incidental permit can harvest up to 10,000 lb of shortfin per trip, and this limit applies to moratorium vessels once the quota is reached. Management has continued to exempt targeted Illex trips from minimum mesh size requirements, where smaller mesh is typically used in the Illex fishery because the body shape of the species causes it to incur damage, or ‘gill up’, in larger meshes (See comments in Appendix 1.2 on gear selectivity and post-capture mortality). In totaling the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 5.24% of shortfin squid caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic were discarded, though with significant year-over variation of 14.8% in the 2017 report and only 1.8% in the 2016 report. (Looking further back the variatibility continues with 1.8% in the 2014-2015 season and 14.8% in the 2015-2016 season). Discards were estimated with 0.264 and 0.247 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively in the most recent SBRM report (Wigley & Tholke 2017). Discards included, the total catch of Illex is well below its quota in recent years (comparing SBRM estimated totals relative to the quota). Nearly all discards are reported as due to a lack of market. Management attributes years of higher discard rates as typically occurring in years where there is greater spatial overlap with the longfin inshore squid directed fishery. The unpredictability in availability is cited in Fishery Performance Reports as an environmental challenge by industry (http://www.mafmc.org/msb/). The bycatch minimization strategy promulgated through the National Standard 9 and National Bycatch Reduction Strategy, along with the ongoing in-season monitoring and SBRM reporting as described in SI2.1.2e provide ongoing information and a basis for evaluation of alternatives to minimize unwanted mortality, should this become a concern for Northern shortfin squid. Although discard rates fluctuate significantly on an inter- annual basis, total catches, including discards, in recent years have been well below the established quota, and there are management measures in place to minimize discards to the extent deemed practicable (or appropriate) in light of the broader implications for ecosystem impacts and economic consequences (in line with GSA3.5.3.3). SG80 is met. As noted in SI2.1.2e, the U.S. management strategy does not provide as thorough consideration of non-federally managed species in bycatch management. Therefore, the SG100 is not met. References Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 85 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 193
SCS Global Services Report
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 194
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the with respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? Y Y N Justific Northern shortfin squid is the only main secondary species, and is federally managed. ation Significant quantitative information is available to conduct the PSA on northern shortfin squid, the only main secondary species.
The assessment team gathered information to support the PSA in accordance with Annex PF requirements. Key sources of productivity information included a past stock assessment, a NAFO assessment, EFH studies, in addition to other peer reviewed literature. These sources are summarized and referenced in the PSA, found in Appendix 1.2. In addition to the above, fishery dependent information was available to support the susceptibility evaluation, including VTR and VMS data that support maps of the fishery; NEFOP observer data, and SBRM reports.
The SG80 is clearly met. However, the SG100 cannot be met due to the lack of information on stock status. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.
Met? N Justific Most minor secondary species are not managed by state or federal agencies, and there are ation no available stock assessments or status information for most of these species. For some
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 195
SCS Global Services Report
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. species, there is enough information to estimate the impact, but for several minor species for which there is no abundance information this cannot be said. SG100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justific As noted in SIa, northern shortfin squid is the only main secondary species. The stock is ation data limited and there are no available reference points, but the species is still subject to federal management under a directed fishery management plan, has identified EFH, is monitored under the SBRM, and also undergoes some level of cooperative management under NAFO. The information, albeit limited due to the challenging life history traits and wide distribution of the stock, is adequate to support the management strategy.
As noted previously, the non-target species management is not as cohesive as it pertains to non-federally managed species. Particularly relevant to this information PI is that the SBRM does not account for non-federally managed species in its discard estimation and precision analysis.
It cannot be concluded that information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species with a high degree of certainty of achieving objectives. SG80, only, is met.
References Background Section 3.4.5; Appendix 1.2 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 196
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ETP species have been grouped according to their legislative basis for classification, as this structure defines management and information available for outcome considerations. These groups are: Marine mammals, sea turtles, sturgeon, and seabirds. Scoring has been considered on a species-specific basis and species specific considerations are outlined in the background Section 3.4.6. Only species of greatest risk are explicitly discussed in the scoring tables below, and group elements are assigned scores based on the lowest scoring species element of the group.
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the there is a high degree of the population/stock are MSC UoAs on the certainty that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are known effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits. and highly likely to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- N Sea Turtles- Not Relevant Sea Turtles- Not Relevant Sea Turtles- Not Relevant Atlantic Sturgeon- Not Atlantic Sturgeon- Not Atlantic Sturgeon- Not Relevant Relevant Relevant Seabirds- Not Relevant Seabirds- Not Relevant Seabirds- Not Relevant Justific ation Sea Turtles, Atlantic Sturgeon, and Seabirds-
Incidental Take Limits set for ESA-listed species do not function as limits for the UoA as they set a level of expected interactions for all bottom trawl (broader than the UoA scope) that is evaluated on a 5-year basis unless statistically significant changes to impacts spur re-evaluation. There are no limits on seabird interactions. SIa is therefore not scored for these ETP elements.
Marine Mammals-
Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Level is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. The PBR is not allocated on a fishery specific basis, but does provide a quantitative limit on acceptable impacts, that is used as a management tool to monitor fishery impacts and trigger actions when necessary. For the purposes of this assessment, PBRs as set for species with known interactions with the UoA are considered limits.
The following marine mammal species have recorded interactions with the small mesh bottom trawl fishery: common dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Long and short- finned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphin, Bottlenose dolphins, Harbor seals, and gray seals. Of these, only the long-finned pilot whales have exceed their PBRs based on the most recent stock assessment reports (see background Section 3.4.6 and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/2016_atlantic_sars_summary_table.pdf).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 197
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Therefore, although several marine mammals may satisfy the SG100 based on recorded interactions relative to their PBR, scoring will be based on the highest risk marine mammal: long-finned pilot whales.
The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries LOF. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality of long-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 33.2 animals (CV=0.15). There were zero mortalities of short-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast fleet and no estimated mortalities for the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fleet over this period for either species. The PBR is 35 for long-finned pilot whales and total reported takes across all fisheries exceeded this at 38.
According to the 2017 stock assessment summary, the long-finned pilot whale is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but the western North Atlantic stock is considered strategic under the MMPA because the mean annual human- caused mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR. The status of this stock relative to an optimum sustainable population level in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown and there are insufficient data to determine the population trends for this stock. There are also no global abundance or trend estimates according to the IUCN Redlist listing.
The portion attributable to specific fisheries within the Northeast bottom trawl fisheries LOF designation is unknown, and the NEFOP data on the small mesh bottom trawl fleet that comprises this UoA from 2012-2016 reports 1 interaction with a pilot whale, which was recorded as a mortality. The assessment team considers that given that the UoA comprises a portion of the LOF designated northeast bottom trawl fleet and the occurrence of only 1 interaction across 5 years of observer data, it is at least highly likely that this UoA is not exceeding the PBR.
Cumulative Impact Considerations At the SG80 level, however, under V2.0 of the standard MSC has introduced cumulative impact considerations such that all MSC UoAs must be considered. MSC Guidance in Table GSA3 states: “To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is within sustainable limits, a UoA assessed against standard v2.0 may need to consider the combined impact of itself and other overlapping UoAs. This determination will include other UoAs assessed against earlier versions of the CR (e.g., v1.3).” However, subsequent interpretation via the MSC interpretation portal states that “Table GSA3 may be taken as a suggestion and does not need to be implemented. The expectation would be that fisheries assessed against v2.0 of the standard shall only be required to consider cumulative impacts with other v2.0 fisheries24.” Therefore, the assessment team is not required to consider V1.3 fisheries when evaluating cumulative impacts.
Northeast bottom trawl, responsible for an estimated 33.2 (CV=0.15), includes all bottom trawl in the Northeast (all mesh sizes), and would include fisheries targeting Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, Atlantic halibut, redfish, windowpane flounder, summer flounder, spiny dogfish, monkfish, silver hake, red hake, white hake, ocean pout, and skate species. MSC certified or in
24 http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/assessing-p2-species-cumulatively-between-v2-0-and-1- 3-fisheries/
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 198
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species assessment fisheries that would fall within this LOF would include: U.S. Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish trawl, U.S. Atlantic spiny dogfish, and the U.S. Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock otter trawl fishery. Of these, only the U.S. Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish trawl is being assessed under V2.0.
If considering these additional fisheries, the impact relative to the PBR of 35 would certainly be higher, but given that all Northeast bottom trawl fleets combined were estimated under the PBR, impacts of MSC UoAs would still be considered at least likely to be within the PBR limit. If only considering the U.S. Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank haddock, Pollock, and redfish trawl as under V2.0, there is at least a high likelihood that the combined UoAs are within the limits established by the PBR.
Therefore, the SG80 is considered met. The SG100 is not met due to the lack of estimates of fishery specific mortality on the long-finned pilot whale stock. b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of the Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of ost UoA are likely to not hinder UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP significant detrimental species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- N Sea Turtles- Y Sea Turtles- Y Sea Turtles- N Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- N Seabirds- Y Seabirds- Y Seabirds- N Justific Marine Mammals ation As noted above, the PBR is designed to ensure fisheries do not hinder stocks from reaching or maintaining optimum sustainable populations. The following marine mammal species have recorded interactions with the small mesh bottom trawl fishery: common dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Long and short-finned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphin, Bottlenose dolphins, Harbor seals, and gray seals. Of these, only the long-finned pilot whales have exceed their PBRs based on the most recent stock assessment reports (see background Section 3.4.6 and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/2016_atlantic_sars_summary_table.pdf). The longfin squid fishery is included in both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries LOF. The 2010-2014 average annual mortality of long-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast bottom trawl was 33.2 animals (CV=0.15). There were zero mortalities of short-finned pilot whales attributed to the northeast fleet and no estimated mortalities for the Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fleet over this period for either species. The PBR is 35 for long-finned pilot whales and total reported takes across all fisheries exceeded this at 38. The portion attributable to specific fisheries within the Northeast bottom trawl fisheries LOF designation is unknown, and the NEFOP data on the small mesh bottom trawl fleet that comprises this UoA from 2012-2016 reports 1 interaction with a pilot whale, which was recorded as a mortality.
According to the 2017 stock assessment summary, the long-finned pilot whale is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but the western North Atlantic stock is considered strategic under the MMPA because the mean annual human- caused mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR. The status of this stock relative to an optimum sustainable population level in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown and there are
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 199
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species insufficient data to determine the population trends for this stock. There are also no global abundance or trend estimates according to the IUCN Redlist listing.
Based on the most recent impact estimation and PBR, northeast bottom trawl merits classification as a Category 1 fishery. There is significant uncertainty in the stock assessment, where methodologies to separate the long-finned and short-finned pilot whale stocks is under development, and the 2017 stock assessment report (available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm) states that the 2011 surveys that support the population estimate likely underestimate overall abundance because they did not survey the Scotian Shelf where high densities of pilot whales have been observed. However, the published stock assessment is expected to represent the best available information.
The assessment team considers that given that the UoA comprises a portion of the LOF designated northeast bottom trawl fleet and the occurrence of only 1 interaction across 5 years of observer data, it is highly likely that this UoA is not hindering recovery of long- finned pilot whales, if recovery is needed. A higher degree of certainty cannot be awarded. The discrepancy in the PBR exceedance and LOF classification is addressed under PI 2.3.2.
Turtles- The 2013 Biological Opinion concluded that Mid-Atlantic fisheries (including MSB) “may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of” Loggerhead (specifically, the NWA DPS), leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles. The primary species likely to be adversely affected by the MSB fishery would be loggerhead sea turtles, as they are the most abundant species occurring in U.S. Atlantic waters.
As designated in the 2008 loggerhead Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 2008), the Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of loggerheads is divided into five recovery units, representing nesting assemblages. Index beach nesting in the largest recovery unit, PFRU, had a 24% increase in nesting from 1989 to 1998, followed by a 42% decline from 1998 to 2007. Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), annual nests have increased. Overall, from 1989 to 2016, there a slight positive but not statistically significant nesting trend (FFWCC 2017 unpub. data). The second largest recovery unit, NRU, found no significant trend in nesting from 1983-2014. Nesting in 2015 was near 2013 levels.
In 2016, a new incidental take statement (ITS) was produced regarding sea turtle interactions, with anticipated interaction levels broken down by general gear category (gillnet, trawl, and trap/pot) and species. See the background for a detailed breakdown across gears and species. The ITS interaction levels are formally evaluated on a 5-year basis, on an annual basis observed takes of loggerhead turtles to consider trends in takes and look for patterns and changes in take levels.
According to NEFOP, there were 61 observed interactions with sea turtles from 2012-2016, including 51 interactions with loggerheads, and sporadic interactions with leatherback, kemps ridley and green turtles (0-2 per year). These interactions cannot be compared directly to the Biological Opinion ITS because this represents a subset of the trawl gear component for the ITS. The 2017 SBRM report (NEFSC 2017) estimated that bottom trawl interactions at 231. However, it should be noted that the SBRM covers all federally
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 200
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species managed fleets while the Biological Opinion covers a subset of fisheries (7 FMPs). Further, when considering the CV of 13% the actual interactions may have been below or above the ITS. Finally, the ITS are estimated expected interactions, not management measures or limits.
There have been studies to estimate total interactions by fishery. When estimated interactions are pro-rated across fisheries (by weight of species landed on each trip), the longfin inshore squid fishery is estimated to have the third highest interactions of all bottom trawl fisheries, behind Atlantic croaker and summer flounder. Each year, 42 (CV: 0.26, CI 23-66) loggerheads were estimated to interact with longfin squid trawls. One of these interactions was an unobservable yet quantifiable interaction. (Murray 2015). Overall, estimated interactions with trawl gear have gone down with the exception that in 2014 the longfin inshore squid fishery saw elevated observed interactions, the average annual interactions for the longfin inshore squid bottom trawl fleet have been stable.
The available evidence indicates that there are a non-trivial number of interactions of sea turtles with the small mesh bottom trawl fleet that comprises this UoA. However, the available trend information on loggerheads as the species with the highest level of interactions, data available on UoA interactions that is in line with current biological opinion expectations indicate that the UoA is not hindering recovery of loggerhead or other sea turtle species. SG80 is met but uncertainty in data on interactions and the level of ongoing interactions prevents the UoA from meeting the SG100 criteria.
Sturgeon Atlantic sturgeon are known to be captured in sink gillnet, drift gillnet, and otter trawl gear. Of these gear types, sink gillnet gear poses the greatest known risk of mortality for bycaught sturgeon. Sturgeon deaths were rarely reported in the observer data set, with an average of 1,771 lb per year (from 2012-2016), comprising an average of 0.03% of the total catch of the UoA by weight. Miller & Shepherd (2011) estimated discards for Atlantic Sturgeon for otter trawl and sink gillnet fisheries. The analysis estimated that between 2006 and 2010, a total of 15,587 lbs of Atlantic sturgeon were captured and discarded in bottom otter trawl (7,740 lbs) and sink gillnet (7,848 lbs) gear. Of the takes by trawl gear, an estimated 11% were from the MSB fisheries based on a correlation with fishing effort. (Miller & Shepherd 2011) The level of mortality after release from the gear estimated to be low but highly uncertain (W. Barnhill, pers. Comm). The data available on UoA interactions, the findings of the 2013 Biological Opinion, and estimated post capture survival rates provide sufficient confidence to achieve the SG80. Due to uncertainty in post capture survival and relatively low observer coverage, SG100 cannot be met.
Seabirds Observer data provided to the assessment team included low levels of incidental interactions with several protected species of migratory seabirds, including northern gannet, herring gull, red-throated loon, and greater shearwater. All species are considered ‘Least Concern’ on the IUCN Redlist but 2 of these species are classified as ‘species of conservation concern’ by the US FWS (red-throated loon and greater shearwater). There is no indication that the small mesh bottom trawl fleet is having a population level impact on these seabird species, though there is a lack of ongoing monitoring of impacts
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 201
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species by Northeast fleets on seabird populations. From the information available, it is highly likely the UoA is not hindering recovery of any of the seabird species with which interactions have been recorded, but there is not a high degree of confidence due to uncertainties in the extent of interactions and population impacts in the Northeast. c Indirect effects Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are thought confidence that there are no to be highly likely to not significant detrimental create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y All N All Justific The primary indirect effects of the UoA on these ETP species would include critical habitat ation disturbance and trophic impacts. Indirect impacts have been considered for ETP species via stock assessments, designation of critical habitat under the ESA, and various studies of the trophic ecology of the NES LME and role of forage species (e.g. Houde et al 2014). The UoA operates a trawl gear with benthic disturbances, but the location of the operation of the gear is not expected to disturb critical habitats for the ETP species, only some of which depend on the benthic environment. Critical habitat designations have been made for ESA-listed species, and the assessment team has confirmed that the UoA does not interact and/or is not expected to adversely affect critical habitat designations (E. Keane, Pers. comm). Longfin inshore squid are considered a forage species and play an important role as a prey species for many species, including several ETP species. The most recent stock assessment found that the biomass of longfin inshore squid is well above Bmsy, and fishing mortality is well below natural mortality (including predation and cannibalism). This indicates the UoA is not having significant indirect impacts via removal of a key prey, however there is not direct evidence to confirm this with a high degree of certainty. SG80, only, is met.
References Houde et al 2014; Background Section 3.4.6 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 202
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- Y Marine Mammals- Y Others- Not Relevant (See Others- Not Relevant (See Others- Not Relevant (See SIB) SIB) SIB) Justific Marine Mammals: MMPA ation All marine mammals under the MMPA undergo stock assessments and are assigned a PBR level that is the product of the following factors: the minimum population estimate of the stock; one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size; and a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0. PBR is really designed as a metric to be used when comparing all estimated annual, anthropogenic mortalities, so as to decide if a marine mammal stock should be considered a strategic stock. A strategic stock is defined by the MMPA "as a marine mammal stock-- for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA."
The U.S. Office of Protected Resources List of Fisheries (LOF) classifies U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three Categories according to the level of incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals: Category I. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50% of the PBR level; Category II. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than one percent and less than 50% of the PBR level; or Category III. Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than one percent of the PBR level.
The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, Northeast Fishery Observer Program observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. The categorization is updated annually.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 203
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. This meets the requirements of a “comprehensive strategy” as “a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses.” SG100 is met. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Marine Mammals- Not Marine Mammals- Not Marine Mammals- Not Relevant (See SIa) Relevant (See SIa) Relevant (See SIa) Sea Turtles- Y Sea Turtles- Y Sea Turtles- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Seabirds- Y Seabirds- Y Seabirds- N Justific ation Sea Turtles and Sturgeons: ESA The ESA, signed on 1973, provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. NOAA has jurisdiction over 159 endangered and threatened marine species and works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage ESA-listed species. Generally, NOAA manages marine species, while USFWS manages land and freshwater species. When a species is listed as endangered it is illegal to “take” (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to do these things) that species. Section 10 of the ESA allows NOAA Fisheries Service to issue permits for incidental take, with the requirement of a conservation plan to minimize and mitigate impacts to the affected species. NMFS’ Office of Law Enforcement works with the U.S. Coast Guard and other partners to enforce and prosecute ESA violations (NOAA). A 2013 Biological Opinion on seven fishery management plans, and the associated revised (2016) incidental take statement provide for an operationalized strategy for managing impacts of 7 federally managed fisheries, including the Squid Mackerel Butterfish FMP, on ETP species. This BiOp includes an incidental take statement that includes an expected number of interactions and required ‘reasonable and prudent measures’ to be undertaken by the fisheries to minimize impacts on sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon. The ITS was updated in 2016. In response to the level of observed and estimated interactions of the longfin inshore squid bottom trawl fleet with sea turtles, testing of a cable TED design has begun. See more about the ITS for sea turtles in Background Section 3.4.7. This meets the requirements of a “comprehensive strategy” as “a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses.” SG100 is met.
Seabirds: MBTA Seabird management under the MBTA is administered by the US FWS. The linkage of protections under the MBTA to commercial fisheries is not formally established as in the MMPA and ESA, but there is evidence of successful implementation of seabird impact
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 204
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. mitigation initiatives in US fisheries such as the Pacific pelagic longline fishery. There is ongoing monitoring of interactions via the observer program and evidence of consideration of commercial fishery impacts. Seabirds are also considered in the NOAA National Bycatch Report. The evidence of monitoring and studies on impacts (e.g. Hatch 2017) along with the legislative protections and seabird management initiatives at the US FWS is sufficient to meet the requirements for a strategy, but is cannot be considered a comprehensive strategy due to the lack of a formal linkages between the MBTA and US FWS initiatives with commercial fisheries management monitoring by NMFS. SG80, only, is met.
c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective basis The ost considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive based on plausible measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on argument (e.g., general work, based on information information directly about experience, theory or directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species comparison with similar and/or the species involved. involved, and a quantitative fisheries/species). analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y- All Y- All N- All Justific There is an objective basis that the above detailed strategy and comprehensive strategies ation will work based on the availability of information from the fisheries and ongoing evaluations of population status and trends for the ETP species. There is a demonstrated history of action being taken, primarily from other US fisheries- such as taken reduction plans and placement of observers under the MMPA, studies and implementation of TED gear in trawl fisheries to reduce sea turtle impacts, and seabird interaction mitigation implementation in pelagic longline fisheries. There is quantitative analysis supporting much of the management strategies, but there is significant uncertainty in the evaluations of population status and trends for many ETP species, and not all have population status estimates available. The management of quantitative impacts by fisheries is established for gear types that tend to encompass numerous FMPs, which results in an inability to clearly measure fishery-specific impacts relative to the biological limits established for any given ETP species. These factors prevent the SG100 from being met. d Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 205
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Met? Marine Mammals- N Marine Mammals- NA Sea Turtles- Y Sea Turtles- N Atlantic Sturgeon- Y Atlantic Sturgeon- N Seabirds- Y Seabirds- N Justific MMPA- ation Evidence of implementation of the MMPA is provided via the annually updated stock assessments for marine mammals and the associated annually updated LOF classifications where fisheries are classified based on their interactions with marine mammals, relative to their established PBRs. A fishery that has interactions >50% of an established PBR should be classified as Category 1. Based on the most recent impact estimation for the Northeast Bottom Trawl fishery relative to the PBR, the fleet merits classification as a Category 1 fishery.
There is significant uncertainty in the stock assessment, where methodologies to separate the long-finned and short-finned pilot whale stocks is under development, and the 2017 stock assessment report (available from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm) states that the 2011 surveys that support the population estimate likely underestimate overall abundance because they did not survey the Scotian Shelf where high densities of pilot whales have been observed. The PBR underwent a significant drop in 2015 from 199 to 35. Regardless, the published stock assessment is expected to represent the best available information to be used for management purposes.
The LOF classification does not provide for any explicit consideration of the fishery’s exceeding 50% of the established PBR for long-finned pilot whales. The assessment team considers that this disconnect demonstrates a gap in the implementation of what is otherwise considered a comprehensive strategy under the MMPA. The lack of consideration of the PBR that has been in place since 2015 in the 2017 LOF classification for the northeast bottom trawl fleet precludes the strategy for marine mammals from achieving the SG80 regarding its implementation.
ESA There is some evidence that the ESA strategy has been implemented successfully, as a Biological Opinion has been issued covering the FMP to which the UoA applies that includes likely estimated take (ITS) and specific ‘reasonable and prudent measures’ to be undertaken by the fishery. The 2013 BiOp has been challenged by Oceana in court, and as a partial result of ongoing proceedings an updated 2016 ITS was issued. Regardless of the ongoing legal challenge, there is at least some evidence of ongoing monitoring of fishery impacts and consideration of further mitigation measures seen in the historic and recent testing of TED configurations that could be implemented in the bottom trawl fleet (see background Section 3.4.7 for more detail). This is not considered ‘clear’ evidence because of the uncertainty in the status of loggerheads, the ongoing rate of interactions of the fleet with sea turtles, and the broad gear-level designation of the ITS that combined with relatively low observer coverage makes does not allow the assessment team to draw any clear conclusion regarding the UoA specifically. SG80 only is met.
MBTA-
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 206
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Some evidence is available that the strategy for seabirds is being implemented successfully in the form of observer data and FWS identification of select birds of conservation and management concern and plans for focal species (including greater shearwater and red- throated loons). None of these sources of information indicate that the UoA is of primary impact concern such that specific management measures are merited. On this basis, SG80 is considered met. However, the lack of cohesiveness between the FWS management and NMFS monitoring means there is not clear evidence that the management strategy is being implemented successfully. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y- All Y- All N- All Justific MMPA ation There is an annual review of fishery impacts on marine mammals via the LOF classification, where a range of measures including observer placement and take reduction plans are possible based on the relative impact of a fishery on marine mammal stocks. A take reduction strategy was implemented within the fleet under assessment historically. Thus, the SG80 at least is met. The disconnect in the PBR for long-finned pilot whales and estimated interactions of the northeast bottom trawl fleet within the last year’s stock assessment puts into question the successful implementation of this review in the most recent two years. SG100 is not met.
ESA- Atlantic sturgeon and sea turtles The Biological Opinion for this fishery in 2013 and revised ITS (2016) include an expected level of interactions that is to be reviewed on a 5 year basis, in addition to a suite of reasonable and prudent measures that must be implemented by the fishery. The 5-year review of the fishery impacts relative to the ITS meets the MSC definition for ‘regular’ and the reasonable and prudent measures reflect measures to minimize mortality that have been considered appropriate and must be implemented. This meets the requirements of SG80. Because mortality and implementation of measures relative to the ITS are not formally reviewed biennially, the SG100 is not met.
MBTA- seabirds Thought not as cohesive and systematic in linking monitoring and evaluation with management, there is some evidence of review of seabird impacts by NMFS in the availability of observer data and various studies, including Hatch 2017 such evaluations have been conducted with sufficient regularity to meet SG80. There has been relatively low levels management attention to seabird impact mitigation, but there is also no
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 207
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. indication of population level impacts by the fleet under assessment. SG80 is considered met on this basis, but not SG100.
References Hatch 2017, Background Section 3.4.6
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Marine Mammals 75 Score Turtles 85 75 sturgeon 85 seabirds 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition
By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully for long-finned pilot whales.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 208
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and OR may be a threat to injuries and the protection and recovery of consequences for the status If RBF is used to score PI the ETP species. of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y- All Y- All N- All Justific The UoA related mortality and impact on all ETP species is provided primarily via the ation observer program data. Observer coverage is relatively low (~10%), but can be extrapolated to provide estimates of total impacts. There is significant uncertainty in the population status and trends of several ETP species such that establishing biologically based limits for fisheries impacts may likewise be uncertain. The uncertainties in estimating population status and trends for many ETP species is not easily overcome, and the assessment team considers that the management systems use the available quantitative information to assess fishery impacts in a precautionary manner. The management system also allows for observer placements to be made on the basis of sea turtle and MMPA impact considerations- which are the impacts of greatest concern to this fishery- to increase the available quantitative data on fishery impacts as needed. SG80, but not SG100 is met. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 209
SCS Global Services Report
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? Y- All Y- All N- All Justific The information as described above is sufficient to support the associated strategies to ation manage impacts on ETP species. The U.S. Office of Protected Resources requires regular monitoring of the status of all federally listed ETP species and, where applicable, management measures (e.g. careful handling or gear modifications) and limits are put in place to ensure requirements for protection and rebuilding are met. There is sufficient evidence of historical implementation of management measures when indicated by monitoring to meet the SG80. Any conclusion with a high degree of certainty cannot be made due to the relatively low levels of observer coverage and uncertainty regarding the population status and trends of several ETP species. SG80 is met.
References Background Section 3.4.6 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 210
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justific Commonly Encountered Habitats have been determined on the basis of analyses ation conducted under the auspices of GARFO, NEFMC and MAFMC in compliance with regulatory requirements for EFH in the MSA (Stevenson 2004; MSB FMP Amendment 9; NEFMC 2011). These documents describe the distribution of habitat and fishing effort, including analyses of relative vulnerability and impacts of different gear types and fisheries on the habitats. These are described in detail in Section 3.4.7 of the background. Sand and muddy sediments dominate the habitat distribution of the UoA, as well as the areas over which the fishery most commonly occurs (Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20). Information from management and industry stakeholders further state that fishing over rocky substrates is avoided by fishers because the gear can easily get hung up and damaged. Based on the above, commonly encountered habitats are sand and mud, characterized by the geological and biological features described in Section 3.4.7 and characterized in Table 20. Bottom trawl gear has been found to produce furrows and some shift in surface sediment composition, where generally impacts are lower and more short term in more dynamic and less structured bottom composition (Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP). The configuration of bottom otter trawl gear when used in the directed squid fishery is understood to have less contact with the seafloor and therefore less impact on habitat than the traditional configuration (See gear description in Section 3.4.7: Information on Impacts of the Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishing Gear). In Amendment 9 the MAFMC determined that bottom trawls used in MSB fisheries do have the potential to adversely affect EFH for some federally-managed fisheries in the region and closed portions of two offshore canyons (Lydonia and Oceanographer) to squid trawling. The SASI model approach used by the NEFMC for its Habitat Omnibus Amendment 2 estimates percent damage and recovery time by gears, concluding that the gear can result in up to 40% damage on muddy habitats (less in sandy) (with greater % damage to geological features versus biological features), with a maximum recovery time estimate of ~4 years (including 1 SE) for biological features in both sandy and muddy habitats, where recovery time was estimated much lower (<2 years) for geological features of these two habitats (Figure 22). The SASI model accounts for some differences in gear configuration in its estimation of adverse impact, but does not account for all differences in the typical configurations for targeted squid fishing according to industry and agency staff input. The result of this means the SASI model will overestimate adverse impacts of the squid trawl fishery. A recent study by Hiddink et al (2017) concluded that otter trawls cause the least depletion when compared to beam trawls and scallop and hydraulic dredges, and median
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 211
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. recovery times posttrawling (from 50 to 95% of unimpacted biomass) ranged between 1.9 and 6.4 years.
Table SA8 of the MSC requirements define “serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function” for habitats as “the reduction in habitat structure, biological diversity, abundance and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely.” Highly likely is defined in Table SA9 as achieving a <30th percentile unlikelihood. On the basis that the small mesh bottom trawl fishery commonly encounters sandy and muddy habitats, the fishery does not impact the entire distribution of these habitat types, and literature on impacts of bottom trawl gear suggest that recovery to at least the 80% of unimpacted structure and function would occur in at least, if not less than, 5-20 years, the SG80 is considered met. The lack of detailed information on habitat distribution and characteristics in all locations where the UoA operates, and gaps in information regarding the deployment and interactions with the gear as configured and used by the squid fishery means there is no direct evidence of this conclusion. SG80, only, is met. b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and habitats to a point where habitats to a point where function of the VME there would be serious or there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justific Deep sea coral habitats are considered VMEs in this UoA, aligning with the MSC definition ation and guidance for VMEs. Deep sea corals have been the subject of collaborative Council and agency action on the basis of their particular fragility, structural complexity, slow- growing life history, functional significance, and vulnerability to fishing impacts. There is relatively little information available from the Mid-Atlantic Council region on impacts on deep sea corals, but generally speaking, bottom trawling gear is considered to be very detrimental to deep sea coral habitat as it can destroy the fragile coral structures and associated fauna. Due to their depth and because rocky and coralline substrate can damage gear, industry reports that deep sea corals are generally avoided by fishers. This is supported by the NOAA 2017 update to “The State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States Report” that states that “annual number of interactions between fishing gear and deep-sea corals and sponges is not known, but bycatch data indicate that a relatively small number of trips interact with deep-sea corals.” The new Amendment 16 that established Deep Sea Coral area protections where fishing by the UoA is prohibited, along with most types of bottom tending gear. (See Figure 26) The prohibition of fishing effort in a broad area of deep sea coral habitat with the 2016 amendment, and available information on deep sea coral distribution relative to fishing effort is sufficient to meet the SG80. However, the resolution of the data on deep sea
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 212
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. coral habitat distribution and a lack of baseline information on historic impacts of fishing on VMEs means there is not evidence for this conclusion. SG80, only, is met. c Minor habitat status Guidep There is evidence that the ost UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? N Justific Minor habitats would include larger sediment type habitats (gravel, coralline, and boulder) ation that are less common in the areas fished by the UoA. As noted above, there is not detailed information available regarding the distribution of these habitats and interactions with bottom trawl gear as configured in the UoA. Impacts are generally inferred via models based on assumed characteristics of habitat types. SG100 is not met.
See Background Section 3.4.7, MSB FMP Amendment 9, 16; Stevenson 2004; Hiddink et al References 2017; NEFMC 2011.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 213
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of expected to achieve the expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Y Y N Justific There is a partial strategy in place for managing impacts on habitat, primarily founded in ation EFH requirements in the MSA. Every federally managed fishery is required to identify EFH and evaluate all potential adverse effects of fishing on EFH designated within the FMP as well as all other EFH of federally managed fisheries, including consideration of cumulative impacts. The EFH Regulatory Guidelines further require each FMP to minimize such adverse effects to the extent practicable, and to review all EFH information at least once every five years, and as recommended by the Secretary. (50 CFR Ch. VI § 600.815) The EFH focus on habitat in the context of fishery resource needs aligns with MSC’s focus on habitat in terms of structure and function, i.e. the ecosystem services it provides, including the necessity of habitats for “some species to complete their life cycle or determine the overall composition of the ecological community.” (MSC FCRV2.0 GSA 3.13.1)
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), are a subset of EFH, and are habitat types and/or geographic areas identified by any of the eight regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries as priorities for habitat conservation, management and research. Beyond EFH, deep sea corals have been recognized as a priority for conservation, with discretionary authority for conservation action provided with the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1853 § 303 (b) (2)). All updates to management measures undertaken by the Council must consider impacts on habitat as a valued ecosystem component (See Section 3.4.7- Management) and for regulatory compliance with EFH requirements of the MSA.
Specific to this FMP, EFH impacts were evaluated and habitat protection measures implemented via Amendment 9 to the FMP in 2008, which resulted in closure of two canyon areas to the MSB bottom trawl fishery. The recent Amendment 16 to the MSB FMP provides for deep sea coral protection against bottom tending gears (2016). IN addition, the fishery is also subject to gear restrictions and closures stipulated in other FMPs and by states in state waters (See Section 3.5.4 for a map of Massachusetts state water closures).
The MSA, primarily via the EFH requirements, lays out a strategic arrangement for habitat impacts to be evaluated relative to prioritized habitats (EFH) and managed actions to be considered with the objective of minimizing adverse impacts. Such a cohesive arrangement may be considered to meet the MSC requirements for a ‘strategy’; however, the EFH designations and considerations do not extent beyond federally managed species, and non-federally managed (i.e. state or ASFMC managed) fisheries are not required apply the EFH-driven habitat management strategy. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a strategy in place for all MSC UoAs and non-MSC UoAs. SG80, only, is met.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 214
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the UoA comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats and/or habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Y N N Justific Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP (2008) included the designation and evaluation of impacts ation on EFH by MSB fisheries, resulting in identification of priority areas for habitat protection, and implementing GRAs in Lydonia and Oceanographer canyons. Generally speaking, management measures that restrict bottom-tending gear provide an objective basis for confidence for success in protecting a given habitat by eliminating the gear impact entirely.
In this same amendment, inshore areas off of Massachusetts and New York were also identified as having high numbers of EFH designations and high overlap with the squid fishery, and thus vulnerable to fishery impacts; however, further consideration of these areas for management action was rejected on the basis of understood high recovery rates of the habitat type and existing state regulation in the inshore waters that fall under State jurisdiction. Since Amendment 9, EFH was revisited in Amendment 11 (2011), which updated EFH and evaluated gear impacts on Longfin inshore squid EFH, concluding that: “There was minimal scientific information available on gear impacts to Longfin inshore squid egg EFH. The available information suggested that gear impacts on Longfin inshore squid egg EFH were minimal and/or temporary in nature so Amendment 11 does not contain alternatives regarding possible gear impacts to Longfin inshore squid egg EFH.”
Though not currently formally used by MAFMC for habitat management, the SASI model has been applied by the NEFMC to evaluate fishery impacts on EFH. The assessment team was provided with an output of cumulative adverse impacts by the directed squid fishery. The SASI model results using data from 1996-2009 suggests that realized adverse impacts in inshore fishing grounds may be relatively high despite the generally characterized sandy and high energy environment, suggesting that the intensity of fishing effort over time could result in significant cumulative impact (see Figure 23).
The evaluations conducted in creating Amendments 9 and 11 have not been revisited and updated information (such as these SASI model outputs) have not been considered by the MAFMC to support its management strategy in accordance with the EFH requirements. The MAFMC is in beginning stages of a comprehensive review of all EFH designations and impact evaluations. The EFH regulations require a review of all EFH information at least every five years, and this ongoing MAFMC review of EFH and HAPC should address this management requirement and provided necessary updated information on EFH and fishery impacts to support the management strategy. However, with no deliverable from this review yet available the most recent comprehensive EFH review for the MSB FMP is that produced under Amendment 9 in 2008.
UoA management has not updated its designations of EFH and review of cumulative adverse impacts on EFH (considering both the target species and all other federally
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 215
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. managed species) in over 5 years, as required to support the habitat management strategy founded in the 1996 EFH Amendment. Due to this, there is not sufficient current fishery- specific information to support an objective basis for confidence that the habitat protection measures in place align with the habitat conservation goals of the EFH based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats. SG80 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justific There is some quantitative evidence of successful implementation of area closures as a ation measure for habitat protection on the basis of VMS monitoring and enforcement records. See background Figure 25 and Figure 26 for areas closed to the UoA.
There are models estimating cumulative adverse impact of the UoA on habitat (i.e. via the SASI model), though much of the quantitative evidence is based on generalized categorization of habitat characteristics. There is a lack of information on some key habitat attributes, including a lack of precise information on the characterization of habitat and impacts in the areas high trawling effort by the inshore and offshore squid trawl fleets (D. Stevenson pers. comm).
The SG80 only requires that some quantitative information exist, which on the basis of the understood compliance record of the fleet regarding closure areas (where MCS is supported by VMS monitoring) it does. Because of a lack of recent EFH update and the generalized nature of information on habitat distribution and gear impacts available, SG100 is not met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures afforded to VMEs measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Y Y Y Justific The primary management measure to protect deep sea corals was produced as an ation amendment to the MSB FMP (Amendment 16), and applies to the UoA as well as most bottom-tending gear. Closures under Amendment 1 to the tilefish FMP likewise apply area-based restrictions to the UoA.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 216
SCS Global Services Report
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.
According to the NOAA Greater Atlantic Fisheries website (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/), vessels fishing for mackerel, squid, and/or butterfish in Federal waters must also comply with closed areas for other fisheries, including NE multispecies, unless using gear defined as not capable of catching NE multispecies. Therefore, the measures that apply to other fisheries regarding protection of habitats and VMEs in particular apply to this UoA.
The application of habitat protection measures set out in particular FMPS specify applicability to other FMPs and across Councils where needed such that requirements are clear. As in SIc, quantitative evidence is provided to NOAA through VMS monitoring, and enforcement records do not indicate that there is a concern over systematic noncompliance. SG100 is met.
Background Section 3.4.7; Stevenson 2004; NEFMC 2011; MAFMC MSB FMP Amendment References 9, 11, 16
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 75 By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, that there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy in place for habitat protection based on the EFH will work.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 217
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution and The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR
Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justific There is information on the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the ation fishery that is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on these habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear (SG 60 requirements). Relative vulnerability of the habitat in the managed area has been modeled based on inferred geological and biological features and modelled energy levels have been used to assign susceptibility and recovery scores under the SASI approach. In Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP, priority areas were selected on the basis of the amount of EFH designations covered in an area relative to fishing effort in the same area. A Habitat Protection Index was calculated for top habitats identified as vulnerable to adverse fishing impacts based on an estimate of EFH protected in the given alternative over the total amount of EFH designated. (See background Section 3.4.7 for more detail.)
There has also been significant information gathering efforts undertaken to support the design of Amendment 16 for deep sea coral protection, including surveys of coral and sponge distribution (see Packer et al 2017) and workshops25 with stakeholders to obtain diverse perspectives on fishery impacts and effective and practicable management alternatives.
These efforts have provided information on the nature, distribution, and vulnerability of main habitats, but there is not sufficiently detailed information on the distribution of habitats to achieve the SG100. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
25 E.g. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/55841da8e4b0b65f09fd0562/14347253881 08/DSC+Workshop+Summary.pdf
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 218
SCS Global Services Report
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. b Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the ost broadly understand the allow for identification of gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the been quantified fully. of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, habitats, including spatial and there is reliable overlap of habitat with information on the spatial fishing gear. extent of interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.
If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justific The information available from observational and experimental studies of bottom trawls ation (see NEFMC 2011) is sufficient to identify the main impacts of the UoA on its main habitats of interaction, but there are gaps in the information available that prevent the UoA from achieving the SG100 criteria for full quantification of physical impacts on all habitats.
The spatial extent of interaction and timing and location of use of fishing gear is generally available from VMS and VTR data. In the offshore fishery in particular, management has noted that more detailed information on the habitats interacted with and location of gear deployment from industry would help with important information gaps in understanding actual habitat distribution and fishery impacts. EFH has been identified for longfin inshore squid eggs, but there is a lack of information on relative importance of spawning grounds within the identified EFH. Impact modelling via SASI does not characterize the different configurations of bottom trawl gear based on target species, but it is understood that gear configuration in the squid fishery causes less benthic disturbance and incorporating this into the SASI model would serve to decrease the estimated habitat impact. Thus, the current approach likely overestimates adverse impact by the squid fishery.
Although there are areas for improvement, the information available is sufficient to identify main impacts of the UoA on main habitats, and fishery dependent information (i.e. VTR and VMS) data provide consistent information on the timing and location of the deployment of the gear. SG80, only, is met. c Monitoring Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 219
SCS Global Services Report
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Met? Y N Justific As noted in the discussions above adequate information continues to be collected to ation detect any increase in risk to the main habitats, thus meeting the SG 80 level. This information includes ongoing monitoring of distribution of fishing effort, and consideration of impacts of any updates to fishery management plans on habitat. However, changes in habitat distributions over time have not been measured for application to the habitat management strategy, and therefore the fishery does not meet the SG 100 level for SIc.
References Background Section 3.4.7
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 220
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem point where there would be point where there would be structure and function to a a serious or irreversible a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justific The UoA resides within what NOAA identifies as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large ation Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), which spans the area from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine and is considered a highly productive and dynamic ecosystem. LMEs are defined by four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically linked populations. These criteria are considered the key ecosystem elements, where productivity and trophically linked populations are the elements vulnerable to fishery impacts.
There are numerous ecosystem research and management initiatives that directly evaluate trends in ecosystem components and associated stressors, including the ecological communities and trophic structures in the NES LME. These are primarily summarized in the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report- available online at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/, and key findings have been summarized in the Background on Ecosystem Impacts of this report.
While there have been significant shifts in phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure, evidence does not indicate that base food web productivity is driven by top down forces such as fishing pressure (Steele 2010, Sherman 2002). Thus, the UoA is considered highly unlikely to disrupt productivity to the point of serious and irreversible harm.
Historical trend data on fish community structure provides evidence that fisheries can have a significant effect on the ecological community, and the ecosystem is also undergoing significant changes due to the changing ocean climate. This evidence also indicates that management has had success in rebuilding some stocks, suggesting that such overfishing impacts where they have occurred can be considered ‘reversible’. Importantly, none of the main species caught in this fishery are considered overfished (See PIs 2.1.1-2.2.3).
Squid are considered a forage species, and play a key role both as a predator and a prey species for fish species including summer flounder as well as larger pelagic species such as marine mammals (Houde et al 2014; Bowman et al 2000). Longfin inshore squid do not qualify for consideration as ‘key’ low trophic under the MSC criteria (See background section: Trophic Level Considerations). Due to their importance in the foodweb, maintenance of longfin inshore squid biomass at levels that continue to provide for its important ecosystem role is highly relevant to this scoring issue. The most recent stock assessment has found that longfin inshore squid are well above Bmsy, and it is
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 221
SCS Global Services Report
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. understood that natural mortality (including predation and cannibalism) far exceed fishing mortality. This supports a conclusion that it is highly likely that the UoA is not disrupting key elements of the ecosystem structure and function to the point of irreversible harm. SG80 is met. Longfin inshore squid are semelparous and have highly variable population dynamics, and the stock assessment for squid is retrospective, such that in any given year the annual TAC may be overly conservative or allow for fishing in excess of the population within a given year. Historic trends and the most recent stock assessment do not indicate that fishing levels are unsustainable, but there is significant uncertainty within any given year as to the population status relative to fishing effort on a given cohort. In addition, while the evaluations of Primary and Secondary species indicate that impacts on main species are within biologically based limits, there is no evidence of consideration of trawling impacts on community structure relative to ecosystem structure and function in areas of high concentrations of fishing, and there is a lack of information on non-federally managed species impacts. SG80, but not SG100, is met.
References Background Section 3.4.8
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 222
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place take into account the takes into account available which contains measures to potential impacts of the information and is address all main impacts of fishery on key elements of expected to restrain the UoA on the ecosystem, the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on the and at least some of these ecosystem so as to achieve measures are in place. the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justific As described in the background, there are several policies, ongoing research activities, and ation management practices that work to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem and that address all main impacts of the UoA. There is not an ecosystem strategy in place, but this is not necessary per SA3.17.3.2 where there are individual strategies addressing other components under P1 and P2. There is a broad management framework available that looks after ecosystem impacts of fishing as a whole, when the 10 National Standards are taken together as management objectives. Impacts of the fishery on identified ‘valued ecosystem components’ are considered for all Council actions. The MAFMC adopted an objective for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in 2011, and has published several white papers outlining potential operational approaches and unique management for forage species. The Council has adopted ecosystem approaches as an objective in their strategic plan, and there is evidence of consideration of plans to operationalize this objective; however to date no operational plan is in place. In addition to monitoring and evaluation systems to manage ecosystem components (e.g. stock assessments, SBRM reports, and EFH designations), NEFSC publishes an ecosystem status report encompassing the entire LME, and considering differences at a sub-regional level. Many, though not all, of the above measures are designed with ecosystem-based management as an objective. Although the Ecosystem Approach is under development by the Council, there are existing strategies targeted at the ecosystem components reflected in Principles 1 and 2 that together work to maintain ecosystem structure and function. These strategies, described in the background and under PIs 2.X.2, in conjunction with the efforts at the Council to integrate towards an Ecosystem Approach, is sufficient to meet the SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved fisheries/ ecosystems). ecosystem involved Met? Y Y N
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 223
SCS Global Services Report
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Justific The small mesh bottom trawl fishery impacts various components of the ecosystem via ation resource removal and habitat disturbance, and longfin inshore squid as a target species plays an important role in the ecosystem as forage species. Under the 10 National Standards, federal fisheries are managed to minimize impacts on components of the ecosystem, though the focus of this management is on federally managed commercial species, versus ecological communities. In this UoA, federally managed species comprise the majority of the catch, and all main species have a healthy stock status. Reporting on catch composition across all fleets is published annually. Habitat impacts have been modeled for consideration of impacts on designated EFH for all federally managed species. ETP species are also monitored with regulatory mechanisms to spur management response when impacts exceed biological limits. This ongoing monitoring linked with management mechanisms provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. However, as noted above much of this management focuses on particular components of the ecosystem rather than the overarching ecosystem structure and function. There is not yet a cohesive ecosystem- based management plan that has been operationalized or accordingly that has been tested. SG80, only, is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justific There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. PIs ation 2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, and 2.4.2 provide examples of implementation of management measures to meet objectives for each of these ecosystem components. There is also evidence via the Ecosystem Status Report that fishery interventions can affect ecosystem- level indicators (e.g. the recovery of groundfish populations). However, without explicit and operationalized objectives and metrics for ecosystem based management within the fishery, it cannot be said that there is clear evidence that objectives for ecosystem-based management are being achieved.SG80, only, is met.
References Section 3.4.8
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 85 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 224
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements of broadly understand the key the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justific There is substantial information available on the key elements of the ecosystem, primarily ation available from the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report website. This report summarizes the key ecosystem elements, both abiotic and biotic, which are monitored regularly. Supporting and additional information is available from the monitoring efforts associated with the management of the ecosystem components as described in Pis2.1.3, 2.2.3, and 2.4.3. SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between ost these key ecosystem these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be from existing information, from existing information, inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justific Main impacts of the UoA can be inferred, and some have been investigated in detail. The ation management system considers fishery impacts on ‘valued ecosystem components’ with each management action, and particular impacts by the fishery may be investigated in detail when considering alternative management actions (such as closures or gear modifications). There are also available studies that investigate the trophic web of the NES LME (e.g. Bowman et al 2000). However, it cannot be said that all main interactions have been investigated in detail, in particular noting the significant uncertainties regarding the population dynamics of longfin inshore squid. SG80, only, is met. c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y N Justific All main species evaluated under Primary and Secondary species considerations are ation federally managed, and are thus subject to their own FMPs, regular stock assessment, and EFH designations. ETP species also undergo stock assessments and fishery impacts are categorized annually via the LOF. Key habitats are identified for all federally managed species as EFH. Biological and physical habitat impacts have been modeled for main gear types and federally managed fleets (See Section 3.4.7). This is sufficient to meet the SG80.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 225
SCS Global Services Report
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. The SG100 is not completely met because of the gaps in understanding of the main functions of components in the ecosystem. There are also gaps in the ability to identify impacts of the fishery on some components, including the target species, given the highly variable population dynamics and incomplete understanding of spawning distribution. In addition, there are gaps in identifying impacts on other components, such as gaps in understanding of localized habitat impacts from fishing effort by the targeted longfin bottom trawl fleet. SG100 is not met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Met? Y Y Justific As noted above, the main functions of the ecosystem components as defined by the MSC ation are known, and there is adequate information for the impact of the UoA on these components to be inferred. SG100 requires that information be adequate for all elements of all components, including minor elements. Secondary minor elements include several species that are not subject to federal or state management, and for which there are no stock assessments available. Still, information from all fleets subject to observer coverage means that there is information available on impacts of the UoA and main consequences to the ecosystem can be inferred based on more ecosystem status monitoring and inferences from more in- depth considerations undertaken for federally managed species. SG100 is met. e Monitoring Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y Justific There is sufficient information available and collected to detect any increase in risk level. ation More information on the target species population dynamics, spawning distribution, and impacts of the fishery would benefit a strategy to directly manage for ecosystem impacts, but there is sufficient information to support the development of a strategy. SG100 is met.
References Background Section 3.4.9
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 90 Condition
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 226
SCS Global Services Report
Principle 3
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:
Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management
Guidep There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective ost national legal system and a national legal system and national legal system and framework for cooperation organised and effective binding procedures with other parties, where cooperation with other governing cooperation with necessary, to deliver parties, where necessary, to other parties which delivers management outcomes deliver management management outcomes consistent with MSC outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The U.S. federal fishery management system operates under the authority of the ation Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the National Environmental Protection Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and various executive orders. Each of these governing statutes create binding procedures regarding cooperating between the branches and levels of government, stakeholders, and the public. The National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 3 in the MSFCMA speaks directly to cooperation with other parties where necessary to deliver appropriate management outcomes: “Cooperation and understanding among entities concerned with the fishery (e.g., Councils, states, Federal Government, international commissions, foreign nations) are vital to effective management. Where management of a fishery involves multiple jurisdictions, coordination among the several entities should be sought in the development of an FMP. Where a range overlaps Council areas, one FMP to cover the entire range is preferred. The Secretary designates which Council(s) will prepare the FMP, under section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” This system has proven to be effective at
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 227
SCS Global Services Report
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:
Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
maintaining and re-establishing healthy populations of targeted species and maintaining the integrity of ecosystems. The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100. b Resolution of disputes
Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific U.S. law, including the MSFMCA, provides a transparent mechanism for the resolution of ation legal disputes. NMFS has legal responsibility for implementing MSA, and can be subject to lawsuits, during which the public “administrative record” (the basis for decision making— including everything in the public record on all fisheries related issues) is used to demonstrate how NMFS made its decisions. NMFS also has legal responsibility for reviewing and approving (or not) FMPs, implementing and enforcing regulations, and administering supporting programs. This system has been tested and proven to be effective in multiple instances. c Respect for rights
Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost has a mechanism to has a mechanism to observe has a mechanism to generally respect the legal the legal rights created formally commit to the rights created explicitly or explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly established by custom of custom of people or established by custom of people dependent on dependent on fishing for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood food or livelihood in a fishing for food and in a manner consistent with manner consistent with the livelihood in a manner consistent with the
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 228
SCS Global Services Report
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:
Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles objectives of MSC Principles Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. 1 and 2.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The MSFCMA contains ten national standards that guide the development of fishery ation management plans in the U.S. The Act also requires NMFS to develop National Standard Guidelines that further interpret the National Standards and give guidance to the regional fishery management councils on how to comply with the National Standards.
National standard Number 8 states that: “Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.”
The National Standard Guidelines state that: “All other things being equal, where two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the alternative that provides the greater potential for sustained participation of such communities and minimizes the adverse economic impacts on such communities would be the preferred alternative.” The guidelines also say that “The term ‘‘sustained participation’’ means continued access to the fishery within the constraints of the condition of the resource.”
The MSFCMA requires a provision in all fishery management plans to: “… assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects, if any, including the cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for—
(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment;
(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants;…”
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 229
SCS Global Services Report
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:
Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
Fishery management plans that establish a limited access system for the fishery in order to achieve optimum yield require the Council and the Secretary of Commerce to take into account—
(A) present participation in the fishery;
(B) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery;
(C) the economics of the fishery;
(D) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to engage in other fisheries;
(E) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery and any affected fishing communities;
(F) the fair and equitable distribution of access privileges in the fishery; and
(G) any other relevant considerations.
The make-up of the regional fishery management councils and their advisory panels, together with public meetings in the region, assure that existing arrangements will be taken into account in the development of fishery management plans. These provisions of the law do not guarantee that existing legal or customary rights will be incorporated into a management plan but fishery management plans can formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Any failure to recognize existing legal rights would be subject to challenge in the courts and the law is written so as to encourage consideration of customary rights. The nature of the consultative process of FMP development insures that customary rights will be given consideration.
The longfin squid fishery therefore has the formal commitment mechanism necessary to meet the requirement of SG 100.
MSFCMA References http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/index.html
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 230
SCS Global Services Report
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:
Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II) Available at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/ (March 2016)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 231
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities
Guidep Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and ost individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) created eight ation regional fishery management councils (councils) responsible for the fisheries that require conservation and management in their region. The councils are composed of both voting and non-voting members representing the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in addition to environmental, academic, and government interests. The roles and responsibilities of the respective Councils, their committees and staff, and the regional NMFS science centers are clear and understood by all relevant parties. Key roles and functions for longfin squid fishery are as follows:
• National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") (NOAA) – final approving authority for the SCOQ Fishery Management Plan ("FMP") and amendments thereto; final approving authority for annual quotas; authority for issuance of administrative rules implementing management decisions.
• Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC/Woods Hole) – responsible for at sea surveys, estimating volume of biomass, age/length relationships, recruitment, etc.; responsible for periodic formal (peer reviewed) stock assessments, evaluating all characteristics of the biomass, based on the at sea surveys, and providing projections of future volume of biomass under varying hypothetical harvest scenarios, all for the use of regulators in setting quotas.
• Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ("MAFMC") – entity with jurisdiction under the Magnuson Act for the development of management measures for the longfin
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 232
SCS Global Services Report
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties
squid fishery through the initiation, development, and approval of all amendments to the FMP, as well as the setting of annual quotas (see website www.mafmc.org).
• Scientific and Statistical Committee ("SSC") of the MAFMC – a group of approximately 15 scientists and academics required by the Magnuson Act to review annual reports from the MAFMC staff and NEFSC regarding the status of the stocks, and then to set the ABC ("Acceptable Biological Catch") for each species. The ABC is the maximum level at which the MAFMC may set the harvest quota each year. The SSC additionally recommends improvements for the assessments and notes parameters – such as biological reference points – that they believe need further study.
• Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC – committee comprised of MAFMC members charged with initial responsibility for interacting with industry, and for recommending to the full Council proposed changes in FMP/management regs and proposed annual quotas.
• MSB Advisory Panel – comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the public who use their knowledge and experience in the fishery to advise the MSB Committee and the MAFMC concerning the performance of the fishery and any proposed changes in the management system.
• Individual States – federal and state management are closely coordinated through state membership on the MAFMC, through joint catch reporting systems and through complimentary state regulations. The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100 for explicitly defined and well understood roles and responsibilities for all areas of action.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100 for explicitly defined and well understood roles and responsibilities for all areas of action. b Consultation processes
Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 233
SCS Global Services Report
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties
explains how it is used or not used.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The Council process is fully public and there are regular opportunities for public ation involvement. Public notification procedures are specified by law and all meetings must be open to the public. The consultation process includes a formal advisory panel that meets regularly and provides an opportunity for relevant information, including local knowledge, to be brought forth and considered in the development and adjustment of fishery management plans. Council committee meetings and council meetings provide opportunities for input of relevant information. Open council discussions inform the public how their input is being used. Additionally, before adopting any fishery management plan or regulation, NMFS notifies the public through the Federal Register op proposed actions and provides an opportunity for public comment. Final rules include responses to public comments, explaining how input was used.
The longfin squid fishery therefore meets the requirements of SG 100. c Participation
Guidep The consultation process The consultation process ost provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.
Met? Y Y
Justific The fishery management councils maintain websites that provide information to the public ation on all council activities and meetings. In addition, the councils maintain contact lists of interested parties to whom they send notices of meetings and information relevant to upcoming actions. Interested and affected parties can attend council meetings in person or by way of conference calls and webinars. Members of council advisory panels have their meeting expenses paid by the councils.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 100.
References MSFCMA
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 234
SCS Global Services Report
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties
MAFMC Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures Revised December 2015
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 235
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives
Guidep Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives ost guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The MSFCMA established clear long-term objectives to guide the development of fishery ation management plans by the regional fishery management councils. The National Standards for fishery management and the National Standard Guidelines require that: “The fishing mortality rate does not jeopardize the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY.” The national standards are further interpreted through the National Standard Guidelines, required by the MSFCMA and developed and published by NMFS. The National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 1 require that: “when specifying limits and accountability measures intended to avoid overfishing and achieve sustainable fisheries, Councils must take an approach that considers uncertainty in scientific information and management control of the fishery. These guidelines describe how to address uncertainty such that there is a low risk that limits are exceeded.” Since 2007, the MSFCMA has required that all FMPs include catch limits and accountability measures that are intended to ensure that overfishing can’t reduce a stock below the level that will produce MSY on a continuing basis.
An Omnibus Amendment applicable to all MAFMC FMPs was adopted by the Council in 2010 (Amendment 13 to the MSB FMP) to incorporate the consideration of scientific uncertainty (the precautionary approach) into the setting of ACLs. Longfin squid and Illex squid were exempted from the accountability measures because the MSFCMA exempts annual life-cycle species from this requirement for species that are not subject to overfishing. The Council’s overall requirement to consider scientific uncertainty in setting ACLs does apply to the squid species and uncertainty is specifically identified when setting ACLs, as is evident in the most recent MSB specifications.
These provisions of law and policy are consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach. They are explicit and required by management policy.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 236
SCS Global Services Report
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach.
Therefore, the longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 100.
MSFCMA- as amended through January 12, 2007
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/index.html References MAFMC 2011
MAFMC 2017d
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 237
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives
The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives
Guidep Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and ost broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and long- achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving term objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, with achieving the implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the outcomes expressed by specific management fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The original squid fishery management plan (MAFMC 1978) laid out the following ation objectives:
1. Achieve and maintain optimal stocks for future recruitment. 2. Prevent destructive exploitation of squid species. 3. Minimize capture of non-target species. 4. Achieve efficiency in harvesting and use. 5. Maintain adequate food supplies for predator species, recognizing that squid are also predators. 6. Minimize user conflicts. 7. Improve understanding of the condition of the stocks. 8. Encourage increased American participation in the squid fishery. (MAFMC 1978) In 1979 the MAFMC adopted Amendment 1 to the Squid FMP, combining objectives 5 and 7 above and designating objective 8 as objective 7.
In 1981 the Council adopted Amendment 3 to the FMP for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries, merging the three plans into one. The objectives of the merged plan were to:
1. Prevent the exploitation of these resources from exceeding those levels which reduce the probability of successful (i.e., the historic average) recruitment to the fisheries. 2. Promote the growth of the U.S. commercial fishery, including the fishery for export. 3. Provide the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this Plan. 4. Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of recreational fishing to the national economy.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 238
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
5. Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fisheries. 6. Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational and foreign fishermen.
These FMP objectives, combined with the Ten National Standards, detailed in section 3.5.2, constitute clear long- and short-term objectives:
1. Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield.
2. Be based upon the best scientific information available.
3. Manage individual stocks as a unit throughout their range, to the extent practicable; interrelated stocks shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.
4. Not discriminate between residents of different states; any allocation of privileges must be fair and equitable.
5. Where practicable, promote efficiency, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.
6. Take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
7. Minimize costs and avoid duplications, where practicable.
8. Take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for the sustained participation of, and minimize adverse impacts to, such communities (consistent with conservation requirements).
9. Minimize bycatch or mortality from bycatch.
10. Promote safety of human life at sea.
Other sources of explicit objectives that align with MSC Principles 1 and 2 are found in the EFH Requirements, MMPA, and ESA, among other laws and regulations.
Actions taken to achieve the long- and short-term objectives can be found within FMP Amendments, and importantly, fishery specification documents that set important measures such as catch limits. Fishery management councils are required by law to “Review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the assessments and specifications contained in each fishery management plan for each fishery within its geographical area with regard to: (1) The present and probable future condition of the fishery; (2) The maximum sustainable yield from the fishery; (3) The optimum yield from the fishery…” Current FMPs contain harvest control rules that establish automatic responses to changes in the status of fish stocks. The status of fish stocks is determined through a peer-reviewed stock assessment process. The results of stock assessments are further reviewed by the councils’ Scientific and Statistical Committees, which set the
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 239
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
maximum catch that may be taken from a stock. Councils then develop annual catch limits for each managed fishery. Annual catch limits may not exceed the fishing level recommendations established by the Scientific and Statistical Committee. Annual catch limits may be set each year or for a multi-year period. For longfin squid, catch limits are set for a 3-year period.
The fishery has “well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system,” thereby meeting the requirements for SG 100.
MAFMC. 1978.
MAFMC. 2011.
MAFMC. 2015.
MAFMC. 2016a.
References MAFMC. 2016b.
MAFMC. 2017b.
MAFMC. 2017c.
MAFMC. 2017d.
NEFSC. 2011. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 240
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
Guidep There are some decision- There are established ost making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives.
Met? Y Y
Justific Federal fisheries in the U.S. are managed under the MSFCMA, which sets out the decision- ation making process to be used by regional fishery management councils in the development of fishery management plans. FMPs contain measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives.
One purpose of the Act is “to establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision of such plans under circumstances (A) which will enable the States, the fishing industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other interested persons to participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration of such plans, and (B) which take into account the social and economic needs of the States.”
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has 21 voting members with each of the member 7 states (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina) having at least two voting members. Council members come from a variety of stakeholder groups. The voting membership also includes the regional administrator of NMFS. Appointed members must be individuals who, by reason of their occupational or other experience, scientific expertise, or training, are knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned. The Secretary, in making appointments to the regional councils, is required, to the extent practicable, to ensure a fair and balanced apportionment, on a rotating or other basis, of the active participants (or their representatives) in the commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Council. Each year the Secretary of Commerce must report to Congress on actions taken by the Secretary to ensure a fair and balanced apportionment of council membership.
The MSFCMA requires the regional councils to establish and maintain various committees and advisory panels, including a Scientific and Statistical Committee, a fishing industry advisory committee, and such advisory panels as are necessary or appropriate to assist it in carrying out its functions under the Act. In developing catch limits for each of its managed fisheries, councils may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee or the peer review process.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 241
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
Councils must review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the assessments and specifications made with respect to the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from their fisheries, Councils must also provide a summary of the information utilized in making those determinations.
Councils must specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which an FMP applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery.
Councils must also establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority—
(A) minimize bycatch; and
(B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and various executive orders govern the activities of the regional councils and assure that all meetings are public and the public has ample opportunity to participate in the process. All council actions must comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as the previously mentioned laws. Every council action involves multiple opportunities for public input at both the council level and in the federal rule-making process. The Council also must comply with the applicable requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Information Quality Act (IQA), and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR).
After approval by a regional fishery management council, council actions must go through a federal approval process and a federal rule-making process. Final approval or disapproval of council actions is done by the Secretary of Commerce through a process described in the MSFCMA as summarized below.
Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of a fishery management plan or plan amendment, the Secretary shall—
(A) immediately commence a review of the plan or amendment to determine whether it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law; and
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 242
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
(B) immediately publish in the Federal Register a notice stating that the plan or amendment is available and that written information, views, or comments of interested persons on the plan or amendment may be submitted to the Secretary during the 60-day period beginning on the date the notice is published.
(2) In undertaking the review required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(A) take into account the information, views, and comments received from interested persons;
(B) consult with the Secretary of State with respect to foreign fishing; and
(C) consult with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to enforcement at sea and to fishery access adjustments referred to in section 303(a)(6).
(3) The Secretary shall approve, disapprove, or partially approve a plan or amendment within 30 days of the end of the comment period under paragraph (1) by written notice to the Council. A notice of disapproval or partial approval shall specify—
(A) the applicable law with which the plan or amendment is inconsistent;
(B) the nature of such inconsistencies; and
(C) recommendations concerning the actions that could be taken by the Council to conform such plan or amendment to the requirements of applicable law.
If the Secretary does not notify a Council within 30 days of the end of the comment period of the approval, disapproval, or partial approval of a plan or amendment, then such plan or amendment shall take effect as if approved.
Congress lists one policy of Congress in the Act “to assure that the national fishery conservation and management program utilizes, and is based upon, the best scientific information available; involves, and is responsive to the needs of, interested and affected States and citizens; considers efficiency; draws upon Federal, State, and academic capabilities in carrying out research, administration, management, and enforcement; considers the effects of fishing on immature fish and encourages development of practical measures that minimize bycatch and avoid unnecessary waste of fish; and is workable and effective…”
The MSFCMA contains ten National Standards for fishery conservation and management, described above in PI 3.2.1. Congress also directed, and NMFS has developed extensive
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 243
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
guidelines to be used by the regional fishery management councils to assure that FMPs are consistent with the intent of the Act.
Fishery management decisions must also meet the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When preparing an FMP or FMP amendment, the Council also must comply with the applicable requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Information Quality Act (IQA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Executive Orders. These other applicable laws and executive orders help ensure that in developing an amendment, the Council considers the full range of alternatives and their expected impacts on the marine environment, living marine resources, and the affected human communities. All of the documents pertaining to the FMP amendment as required by NEPA and information to ensure consistency with other applicable laws and executive orders are available to the public.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 80. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes
Guidep Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes ost respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific National Standard 2of the MSFCMA requires councils to use the “best scientific ation information available.” The MSFCMA also requires a continuing review and revision, as appropriate, of the assessments and specifications made with respect to the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from their fisheries,
The MAFMC annually produces a MSB AP Information Document that reports on relevant research and monitoring of the fishery. The Council hosts an annual MSB Advisory Panel meeting at which members review the Information Document and inform Council staff of
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 244
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
any relevant developments in the fishery that warrant Council attention. Reports from these meetings are presented to the Council for consideration.
The MAFMC and the NMFS have in place processes to respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, as described in SIa. The process is transparent and is timely to the extent that taking into account the wider implications of decisions allows.
Amendment 15 is an example of the issues to which the Council responds in a transparent and timely manner, taking account of the wider implications, Amendment 15 to the FMP was implemented in 2015 for the purpose of implementing the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology. This omnibus amendment was developed to address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to include, in all FMPs, a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM). A public review draft was prepared to provide the public an opportunity to review the alternatives being considered by the Councils and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and to comment on the document and/or the actions proposed by the Councils and NMFS. Following the formal public review phase, the Councils selected preferred alternatives and revisions were made to the document to reflect the Council’s preferred alternatives and to address and respond to the comments provided by the public.
In contrast to the usual procedure of amending FMPs individually, the incorporation of the SBRM into all FMPs in the Greater Atlantic Region was accomplished through an omnibus amendment to take into account the wider implications of the SBRM in multiple fisheries. For example, New England vessels using extra-large mesh gillnets catch monkfish, skates, and Northeast multispecies, often on the same fishing trip, and, therefore, most participants in this fishery must operate according to the regulations implemented under three different FMPs. These wider implications are taken into account in the development of omnibus amendments that involve consultation with a wide spectrum of stakeholders.
The wider implications of decisions are also taken into account through the NEPA process, a Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment, and a Regulatory Impact Review. Environmental impact statements required by NEPA focus on Valued Ecosystem Components that include both human and non-human components of the ecosystem.
The fishery meets the SG100 requirements.
c Use of precautionary approach
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 245
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
Guidep Decision-making processes ost use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.
Met? Y
Justific The regional fishery management councils and NMFS operate under the MSFCMA and the ation National Standard Guidelines. National Standard 2 requires that: “conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” The National Standard Guidelines specify that:
“Scientific information that is used to inform decision making should include an evaluation of its uncertainty and identify gaps in the information. Management decisions should recognize the biological (e.g., overfishing), ecological, sociological, and economic (e.g., loss of fishery benefits) risks associated with the sources of uncertainty and gaps in the scientific information.”
The councils’ Statistical and Scientific Committees (SSCs) are responsible for developing acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for the councils. The National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 2 state that: “The SSC is expected to take scientific uncertainty into account when making its ABC recommendation (§600.310(f) (4)).”
Amendment 13 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan was approved by the MAFMC in 2010 and implemented by NMFS in 2011. This Omnibus Amendment and environmental assessment (EA) specified mechanisms to set acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for all components of the catch in fisheries governed by six Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council Fishery Management Plans (FMP). Longfin and Illex squids were exempted from the accountability measures because the MSA requirements exempt annual life cycle species not subject to overfishing,
Amendment 13 also established the Council’s precautionary risk policy that requires a diminishing allowable risk of overfishing as the ratio of B/Bmsy declines. The Amendment also includes accountability measures that seek to correct or mitigate overages of an ACL if they occur. These are automatic functions of the FMP and cannot rely on analysis, deliberation, and recommendations for action by the Council or discretion of the Regional Administrator. The Council’s risk policy applies to the squid species to the extent that the setting of annual specifications explicitly considers scientific uncertainty, as evident in the most recent MSB specifications.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 246
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 80. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process
Guidep Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all ost fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific Accountability and transparency of the management system is required by multiple laws ation and Executive Orders. The National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 2 specifically require transparency in the provision of scientific information for fishery management. Under the heading “Transparency and openness,” the NS Guidelines state that:
“The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides broad public and stakeholder access to the fishery conservation and management process, including access to the scientific information upon which the process and management measures are based. Public comment should be solicited at appropriate times during the review of scientific information. Communication with the public should be structured to foster understanding of the scientific process.”
They further require that:
“Scientific information products should describe data collection methods, report sources of uncertainty or statistical error, and acknowledge other data limitations. Such products should explain any decisions to exclude data from analysis. Scientific products should identify major assumptions and uncertainties of analytical models. Finally, such products should openly acknowledge gaps in scientific information.”
The management system provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions through open meetings, mailed and emailed notices, written copies of relevant documents, and a comprehensive web site through
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 247
SCS Global Services Report
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.
which interested parties can obtain almost every document associated with the management of the fishery. Where research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity result in management actions, interested parties are informed of proposed rules and provided an opportunity to comment. Final rules include explanations of how the agency responded to comments.
Council staff annually prepares an information document for consideration by the MSB AP and other interested parties. After discussion by the AP the staff prepares a Fishery Performance Report that incorporates insights from stakeholders.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 100. e Approach to disputes
Guidep Although the management The management system or The management system or ost authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.
Met? NA Y Y
Justific The management system for longfin squid has not been subject to continuing court ation challenges. The fishery management system is legally obliged to comply with judicial decisions and does so. The fishery management system receives continuing legal advice and acts proactively to avoid legal disputes and rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100.
MAFMC. 2011.
References MAFMC. 2014.
MAFMC. 2017d.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 248
SCS Global Services Report
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 249
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation
Guidep Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive ost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has in the fishery and there is a fishery and has been implemented in the reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to fishery and has they are effective. enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The regulations needed to achieve the objectives of the longfin squid fishery management ation plan are minimal. Vessels are required to have a federal permit or state license. The primary management control is the annual catch limit divided into Trimesters. The regulations include mesh sizes for each Trimester. Other than periods when the federal fishery is closed as the result of meeting the Trimester target, there are no trip limits. The trip limit of 2,500 lbs during closures is large enough to accommodate incidental catches of squid. (This will change with the reduction of the trip limit to 250 lbs following the implementation of the MAFMC Squid Amendment.) Closed areas in federal waters do not significantly impact the longfin squid fishery.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) share responsibility for the enforcement of fishing laws and regulations by U.S. vessels. These agencies have land-based and seagoing enforcement officers and a complete system of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) for the longfin squid fishery, including:
. At-sea surveillance by patrol vessels and fixed-wing aircraft;
. Prescribed on-board observer coverage with protocols to monitor catch, species, etc;
. Unannounced dockside monitoring of landings;
. Submission of vessel trip reports;
. Electronic vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on each vessel monitored by dedicated OLE staff; . Potential catch seizure and significant fines and loss of fishing privileges for violations of regulations.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 250
SCS Global Services Report
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
Most coastal states have memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with NMFS that enable state enforcement officers to enforce federal fishery regulations. Massachusetts has the most extensive squid fishing regulations of any of the coastal states because Nantucket Sound and the coastal waters south of Nantucket are historically high-production squid fishing areas. MA has a demonstrated capability to enforce state license requirements, vessel length limits, and trawling closures in state waters. The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100. b Sanctions
Guidep Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- ost compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence.
Met? Y Y N
Justific There is an explicit and statutory sanction framework that is applied for violations of ation fishery regulations. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations and can be severe, consisting of:
. Significant monetary penalties;
. Confiscation of catch;
. Permit cancellations or suspensions;
. Permanent prohibitions on participation in the fishery. Other than assaults on fishery officers, violations of federal fishery regulations are treated as civil cases, using a “preponderance of the evidence” rule. Cases are adjudicated by a limited number of administrative law judges who have expertise in fishery laws, providing consistency in approach.
Interviews with stakeholders, including representatives of the MAFMC, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement and General Counsel, and members of the industry provide evidence that sanctions are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. However, the difficulty with proving a negative does not allow the team to say that there is demonstrably effective deterrence. The fishery meets the SG 80 level. c Compliance
Guidep Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of ost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 251
SCS Global Services Report
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery.
Met? Y Y N
Justific Officials from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and Office of General Counsel reported ation that there had only been a few significant enforcement cases in the squid fishery in the last 5 years and there is currently only one unresolved Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA) for an overage of the incidental catch limit. Enforcement personnel report that the squid fishery is “a fairly compliant fishery” and does not have a lot of repeat offenders. All the information available indicates that fishers comply with the management system under assessment and provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.
Major Patrick Moran of the MA Environmental Police informed the team that his department made 70 squid fishery patrols in 2017 and no violations were noted.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 80. However, information is not available to establish a “high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system,” which is a requirement for SG 100. d Systematic non-compliance
Guidep There is no evidence of ost systematic non-compliance.
Met? Y
Justific On the basis of information available for the assessment, there is no evidence of ation systematic non-compliance. The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements of SG 80.
Moran, Major Patrick. MA Environmental Police. 2017. Personal communication.
NOAA Office of General Counsel, 2017. Enforcement Decisions and Orders. Accessed August 2017 at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html#alj
References NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and Office of NOAA General Counsel interviews. 2017. Gloucester, MA
USCG First District. 2014-2017.
USOFR (U.S. Office of the Federal Register). 1998.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 252
SCS Global Services Report
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 253
SCS Global Services Report
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage
Guidep There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in ost place to evaluate some place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of parts of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system.
Met? Y Y Y
Justific The management system is regularly reviewed and amended if necessary through the ation MAFMC council process. The following entities continually evaluate all parts of the fishery- specific management system and initiate changes when required:
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ("MAFMC") – entity with jurisdiction under the Magnuson Act for operational management of the longfin squid fishery, including review/approval of all amendments to the FMP, as well as the setting of annual quotas (see website www.mafmc.org).
Scientific and Statistical Committee ("SSC") of the MAFMC – a group of approximately 15 scientists and academics required by the Magnuson Act to review annual reports from the MAFMC staff and NEFSC regarding the status of the stocks, and then to set the ABC ("Acceptable Biological Catch") for each species. The ABC is the maximum level at which the MAFMC may set the harvest quota each year. The SSC additionally recommends improvements for the assessments and notes parameters – such as biological reference points – that they believe need further study.
MSB Committee of the MAFMC – committee comprised of MAFMC members charged with initial responsibility for interacting with industry, and for recommending to the full Council proposed changes in FMP/management regulations and proposed annual quotas.
MSB Advisory Panel (AP) – composed of members of the public representing interested parties. The AP meets at least annually to review the performance of the fishery and to report to the Council on the performance of the fishery and challenges facing the fishery.
Northeast Fishery Science Center – performs periodic stock assessments that are peer- reviewed by independent outside reviewers.
The Secretary of Commerce has final approval authority for all fishery management actions. To meet that obligation, NMFS maintains fishery-specific staff members and staff dedicated to review of management actions with regard to specific provisions of the
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 254
SCS Global Services Report
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.
MSFCMA and other laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection ACT, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. These reviews take place at both the regional and national levels.
The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for SG 100. b Internal and/or external review
Guidep The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific ost management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review.
Met? Y Y N
Justific The management system is designed and organized to provide regular internal and ation external review. Many of the participants in the system do not work for the government and represent a wide range of interests and competencies. Stock assessments are always peer-reviewed by outside experts. MAFMC council staff and officers participate in periodic meetings of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC). The CCC consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors from each regional fishery management council, or other staff, as appropriate. This committee meets twice each year to discuss issues relevant to all councils, including issues related to the implementation of the MSA. NOAA Fisheries is committed to the timely implementation of all provisions of the MSA. Regular face-to-face meetings or conferences between NOAA Fisheries and the leadership of the eight councils are critical to ensure administrative and MSA priorities are met.
In addition, according to MSC guidance, external review for SG80 and SG100 could be by another department within an agency or by another agency or organization within the country (GSA4.10.1). Considering this, the Council structure wherein NMFS and NOAA GC (other departments or agencies) review alternatives for management changes presented for Council decision-making might also be considered as “external review” of the management system for these purposes. A variety of agencies and interest groups outside the fishery management system regularly review the system with regards to their particular field of interest. These include ETP Take Reduction Teams, the Department of Commerce Inspector General and others. On occasion, the U.S. Congress will direct the National Research Council to investigate some fishery management issue. The Congressional Research Service also reviews council actions pertaining to issues of interest to Members of Congress. The management system is clearly subject to a high degree of oversight, but there is no regular, formal external review of the overall management system.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 255
SCS Global Services Report
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.
The longfin squid fishery meet the requirements for SG 80, but does not quite meet the requirements for SG 100 because there is no regular external review.
References MSC FCRV2.0
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 256
SCS Global Services Report
Appendix 1.2: Risk-Based Framework Stakeholder Consultation: Applying a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to Northern Shortfin Squid (I. illecebrosus)
Formal Stakeholder Consultation held via webinar on October 4, 2017, 11:00am-1:00pm ET All registered stakeholders were invited to attend the RBF webinar for Illex, once a date and time was established for which a core group of stakeholders representing a range of perspectives (industry, science, and management) were able to attend. As described in Section 4.4 of this report, a DropBox folder was shared with all registered meeting participants that included key documentation, resources on the MSC RBF, the PowerPoint used to conduct the webinar, and a draft of summarized preliminary findings.
Attendees to the webinar included: . Assessment Team o Joseph DeAlteris, Team Lead, Principle 1 o Jennifer Humberstone, Team Member, SCS Global Services Representative, Principle 2 o Richard Allen, Team Member, Principle 3 . Industry Representatives o Jeff Kaelin, Lund’s Fisheries Inc. o Wayne Reichle, Lund’s Fisheries Inc. o Katie Almeida, The Town Dock o Donald Fox, The Town Dock o Mike Hall, The Town Dock o Bill Bright, Cape May, NJ – Owner (w/Lund’s Fisheries) & Captain, F/V Retriever . Science and Management o Lisa Hendrickson, NEFSC o Doug Christel, GARFO o Jason Didden, MAFMC o Glenn Chamberlain, NEFSC o John Manderson, NEFSC
The meeting was conducted according to PowerPoint, copies of which can be made available upon request. Introductory slides covered: . MSC vocabulary and scope of this MSC assessment
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 257
SCS Global Services Report
. an introduction to the Risk Based Framework (RBF), . the role of Northern shortfin squid in this assessment as a data-limited secondary species, . requirements for preparation and stakeholder involvement in the RBF . the RBF tool to be used: the productivity susceptibility analysis (PSA)
Productivity Susceptibility Analysis
The following section provides a summary of key information supporting preliminary findings discussed via the webinar consultation, followed by a summary of the discussion during the RBF webinar for each PSA consideration. Final scores in the far right column include consideration of literature review and stakeholder consultations.
Table 32. PSA Productivity attributes and scores from Table PF4 of FCR V2.0
Table 33. Productivity findings based on literature review (black text) on the consultation webinar (red text)
A. Productivity Attribute Discussion Score
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 258
SCS Global Services Report
Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: <1 year (Hendrickson 2004; NEFSC 2006; Kashef 2016)
From Hendrickson 2004: Average age at Minimum age-at-maturity was 88 d for males and 92 d for females. Females attained 1 maturity. 50% maturity at a younger age (A 50 = 144 d) than males (A 50 = 154 d), but this difference was not significant (Table 2).
Consultation discussion: No discussion Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: <1 year (Hendrickson 2004; NEFSC 2006; Kashef 2016)
From Hendrickson 2004: Average The new information about the age range of mated females (115–215 d) can be used 1 maximum age as a proxy for lifespan because a sperm storage receptacle is lacking and spawning and death occur within several days of mating.
Consultation discussion: No discussion Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: >20,000 eggs on basis of estimates between 10-100,000 eggs. (Hendrickson and Holmes 2004)
From Hendrickson and Holmes 2004: Illex illecebrosus egg masses have never been collected in the wild but have Fecundity been described from laboratory spawning events. The gelatinous egg 1 balloons are 0.5 to 1.0 m in diameter and contain between 10,000 and 100,000 eggs.
Consultation discussion: No discussion. Average Not applicable to invertebrate species NA maximum size Average size at Not applicable to invertebrate species NA maturity Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex are not demersal spawners precisely, because their egg masses are neutrally buoyant. However, the demersal egg laying category is a more closer description than broadcast spawner or live bearer (Hendrickson 2004; Hendrickson and Holmes 2004)
From Hendrickson 2004: -The neutrally buoyant, gelatinous egg balloons have never been found in nature. Reproductive - Spawning has only been documented in captive females and both 2 strategy demersal and midwater spawning have been observed.
Consultation discussion: Some discussion where Jason Didden notes they are not demersal spawners. Lisa Hendrickson agrees that of these categories, category two is the best fit even though none are correct. Doug Christel asks if it is possible to provide partial scores (e.g. 1.7)—the MSC requirements for the PSA do not allow this- we must choose whole number categories.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 259
SCS Global Services Report
Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: MAFMC (2016) documentation considers squid as >3.25 in trophic level.
Figure 2 of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document for the MAFMC (MAFMC 2016) visualizes results of the food web model for the Mid- Atlantic region, where “small pelagics-squid” are situated between trophic levels 3.5- 4 (See Figure 1 below).
Consultation discussion: Significant discussion regarding the appropriateness of this classification. - Questions on the source for the model and perhaps touch base with them in regards to Illex specifically. Perhaps they can provide a statement regarding Illex and its likely trophic level. Trophic level - Also need to consider whether the numbers used in the trophic levels vary 3 at all between the MSC criteria and the approach used in the figure. o Further investigation into the scaling system for trophic levels indicates that a range of 3-4.5 is typical for marine carnivores.26 - Illex’ primary food depends on size, but considered to range from crustaceans to finfish; copepods when very small. Seems like it should be in the medium category rather than high. - Seems wrong to place anything regarding Illex’s productivity in a high risk category. - Lisa Hendrickson provided a study in follow up, from which Figure 33 suggests that the initial categorization of >3.25 is still appropriate for reflecting adult Illex on the U.S. Shelf (Dawe & Brodziak 1998; Figure 33)
Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: No depensatory or compensatory dynamics demonstrated or likely (Kashef 2016).
Consultation discussion: Significant discussion regarding the definitions behind this classification and available information. - Definitions- provided from general fisheries ecology literature in the Density webinar because the MSC requirements do not provide a definition. 2 dependence Compensatory dynamics typically pertain to co-occurring competitors. This seems odd in that it doesn’t match the overall category of density dependence very well. - Jenn H has since reviewed further MSC guidance material which suggests that MSC intends reviewers to focus on whether there are compensatory dynamics at low densities that stabilize populations, versus depensatory dynamics that may further slow the rate of population growth. (GPF4.3.2:
26 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/oceans_seas_coasts/marine_trophic_in dex.pdf
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 260
SCS Global Services Report
Guidance to Table PF4). This guidance provides a more clear definition for depensatory effects: “Depensatory effects (Allee effects) can arise from the reduced probability of fertilization, and they should therefore be taken into consideration when scoring species productivity.” - A definition for compensatory dynamics in light of this inferred definition from the MSC guidance was found from NOAA27: o Compensatory Survival: A decrease in the rate of natural deaths that some fishes may show when their populations fall below a certain level; possibly caused by decreased competition between individuals for food or space.10 (see Natural Mortality) - Therefore, the question is- when population density is low, are there dynamics that work to stabilize and increase populations (compensatory), dynamics that work to further slow growth rates (depensatory), or neither. - Lisa Hendrickson provided an addition source on density dependence that cites the role of cannibalism as density-dependent and a tool that regulates population biomass, where there is evidence of high rates of cannibalism in years of high density for I. illecebrosus. (Vidal 2014) o It is important to note that compensatory dynamics are considered to reflect high productivity and low risk when they occur at low densities. The role of cannibalism to regulate population density appears at high densities, and is thus not considered relevant here. - The assessment team remains unaware of any evidence indicating compensatory or depensatory dynamics, but the highly variable population does undergo boom and bust dynamics that could be considered to indicate compensatory dynamics. However, these dynamics may also be attributable to environmental variables, to which especially ommastrephid squid species are known to be particularly sensitive. - Further personal communications with L. Hendrickson supports the conclusion that boom-bust stock size characteristic is more likely attributable to environmental conditions rather than compensatory dynamics, such that no evidence of either dynamic is the category of best fit.
27 https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/documents/FishGlossary.pdf
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 261
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 32. Food web model for the Mid-Atlantic region. Top panel: key links to commercial forage fish; bottom panel, key links to fisheries. Small pelagics-Squid category circled in green with dashes to the axis. (MAFMC 2017)
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 262
SCS Global Services Report
Figure 33. Diagrammatic representation of the ontogenetic progression of Illex illecebrosus, as a consumer, through the trophic pyramid; rectangles enclosed by solid lines represent primary trophic functioning for any size range and area; those enclosed by broken lines represent secondary trophic functioning. From: Dawe & Brodziak 1998.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 263
SCS Global Services Report
Table 34. PSA Susceptibility attributes and scores from Table PF4 of FCR V2.0
Table 35. Susceptibility findings based on literature review (black text) on the consultation webinar (red text)
A. Susceptibility Only this UoA applies to susceptibility scoring, as this fishery does not have Fishery only where the scoring 10% or more of shortfin squid catch, and no other UoAs have catches of element is scored cumulatively 10% or more shortfin squid (PF4.4.3.3). Attribute Rationale Score Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Areal Overlap— The areal overlap of the fishery is low, and the species is only
available part of the year; however, we must also consider the PF4.4.6.1 The team shall relative concentration of the species and its overlap with the generate areal overlap scores fishing gear when it is available to the fishery. 1 after consideration of the
overlap of the fishing effort Supporting Information: with the distribution of the The northern shortfin squid stock distribution is broad, where it stock. is known to be found is found in the northwest Atlantic Ocean
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 264
SCS Global Services Report
between the Sea of Labrador and the Florida Straits (66ºN to 29º30'N). The southernmost limit of the range of I. illecebrosus is difficult to identify because of its co-occurrence with I. coindetii and I. oxygonius, where intraspecific variability in morphological characters make distinguishing between the species difficult. (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004)
The UoA comprises small mesh bottom trawl vessels with licenses to land longfin inshore squid under state or federal permit. On the USA shelf, the bottom trawl fishery that lands shortfin squid generally occurs during June through October. The directed shortfin squid fishery is comprised of a small number of small mesh bottom trawl vessels, and only in some years do the fisheries targeting longfin and shortfin squids overlap significantly (most typically when there is a boom longfin year). (NEFSC 2006; L. Hendrickson, pers. comm)
There are no stockwide research surveys and it is unknown whether NEFSC research bottom trawl surveys track Illex abundance or its availability on the shelf because these surveys cover only a portion of the Illex habitat and they occur during migration periods. (SARC 2006; L. Hendrickson pers. comm).
See Figure 35. (updated with new figures after consultation.)
Consultation Discussion:
- The distribution of Illex is broad. Its distribution east of the Western Atlantic is questionable. Some question over the data behind the FAO map (source isn’t clear from website). Agreed takeaway is that the distribution is broad. - The overlap with the fishery changes seasonally- mainly trimester 3, but may be in Trimester 2 as well in some years. - Issues with the VMS data representing the fishery—1st year of mandated declarations so 1st year data isn’t great, only for 80% of the fleet, and only part of the year. o Jason provided more complete figures for distribution of the longfin fishery based on landings data (See Figure 34). - Reminder that the scope is all small mesh bottom trawl, not only longfin. Illex fishing effort helpful for identifying overlap, but it isn’t the ‘fishery’ we are looking at. - Another important consideration is the gear configuration—fishers targeting Illex are fishing at 180 fathoms. Longfin fishery is not at that depth.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 265
SCS Global Services Report
- Illex does start shallow some years and the fall fishery for longfin is inshore. - Concentration of Illex? o Not a lot of distribution in U.S. and at the same time in U.S. they are found continuously along the whole shelf and outside. o We don’t know that we have significant concentration, even if we did it would be offset in terms of fleet overlap due to the temporal availability. - General consensus that the areal overlap is <10%
Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex only occur at depths and locations available to the UoA part of the year (NEFSC 2006; L. Hendrickson pers. comm). However, the small mesh bottom trawl is the gear type used in the directed fishery, and when Illex is available to the fishery can thus be considered effective in encountering the stock.
Supporting Information: Depth and migration characteristics from Hendrickson & Homes 2004 Illex are found most commonly between 100-300m in depth, with the greatest abundance between 100- 150m. Encounterability Winter: low abundance along edge of U.S. shelf;
presumably in warmer waters offshore and south of (PF4.4.7.1- The team shall generate encounterability Cape Hatteras. scores after consideration of Spring: begin migration onto U.S. shelf (Georges Bank to 3 the likelihood that a species south of Cape Hatteras) and Scotian Shelf. will encounter fishing gear Summer: occur throughout U.S. shelf (Gulf of Maine to that is deployed within the Cape Hatteras), Scotian Shelf and inshore geographic range of that Newfoundland waters. species.) Fall: migrate off continental shelf of U.S. and Canada Increase in squid size with depth in autumn. Juveniles tend to be spatially segregated from adults (Hendrickson 2004) and adult Illex are diurnal and thus become unavailable to the bottom trawl gear at night (NEFSC 2006, L. Hendrickson pers. comm).
Illex and longfin only occur in same location and depth in some years, and in the fall most typically. Illex may receive some habitat protection on rocky or coral substrate where bottom trawl cannot operate (due to risk of damage to gear). (L. Hendrickson, J. Kaelin, pers. comm)
Consultation Discussion:
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 266
SCS Global Services Report
- Our scope is the entire small mesh bottom trawl fleet, but not all small mesh bottom trawl operates in the area, depth, or with mesh size to catch Illex. - Other fisheries include scup, fluke for offshore fleets, but their mesh size is larger. Illex also swim too fast for operation of many other directed fisheries - What about habitat? o 80% of the shelf edge is fishable- not coral/rocky. It is not a refuge for squid/not offering significant habitat protection. - Illex are highly encounterable to the directed fleet, but this is a small subset of the UoA. Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Data available on the growth, maturity, and age structure of squid (from Hendrickson 2004 primarily), gear selectivity (Hendrickson 2011 and Hendrickson & Holmes 2004), and gear characteristics employed in the fishery suggest that individuals < size and maturity and < half size at maturity are retained by gear.
Supporting Information: Hendrickson 2004 provides a characterization of growth, maturity, and age structure based on a bottom trawl survey conducted in May 2000. Results include estimates of length at 50% maturity for males of 16.2cm and for females of 18.2cm. Female maturity is characterized into 5 stages, with stages 4 and 5 considered mature. For males, there are 4 stages and stages 3 and 4 are considered mature. Figure 36 demonstrates the length frequency distributions of I. illecebrosus males and females by maturity stage during May 2000. An additional important finding of this study is that there is variance by latitude and temperature in the growth and maturity rates of Illex that result in faster Selectivity of gear type 3 growth and maturity rates, and possibly shorter life spans, for Mid-Atlantic Bight shortfin squid.
According to its Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) document (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004), shortfin squid become available to the fishery at 10.0cm. Hendrickson (2011) estimates a selection factor of 2.2, which means a 2in mesh size has a 50% probability of selecting an 11.2cm ML squid, and a 1 1/8 in mesh size will select a 6.5cm ML squid.
The directed Illex fishery uses a significantly smaller mesh size (1 ¼- 1 ½ in- corrected in consultation) than the longfin squid targeted small mesh bottom trawl (~1 7/8-2 1/8in) (J. Kaelin, pers. comm). MAFMC 2009 found that even at 2 1/3in mesh size losses of Illex in October are nearly zero (noting however that Illex tend to be larger at this time of year.)
Juveniles tended to be spatially segregated from adults and were associated with large catches of euphausiids and myctophids.
Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 267
SCS Global Services Report
They were predominantly caught in deep water (140–260 m) at the two northernmost stations, on the southeast edge of Georges Bank, where adult abundance was low and surface (10.6°C) and bottom temperatures (9.9°C) were lowest. Juveniles comprised the entire catch at one station. (Hendrickson 2004)
Consultation Discussion: - L50 Maturity estimates range from ~16-18cm—what is this in inches? 6.29-7.08inches. - From the fishery perspective: there isn’t a mix of sizes when fishing for Illex. They grow at the same rates. - The directed Illex mesh size is larger than originally thought (more like 1 ¼-1 ½ in) - Longfin fishermen do not want squid <4in, but this is Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex is a retained species, although there are significant discards. There is no information on discard mortality. Supporting Information: Observer data for 1995-2004 indicate that discarding of Illex occurs primarily in the Illex and offshore Longfin inshore squid fisheries and is higher in the latter. MAFMC documentation (MAFMC 2017) estimates discard rates of Illex to be >70% from 2013-2015 based on trips landing >40% longfin squid. NEFOP Post capture mortality 3 data for all small mesh bottom trawl from 2012-2016 calculate discards at ~25% of shortfin squid catch, and the 2017 SBRM report calculate small mesh otter trawl catch of shortfin squid to be comprised of 15% discards. Discard mortality is considered to be 100%. Consultation Discussion: No significant discussion. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 268 SCS Global Services Report Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored NA NA cumulatively Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 269 SCS Global Services Report Figure 34. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with Doryteuthis pealeii landings > 1.134 mt (2,500 lbs), by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2011- 2014. The Southern Gear Restricted Area (GRA) is in effect from January 1 to March 15 (Trimester 1) and the Northern GRA is in effect from November 1 to December 31. Squid fishing does not occur in these GRAs when they are in effect because bottom trawls with a codend mesh size < 127 mm diamond mesh (5.0 in., inside stretched mesh) are prohibited. East of 72º 30’ N, squid fishing is only permitted in small-mesh exemption areas. (Source: Hendrickson 2016). NOTE: Orange dashed circle added around Trimesters 2 & 3, determined to have highest likelihood of temporal overlap with lllex presence, where Trimester 3 overlap considered highest. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 270 SCS Global Services Report Stock‐wide Fishing Effort Figure 35. Illex Illecebrosus Stock Distribution from FAO Aquatic Species Distribution Map Viewer, accessed 9/18/2017 (left); and targeted squid small mesh bottom trawl fishery overlap in U.S. waters from Hendrickson 2016 (Showing Trimester 3 only for years 2011-2014). Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 271 SCS Global Services Report Figure 36. Length frequency distributions of I. illecebrosus males and females by maturity stage during May 2000. (Source: Hendrickson 2004) Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 272 SCS Global Services Report Final PSA Score for Northern Shortfin Squid Using the MSC RBF Worksheet Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only derived score derived - PSA Score PSA Risk Category Name Risk Category Fecundity Weighting Selectivity Availability capture mortality capture Catch Catch (tons) C PSA C Trophic level Trophic - MSC scoring guidepost scoring MSC Weighted Total Weighted Encounterability rage size at Maturity size at rage Average max age max Average Average max size max Average MS Total (multiplicative) Density Dependance Dependance Density Weighted PSA Score PSA Weighted Post Reproductive strategy Reproductive Average age at maturity at age Average Ave Total Productivity (average) Productivity Total 1 1 1 2 3 2 1.67 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.35 88 Low ≥80 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 273 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 1.3 Conditions Table 36. Condition 1 Performance 2.3.2 Indicator Score 75 Rationale See Rationale for SI2.3.2d: Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy Condition By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully for long-finned pilot whales. Year 1 Surveillance (2019): Provide evidence of a coordinated plan to address the discrepancy between the SAR and PBR and Northeast Bottom Trawl LOF classification such that the MMPA management strategy is being implemented according to its prescribed process. No anticipated change in score. Years 2 & 3 Surveillance (2020-2021): Provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan Milestones set forth in year 1 such that there is progress towards alignment of the LOF classification with the estimated takes of long-finned pilot whale relative to its established PBR. Change in score possible, but not required to be considered on target. Year 4 Surveillance (2022): Provide evidence that the LOF classification and any associated management measures align with the estimated impacts of the fishery relative to the PBR for marine mammals with which the fishery interacts. Change in score expected such that Sid meets or exceeds the SG80. Year 1 Surveillance (2019): Provide evidence of a coordinated plan to address the discrepancy between the SAR and PBR and Northeast Bottom Trawl LOF classification such that the MMPA management strategy is being implemented according to its prescribed process. No change in score expected. Responsible Parties Client Group with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support Activities: - - The clients will seek an updated assessment for pilot whale sub species with the expectation of an increase in PBRs, as has been the case with recent updates of other small cetaceans. Client action - The NEFSC has stated that the long finned pilot whale chapter of plan the stock assessment report chapter is planned for revision in 2019, at which point it will undergo review by the Atlantic Scientific Review Group before becoming available for public review. The clients will provide an update on the progress of the revised stock assessment report at the first annual audit. - - When the NMFS publishes a draft 2019 List of Fisheries, next fall, clients will request a tier analysis of small mesh and large mesh bottom trawl pilot whale take data and ask the Agency to consider establishing two bottom trawl fishery categories, based upon mesh size, in the LOF going forward. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 274 SCS Global Services Report - Clients will continue to evaluate federal observer data indicating relatively minor takes of pilot whales, by small-mesh squid trawl vessels, in the bottom trawl Category 2 fishery. - Clients will ask the MAFMC to support this request during comments on the draft 2019 LOF at their October 2-4, 2018 meeting in Cape May. This has been discussed with the Council’s Executive Director. Expected The 2019 List of Fisheries will separate the small-mesh and large-mesh deliverables: bottom trawl fleets into 2 separate fisheries, which will likely demonstrate that the small-mesh squid trawl fleet is not operating to capture 50% or more of the pilot whale’s sub-species’ PBRs and should not be listed as a Category 1 fishery. Years 2 & 3 Surveillance (2020-2021): Provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set forth in year 1 such that there is progress towards alignment of the LOF classification with the estimated takes of long-finned pilot whale relative to its established PBR. Change in score possible, but not required to be considered on target. Responsible Parties - Client group with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support Activities: - Continue to monitor the bottom trawl small mesh squid fishery’s take of marine mammal species, including long-finned pilot whales. Expected - If not available in 2019, provide the updated stock assessment deliverables: for Long-finned pilot whales with the updated PBR. - Demonstrating that the bottom trawl small mesh squid fishery should continue to be categorized as a Category 2 fishery in the 2020 & 2021 LOFs Year 4 Surveillance (2022): Provide evidence that the LOF classification and any associated management measures align with the estimated impacts of the fishery relative to the PBR for marine mammals with which the fishery interacts. Change in score expected such that Sid meets or exceeds the SG80. Responsible Parties - Client group with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support Activities: - Continue to monitor the bottom trawl small mesh squid fishery’s take of marine mammal species, including long-finned pilot whales. Expected - Demonstrating that the bottom trawl squid fleet should Deliverables: continue to be categorized as a Category 2 fishery in the 2022 LOF Consultation Letters of support were provided upon request from the GARFO Regional Administrator and on condition the MAFMC Executive Director – the MAFMC letter speaks to both conditions, pilot whales and habitat. Table 37. Condition 2 Performance 2.4.2 Indicator Score 75 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 275 SCS Global Services Report Rationale See Rationale for SI2.4.2b: Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy Condition By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, that there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy in place for habitat protection based on the EFH will work. Year 1-2 Surveillance (2019-2020): Provide evidence of progress on the review of EFH and fishery impacts by the MAFMC, including a description of evaluations completed to date, copies of deliverables produced, and updated timelines for completion. Year 3 Surveillance (2021): Provide a summary of EFH and fishery impact analysis as relevant Milestones to the UoA and any emerging management recommendations to date. Possible closure of condition if the EFH review complete and technical publication available with information that meets the Year 4 milestone. Year 4 (2022). Provide evidence of the EFH review and fishery impact evaluation relative to the UoA, and any associated management recommendations relative to the UoA, to demonstrate that the management strategy for habitats based on EFH is functioning effectively based on fishery-specific information. Year 1-2 Surveillance (2019-2020): Provide evidence of progress on the review of EFH and fishery impacts by the MAFMC, including a description of evaluations completed to date, copies of deliverables produced, and updated timelines for completion. No change in score expected, but possible pending progress on and outputs of the EFH redo. Responsible Parties MAFMC /Client Activities: MFMC staff will conduct work on EFH Redo as directed by Council implementation plan. Expected - Updated “action plan” for the EFH Redo, which will provide deliverables: details on the status of that action. The MAFMC action plans usually indicates what the Council is working on (the action), in this case the EFH Redo technical report, and list products associated with it, persons working on it, and any associated timelines. An updated action plan will be provided at each annual audit up to the completion of the technical report. - -Client will provide and update of EFH Redo progress. Client action plan Year 3 Surveillance (2021): Provide a summary of EFH and fishery impact analysis as relevant to the UoA and any emerging management recommendations to date. Possible closure of condition if the EFH review complete and technical publication available with information that meets the Year 4 milestone. Responsible Parties - MAFMC / Client Activities: - MAFMC staff will conduct work on EFH Redo and creation of the EFH Redo technical report. Expected - EFH Redo technical report prepared for the Council. deliverables: - -Client will provide a summary EFH analysis. Year 4 (2021-2022). Provide evidence of the EFH review and fishery impact evaluation relative to the UoA, and any associated management recommendations relative to the UoA, to demonstrate that the management strategy for habitats based on EFH is functioning effectively based on fishery-specific information. Evidence expected to be sufficient to meet the SG80 by the fourth annual surveillance. Responsible Parties - MAFMC /Client Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 276 SCS Global Services Report Activities: - Review EFH technical report and consider any management actions if necessary. - Initiate management actions, if necessary. Expected Deliverables: - MAFMC documentation regarding management actions considered and/or taken (e.g. evidence of briefing materials, amendment or framework alternative evaluations, etc) - Client will provide a summary of EFH review. Consultation Letters of support were provided upon request from the GARFO Regional Administrator and on condition the MAFMC Executive Director – the MAFMC letter speaks to both conditions, pilot whales and habitat. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 277 SCS Global Services Report Letters of Support Letter from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 278 SCS Global Services Report Letter from the Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 279 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports Peer Review 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes/No CAB Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Yes Justification: Thank you for the thorough review and In Principle 1 no PIs received scores under SG80. This is justified summary. Responses as appropriate are based on the fact that the assessed status of the target resource is provided in the PI-specific table below. high and that there is a strong federal harvest strategy in place. Additionally, there is demonstrated effectiveness of the harvest control rule where catch has remained below annual quotas and the resource has been assessed as fluctuating around its target reference point. For the 2nd SI for PI 1.2.3, while I agree with the overall score, I noted that more justification can and should be provided (see bolded text for the 2nd SI). For PI 2, although there are a high number of species encountered in the fishery and a relatively high discard rate, approximately 90% of the catch by weight is comprised of federally managed species, and all main species have been assessed as above the point of recruitment impairment. Although there were 2 conditions assigned under this PI, as two of the PIs (2.3.2 and 2.4.2) received scores under SG80, these are related to implementation of the ETP management strategy as it pertains to long-finned pilot whales and a lack of recent review of EFH and fishery impacts as it pertains to the habitat management strategy. The overall score for P2 above 80 is justified, but for the 3rd SI of PI 2.3.1, I think that SG80 is more accurate assessment than SG100 (see bolded text for explanation). Additionally, for the 1st SI of PI 2.5.2, I noted that since the Ecosytem Approach is under development, and since “The Council has adopted ecosystem approaches as an objective in their strategic plan, and there is evidence of consideration of plans to operationalize this objective; however to date no operational plan is in place.” I feel this is a ‘partial strategy’ and meets the SG80 designation, not SG100. For both of these SIs I recommend review and reconsideration of the scores. In Principle 3 no PIs received scores under SG80. The generally high scores for many of the PIs (100 or near 100) is justified as the management and governance system under which the squid fishery operates is guided by well-established laws and procedures. Decision-making is transparent and accepts input from all interested parties. Impacts on a wide range of valued ecosystem components are analyzed before decisions are implemented. For PI 3.2.2 I noted a potential typo in the scoring versus the text. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 280 SCS Global Services Report Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Yes Justification: No response required. Conditions: PI 2.3.2d: By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully for long- finned pilot whales. PI 2.4.2b: By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, that there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy in place for habitat protection based on the EFH will work. The conditions specified would allow the PIs 2.3.2 and 2.4.2 to achieve SG80 within 4 years. In each case, if the appropriate evidence can be provided by year 4, then SG80 would be met. Following the milestones for 2.3.2, which would be evaluated at each annual surveillance over the four years, the client would need to show that a coordinated plan was in place to address the discrepancy between the SAR and the PBR and the NE bottom trawl LOF classification. This will likely involved an assessment of the stock of long-finned pilot whales and an estimate of the PBR as well as an evaluation of the impacts of the NE bottom trawl. All, which should be manageable. In years 2 and 3, there needs to be an evaluation of the plan established in year 1 to make sure that there is progress in aligning the LOF with the incidental takes of long- finned pilot whales above the PBR. Evidence in years 2-4 of an improvement will result in the fishery meeting this condition. Following the milestones for 2.4.2, in years 1 and 2, there is an EFH review initiated and the client should be able to draw on this to provide evidence of progress toward meeting the habitat protection standards for EFH. In year 3, there would be an evaluation of the EFH and fishery impacts and at this point the client could assess if they were on track to meeting the Year 4 milestone, or had already achieved it. If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes/No CAB Response close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Yes Justification: No response required. For PI 2.3.2, the requirement is that by year 4 the client will provide evidence that the ETP management strategy is being implemented successfully for long-finned pilot whales. The client is currently taking 2 major actions to evaluate the strategy: 1. They are re-assessing the species: the expectation is that the PBR is currently set too low and should actually be higher. If this is found to be the case and the NE bottom Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 281 SCS Global Services Report trawl fleet is not exceeding 50% of the PBR, the condition could close. 2. The LOF can be revamped to account for small mesh impacts separately from large mesh. Since the small mesh has had very low observed interaction then this should show that the small mesh is not exceeding 50% of the PBR in terms of incidental takes. In my view, this plan (which is scheduled to start immediately) is more than sufficient to meet the year 1 milestone and put the fishery well on the way to meeting this condition. For PI 2.4.2, dealing with the habitats management strategy, the action plan is sufficient and the EFH redo should provide the needed evaluation of the EFH and cumulative impacts, which has not been done in about 10 years. Having this by the year 1 milestone will effectively ensure that the condition can be met sufficiently by year 4 in order to have an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work to protect sensitive habitat. Full approval of this CAP is contingent upon receiving letters of support, which are expected soon. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 282 SCS Global Services Report Performance Indicator Review Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score improve the been used to this Indicator fishery’s Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are score this support the performance ‘No’. Indicator? given score? to the SG80 (Yes/No) (Yes/No) level? (Yes/No/NA) 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 1.1.1: The stock is at a level, which No response required. maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing, there are 2 SIs. For the 1st SI, the estimated annual biomass of is well in excess of PRI and based on the assessment this estimate is ‘highly likely’, meeting the SG80 score. I agree that, due to uncertainties in the stock assessment (high interannual fluctuations in biomass, there is not a ‘high degree of certainty’ so SG100 is not appropriate. For the 2nd SI, the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and therefore SG80 is met, but not SG100 due to interannual fluctuations in biomass and uncertainty in the assessment. 1.1.2 NA NA NA NA No response required. 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 1.2.1: There is a robust and No response required. precautionary harvest strategy in place, there are 6 SIs. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 283 SCS Global Services Report For the 1st SI, the SG100 is met based on the evidence: MAFMC management under the MSB FMP and with ABCs Control rule level assigned by the SSC using the risk policy The MAFMC MSB monitoring committee that recommends research set-asides, commercial quotas, and amounts of retention and landings Monitoring of harvest by the NMFS Gear restrictions, and use of VTRs and VMS Closure policy and accountability measures For the 2nd SI, given that the stock is maintained at target levels, this is evidence that the FMP is working. However, since the performance of the harvest strategy has not undergone an MSE, the SG80 is justified. For the 3rd and 4th SIs, the guideposts are met as there is monitoring in place that can help assess whether the harvest strategy is working and the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed. The 5th SI is not relevant as there is no shark finning in this fishery. 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA For the 6th SI, there is an annual monitoring No response required. program of northeast region fisheries conducted by the NEFSC, with an evaluation and analysis of the discards in the trawl fishery based on observer data. Therefore, Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 284 SCS Global Services Report the review is more frequent than biennial and SG100 is warranted. 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA For PI 1.2.2: There are well-defined and No response required. effective harvest control rules in place, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, based on the fact that the existing management process has been working is that the stock is at the SG80 level for PI 1.1.1, that is it is fluctuating at a level consistent with or above MSY, the HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY so SG100 is warranted. For the 2nd SI, based on the fact that there is no MSE, that the HCR does not account for a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and that there is no evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties, other than performance to date, SG80 is met, but not SG100. For the 3rd SI, because the current biomass is well above the Bmsy target and even though the stock biomass has fluctuated over the past 40 years, the stock has mainly been above the Bmsy level, the trimester quotas have been sustainable and tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels under the HCR—SG100 is warranted. 1.2.3 No (see 2nd SI) Yes NA For PI 1.2.3: Relevant information is The justification for SI b has collected to support the harvest strategy, been revised in response to the there are 3 SIs. reviewer comment. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 285 SCS Global Services Report For the 1st SI, the assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Additionally, the temporal and spatial patterns of the fishery by gear type are well documented. This represents a comprehensive range of information and so SG100 is met. For the 2nd SI, based on the fact that NMFS monitors the landings of all mackerel, squid, and butterfish, relative to the trimester quotas, and the availability of real-time information on commercial fishery landings from SAFIS, it can be said that the UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. However, the certifiers should also comment on the monitoring of stock abundance. For this the certifiers should cite the NEFSC trawl survey, NEAMAP, and other survey databases that can provide information on abundance and biomass. I would agree that the score for this SI should be SG100, but more justification is needed. 1.2.3 No (see 2nd SI) Yes NA For the 3rd SI, given that the gears used to See above prosecute other fisheries for longfin squid tend to capture a variety of groundfish species and that federal management agencies are responsible for accounting for all fishing mortality relative to the overall Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 286 SCS Global Services Report land trimester-specific quota, it is evident that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock—the SG80 is justified. 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA For PI 1.2.4: There is an adequate No response required. assessment of the stock status, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, the assessment has been peer reviewed and as the certifiers point out, is a survey-based index assessment that relies on the average of two seasonal surveys to estimate a single year average abundance, thus capturing the abundance of both major seasonal cohorts. It is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Therefore, SG100 is met. For the 2nd SI, the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points (Bmsy) that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated, so SG80 is met. It is noted that F-based reference points were not able to be estimated due to the lack of a theoretical basis for linking F to natural MSY mortality or F from per-recruit models %SPR for short-lived species like longfin squid. 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA For the 3rd SI, the abundance of longfin No response required. squid are estimated in a probabilistic way following the Council’s risk policy, which Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 287 SCS Global Services Report determines an acceptable probability of overfishing (P*) as a function of the stock biomass and life history of the species. Lower stock size and/or life history characteristics that increase susceptibility to overfishing (and are not incorporated into assessments) require greater confidence that overfishing will be avoided (via larger buffers). Additionally, the major sources of uncertainty are addressed in the assessment, so SG100 is met. For the 4th SI, the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Therefore, SG100 is met. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.1.1: The UoA aims to maintain No response required. primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI, there are 2 SIs. For the 1st SI, the primary species are silver hake, scup, Atlantic herring, spiny dogfish, little skate, winter skate, and butterfish. All of these species, with the exception of silver hake and winter skate are above the PRI with a high degree of certainty. Silver hake and winter skate meet the SG80, so the score of SG80 across all the species is appropriate. For the 2nd SI, of the minor species, only thorny skate is considered overfished, but with no overfishing and comprising only 0.01% of the catch. Therefore, the assertion that the UoA can be considered not to Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 288 SCS Global Services Report hinder recovery and rebuilding holds and SG100 is met. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.1.2: There is a strategy in place that No response required. is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, the evidence provided is that all main species are federally managed under an FMP, meeting the requirement of a strategy for managing all main species, but there are some minor species that are not, such as Atlantic croaker, therefore SG80 is met, but not SG100. For the 2nd SI, the FMP has been tested for federally managed species and the examples of testing for butterfish and scup are sufficient to warrant SG100. For the 3rd SI, the evidence provided in support of the strategy confirms that SG80 is warranted, but there are high bycatch and discard rates and a relative lack of monitoring and enforcement for focused on non-federally managed species, so SG100 is not met. For the 4th SI, spiny dogfish are landed in this fishery, but this fishery is under MSC certification and it has been determined that it is highly unlikely that shark finning is taking place. Therefore, SG100 is met. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 289 SCS Global Services Report 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA For the 5th SI, given that there is a regular No response required. review process, evidence of implementation of measures, including for main primary species scup (through GRAs) and for overall bycatch reduction and butterfish rebuilding (through mesh size restrictions and mortality caps), ongoing monitoring and research on bycatch trends and avoidance, and federal management of all main primary species and their respective stock statuses above the PRI, SG80 is met. 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.1.3: Information on the nature and No response required. extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, given that all main primary species are federally managed, but that there are no discard mortality estimates available for most species and discards are significant for some main primary species, and that observer coverage is low, SG80 is met, but not SG100. For the 2nd SI, given that the information available for estimating the impact on Primary minor species is the same as for main species, this SG is met (SG100). For the 3rd SI, SG80 is met because all main primary species are federally managed and are subject to the monitoring under the SBRM, and are also subject to direct stock assessment and fishery management plans under the MAFMC or NEFMC. SG100 is not met because non-target species Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 290 SCS Global Services Report management is not as cohesive as it pertains to non-federally managed species and therefore primary minor species may not be adequately supported by the strategy. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.2.1, the UoA aims to maintain No response required. secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit, there are 2 SIs. For the 1st SI, only northern shortfin squid are a main secondary species. A PSA was conducted for this species and the outcome was Low risk. Therefore, SG80 is warranted. For the 2nd SI, all minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. Because the certifiers chose not to use the RBF on individual species, the SG100 is not met, but SG80 is assigned. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.2.2: There is a strategy in place for No response required. managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, only northern shortfin squid are a main secondary species and they are under an FMP. There is a strategy in place: a cohesive and strategic arrangement comprising monitoring by SBRM, NEFOP, and other fishery dependent sources and resulting management measures. However, it is designed to manage the federally Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 291 SCS Global Services Report managed species and therefore, with respect to the minor secondary species, it can only be said to be a ‘partial strategy’. SG80 is warranted. For the 2nd SI, because the monitoring in place (focused on federally managed species) covers non-federally managed species, it can be said that the strategy will work. I agree with SG100. For the 3rd SI, again, given the focus on federally managed species, there is evidence that the strategy is working, especially with respect to monitoring and evalution, but due to the ongoing high discard rate, a bar of ‘clear evidence’ cannot be met. SG80 is warranted. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The 4th SI, due to the fact that smooth No response required. dogfish is highly likely to not be subject to shark finning. For the 5th SI, given the focus on federally managed species, there is not a thorough consideration of non-federally species in terms of bycatch. SG80 is warranted. 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.2.3: Information on the nature and No response required. amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, the team used a PSA to evaluate the only main secondary species, northern shortfin squid. This species had a Low risk determination and therefore SG80 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 292 SCS Global Services Report is warranted. For the 2nd SI, the SG100 cannot be met because most minor secondary species are not managed by state or federal agencies, and there are no available stock assessments or status information for most of these species. For the 3rd SI, given the fact that the non- federally managed species are not under a cohesive management plan and that SBRM doesn’t accoutn for these species in discard estimation, there is not enough information available to support a strategy to manage all secondary species with a “high degree of certainty”. SG80 is warranted. 2.3.1 Yes No—See 3rd SI NA For PI 2.3.1: The UoA meets national and Response to 3rd SI below international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, it is only relevant to score for marine mammals and the condition is “where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stock are known and highly likely to be within these limits”. This is met bcause the MMPA defines PBR levels for species that have recorded interactions with the small bottom trawl fishery: common dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, long and short-finned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphin, bottlenose dolphins, Harbor seals, Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 293 SCS Global Services Report and gray seals. Of these, only the long- finned pilot whales have exceed their PBRs based on the most recent stock assessment reports. For the 2nd SI, for marine mammals, based on the fact that there’s been 1 interaction a pilot whale over 5 years of observations, it seems sensible to assume that the UoA is not hindering recovery of the finned pilot whales. SG80 is justified. For sturgeon, mortality from MSB trawl fisheries was deemed low, but uncertain. 2.3.1 Yes No—See 3rd SI NA For turtles, the 2013 BiOp concluded that The assessment team has Mid-Atlantic fisheries (including MSB) “may reconsidered the degree of adversely affect, but are not likely to confidence in the conclusion jeopardize, the continued existence of” on SI 2.3.1c, and agrees that loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and although available evidence green sea turtles. The species with the infers no significant highest encounter rate is loggerheads, but detrimental indirect effects, trends in nests have increased and this is there is not sufficient evidence evidence to support the BiOp conclusion. to award the SG100. For seabirds, there is no indication that the small mesh bottom trawl fleet is having a population level impact on these seabird species, though there is a lack of ongoing monitoring of impacts. Each of these groups has enough evidence to meet the SG80, but not enough certainty to meet SG100. For the 3rd SI, indirect effects include habitat disturbance and trophic impacts. Indirect impacts have been considered for ETP species via the ESA, stock assessments and trophic studies. Trawl gear disturbs the Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 294 SCS Global Services Report benthos, but most ETP species are not dependent on the benthos. Given the good status of the longfin squid, it is not likely that the UoA is having significant indirect impacts via removal of a key prey. SG80 is warranted, but it seems a high bar to assume SG100 given that the squid assessments are single species-based and the uncertainty of indirect effects from trawl gear and the understanding of ‘dependency on the benthos. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes For PI 2.3.2: The UoA has in place No response required. precautionary management strategies designed to: (1) meet national and international requirements; and (2) ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, only marine mammals are relevant and the MMPA represents a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoAs impact, so SG100 is met. For the 2nd SI, the ESA represents a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoAs impact on sea turtles and sturgeons, so SG100 is met. But, for seabirds, the MBTA is not formally established like the MMPA or the ESA, so it represents a strategy, but is not considered comprehensive. Therefore SG80 only is met. For the 3rd SI, There is an objective basis that the above detailed strategy and Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 295 SCS Global Services Report comprehensive strategies will work based on the availability of information from the fisheries and ongoing evaluations of population status and trends for the ETP species. However, the fact that the management of quantitative impacts by fisheries is established for gear types include multiple FMPs, means that management cannot provide high confidence on outcomes. SG80 is met. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes For the 4th SI, for marine mammals, there is No response required. an issue the PBR for long-finned pilot whales and the estimated interactions with the northeast bottom trawl fleet within the last year’s assessment. In particular, there hasn’t been consideration of the PBR that has been in place since 2015 in the 2017 LOF classification for the northeast bottom trawl fleet. Therefore, SG80 cannot be met. With respect to sea turtles and sturgeons under the ESA, There is some evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully, as a BiOp covers the FMP to which the UoA applies that subjects the fishery to an ITS and specific ‘reasonable and prudent measures’. For seabirds there is observer data and FWS id of select birds of conservation and management concern and plans for focal species. Therfore, for sea turtles, sturgeons, and seabirds, SG80 is met. For the 5th SI, although there is annual review of the fishery impacts on marine mammals via the LOF classification, there is an issue the PBR for long-finned pilot whales Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 296 SCS Global Services Report and the estimated interactions with the northeast bottom trawl fleet within the last year’s assessment, so I agree, SG 100 is not met for marine mammals. For for sea turtles, sturgeons, and seabirds, SG80 is met as there is some evidence of regular review (although not biennial). 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.3.3: Relevant information is No response required. collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: (1) Information for the development of the management strategy; and (2) Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and information to determine the outcome status of ETP species, there are 2 SIs. For the 1st SI, some quantitative information (observer program data) is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG80 is warranted. For the 2nd SI, information (i.e., observer program data) is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Additionally, the U.S. Office of Protected Resources requires regular monitoring of the status of all federally listed ETP species and, where applicable, management measures (e.g. careful handling or gear modifications) and limits are put in place to ensure requirements for protection and rebuilding are met. SG80 is warranted. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 297 SCS Global Services Report 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.4.1: The UoA does not cause serious No response required. or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, I agree that because the small mesh bottom trawl fishery commonly encounters sandy and muddy habitats, the fishery does not impact the entire distribution of these habitat types, and literature suggests that recovery to at least the 80% of unimpacted structure and function would occur in at least 5-20 years, SG80 is met. For the 2nd SI, bans on trawling in a broad area of deep sea coral habitat (a VME), but a lack of understanding of historical status means that SG80 is met. For the 3rd SI, There is not evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats (i.e., larger sediment type habitats) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm because there isn’t detailed information available regarding distribution of habitat and interaction with gear. SG100 is not met. 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes For PI 2.4.2: There is a strategy in place that No response required. is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats, there are 4 SIs. For the 1st SI, there is a partial strategy in place for managing impacts on habitat, primarily founded in Essential Fish Habitat Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 298 SCS Global Services Report (EFH) requirements in the MSFCMA. However, since the EFH designations and considerations do not extend beyond federally managed species, and non- federally managed (i.e. state or ASFMC managed) fisheries are not required apply the EFH-driven habitat management strategy, it cannot be said that there is a strategy in place for all MSC UoAs and non- MSC UoAs. SG80 is warranted. For the 2nd SI, a lack of recent EFH update and the generalized nature of information on habitat distribution and gear impacts available means that the measures are considered likely to work, but there is not an objective basis for confidence. SG60 is met. For the 3rd SI, quantitative evidence is provided to NOAA through VMS monitoring, and enforcement records do not indicate that there is a concern over systematic noncompliance, but because of a lack of recent EFH update and the generalized nature of information on habitat distribution and gear impacts available, only SG80 is met. 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes For the 4th SI, quantitative evidence is No response required. provided to NOAA through VMS monitoring, and enforcement records do not indicate that there is a concern over systematic noncompliance with respect to VMEs (deep sea corals). SG100 is met. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.4.3: Information is adequate to No response required. determine the risk posed to the habitat by Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 299 SCS Global Services Report the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat, there are 3 SIs. It has been adequately shown that: (1) The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. (2) Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear; and (3) Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. Therefore all SIs are met at the SG80 level. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.5.1: The UoA does not cause serious No response required. or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function, there is 1 SI. For this SI, while, as the certifiers note, squid are considered a forage species, and play a key role both as a predator and a prey species for fish species including summer flounder as well as larger pelagic species such as marine mammals, they are not a key LTL and they are in good biological status according to the recent assessment. Therefore SG80 is warranted. Due to significant uncertainty within any given year as to the population status relative to fishing effort on a given cohort and the lack of informationon non-federally managed Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 300 SCS Global Services Report species impacts, I agree that SG100 cannot be met. 2.5.2 Yes No (see 1st SI) NA For PI 2.5.2: There are measures in place to The assessment team ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of recognizes that there is no serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem operationalized plan in place to structure and function, there are 3 SIs. date, but the ongoing For the 1st SI, since the Ecosytem Approach development and integration is under development, and since “The of an ecosystem-based Council has adopted ecosystem approaches approach into the current as an objective in their strategic plan, and management strategy, in there is evidence of consideration of plans conjunction with the strategies to operationalize this objective; however to addressing the ecosystem date no operational plan is in place.” I feel components evaluted under this is a ‘partial strategy’ and meets the PIs 2.1.X-2.4.X, are together SG80 designation, not SG100. considered a strategy per the MSC definition. This For the 2nd SI, based on the rationale for the interpretation is supported 1st SI, I agree that the SG80 is met, but not under SA 3.17.3.2, which states SG100. “It may not be necessary to have a specific “ecosystem For the 3rd SI, I agree that there is “some strategy” other than that evidence” that the partial strategy is being which comprises the individual implemented. (Incidentally, given that the strategies for the other certifiers refer to a ‘partial strategy’ here in components under P1 and P2.” this SI, perhaps the SG100 in the 1st SI was a No change to the score on SIa mistake?). SG80 is warranted. has been made. 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 2.5.3: There is adequate knowledge of No response required. the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, SG80 is met as there is substantial information on the key elements of the ecosystem (ESR) and regular monitoring of these elements. For the 2nd SI, given that management Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 301 SCS Global Services Report considers fishery impacts on ‘valued ecosystem components’ with each management action, that particular impacts by the fishery may be investigated in detail when considering alternative management actions, and that studies exist that have investigated the trophic web, it can be said that some of the main interactions have been investigated in detail. SG80 is warranted. For the 3rd SI, all main primary and secondary species are under FMPs, have regular stock assessment, and EFH designations. ETP species also undergo stock assessments and fishery impacts are categorized annually via the LOF. Key habitats are identified for all federally managed species as EFH. SG80 is warranted. 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA For the 4th SI, although secondary minor No response required. elements include several species that are not subject to federal or state management, and for which there are no stock assessments available, there is observer coverage which provides information on the impacts. SG100 seems warranted. For the 5th SI, there is sufficient information available and collected to detect any increase in risk level, and sufficient information to support the development of a strategy, so SG100 is warranted. 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.1.1: The management system exists No response required. within an appropriate legal and/or Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 302 SCS Global Services Report customary framework which ensures that it: (1) Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and (2) Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and (3) Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, longfin squid is a federally managed species governed by the MSFCMA, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and various executive orders. Each of these governing statutes create binding procedures regarding cooperating between the branches and levels of government, stakeholders, and the public. SG100 is met. For the 2nd SI, the US management system is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes and has been tested and proven to be effective. SG100 is met. For the 3rd SI, the US management system has a mechanism to formally commit to legal rights created explicitly for people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood consistent with MSC P1 & P2. SG100 is met. 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.1.2: The management system has No response required. effective consultation processes that are Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 303 SCS Global Services Report open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties, there are 3 SIs. For the 1st SI, the certifier notes that the roles and responsibilities of the respective Councils, their committees and staff, and the regional NMFS science centers are clear and understood by all relevant parties. They provide as justification the key roles and functions for longfin squid of NMFS, NEFSC, the MAFMC, the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the MAFMC, and the MSB (mackerel, squid, butterfish) Committee and Advisory Panel of the MAFMC, in addition to coordination of federal and state management. Therefore, SG100 is met. For the 2nd SI, the certifier notes that the Council process is fully public and there are regular opportunities for public involvement. Public notification procedures are specified by law and all meetings must be open to the public and that final rules include responses to public comments, explaining how input was used. SG100 is met. 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA For the 3rd SI, as per all US managed No response required. fisheries, the consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates effective engagement. Public announcement of Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 304 SCS Global Services Report meetings, interested parties can attend council meetings in person or by way of conference calls and webinars and members of council advisory panels have their meeting expenses paid by the councils. Therefore, SG100 is met. 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.1.3: The management policy has No response required. clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach, there is 1 SI. To meet SG100, clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. The longfin squid fishery is managed under an FMP that includes catch limits and accountability measures that are intended to insure that overfishing can’t reduce a stock below the level that will produce MSY on a continuing basis as mandated by the MSFCMA. 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.2.1: The fishery-specific No response required. management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, there is 1 SI. The certifiers assign a score of 100, indicating that the management system has well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 305 SCS Global Services Report management system. The longfin squid FMP has both short and longterm incentives for sustainable fishing are explicitly considered through Accountability Measures.Therefore SG100 is met. 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.2.2: The fishery-specific No response required. management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery, there are 5 SIs. For the 1st SI, there are established decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives through the MSFCMA. Therefore SG 80 (the highest SG possible) is met. For the 2nd SI, the MAFMC, the NEFMC, and the NEFSC, use decision-making processes that respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions: SG 100 is met and justified. For the 3rd SI, the MAFMC formally incorporated the precautionary approach into the MSB FMP through Amendment 13 to the MSB. Additionally, the Council’s risk policy applies to the squid species to the extent that the setting of annual specifications explicitly considers scientific uncertainty, as evident in the most recent Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 306 SCS Global Services Report MSB specifications. SG 80, the only SG is met. 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA For the 4th SI, as noted by the certifier, No response required. accountability and transparency of the management system is required by multiple laws and Executive Orders. As a managed fishery in the US, longfin squid management complies with this requirement and SG 100 is met. For the 5th SI, the certifiers have noted that longfin squid has NOT been subject to legal battles and that there is a plan in place to proactively avoid legal disputes. Therefore, SG 100 is met. 3.2.3 Yes Yes (but see NA For PI 3.2.3.: Monitoring, control and Thank you for the correction. typo for 1st SI) surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with, there are 4 SIs. For the 1st SI, the certifiers note that the current MCS plan of the NMFS and USCS has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. They also note the MOUs in place between state and federal management bodies that allow state enforcement officers to enforce federal fishery regulations. Given the low regulatory requirements needed to achieve the objectives of the longfin squid fishery management plan, SG100 is warranted. However, there may be a typo in the justification provided by the certifiers as they claim that “The longfin squid fishery meets the requirements for Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 307 SCS Global Services Report SG 80.” For the 2nd SI, the certifiers note that “Interviews with stakeholders, including representatives of the MAFMC, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Office of Law Enforcement and General Counsel, and members of the industry provide evidence that sanctions are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. However, the difficulty with proving a negative does not allow the team to say that there is demonstrably effective deterrence.” Therefore, SG80 is warranted. 3.2.3 Yes Yes (but see NA For the 3rd SI, on the basis of information As above, no further response typo for 1st SI) available for the assessment, there is required. evidence to suggest that the fishers are “fairly compliant”. However, information is not available to establish a “high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system,” which is a requirement for SG 100, so SG80 is warranted. For the 4th SI, on the basis of information available for the assessment, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, so SG80 is warranted. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.2.4: There is a system of No response required. monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 308 SCS Global Services Report fishery-specific management system. There are 2 SIs. For the 1st SI, all parts of the fishery-specific management system are regularly reviewed and amended if necessary through the MAFMC council process. Therefore, SG100 is justified. For the 2nd SI, the certifiers applied a score of 80, which requires that “the fishery- specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.” Given that there is no regular external review, a score of 100 is not justified. However, since there a number of external groups (e.g., the ETP Take Reduction Teams, the Department of Commerce Inspector General and occasionally the NRC), as the certifiers note, the management system is subject to a high degree of oversight, with regular internal and occasional external review, a score of 80 is justified. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 309 SCS Global Services Report Table 38 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report clearly Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator explain how the scores well- Please support your answers by process(es) applied to referenced? Yes/No referring to specific scoring issues and determine risk using any relevant documentation where the RBF has led to the possible. Please attach additional pages stated outcome? if necessary. Yes/No Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. 1.1.1 2.1.1 Yes Yes No response required. 2.2.1 2.3.1 2.4.1 2.5.1 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 310 SCS Global Services Report Peer Review 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes/No CAB Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Yes Justification: Thank you. Further responses in Table 1 as noted by the peer reviewer. Besides some inconsistencies pointed out below in Table 1, in general the CAB has arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report. Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Yes Justification: Thank you. No response required. Conditions have been appropriately set. Conditions follow the narrative or metric form of the PISGs used in the assessment tree (7.11.1.2). Conditions are written to result in improved performance to at least the 80 level within a period no longer than the term of the certification (7.11.1.3). Milestones make clear the measurable improvements expected each year and the outcome and score that shall be achieved and timeframes are specified (7.11.1.4). If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes/No CAB Response close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Yes Justification: Thank you. No response required. The client action plan looks appropriately based on the 7.11.2 MSC guide requirements showing how conditions and milestones will be addressed, and who is the responsible party (letters of CAP support has been attached from GARFO-NMFS and MAFMC). Time periods on activities are clearly stated. The CAP also shows how the CAB will assess outcomes and milestones and how progress to meeting conditions will be shown to the CAB through deliverables. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 311 SCS Global Services Report Performance Indicator Review Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Although the rationale supports the This PI does not address the uncertainites in given score, the CAB could give the assessment model, so the explanation for more information on the why the fishery does not score at the SG100 uncertainties mentioned, since the level is appropriate as is. However, the only information given is that there justification of SIb has been revised to refer are “uncertainties in the stock the reader to PI1.2.4, SIc where there is a assessment model related to the complete explantion of the uncertainties in life history of the species”. Actually, the assessment model. in the section Description of the fishery several uncertainties are mentioned. 1.1.2 NA NA NA NA No response required. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 312 SCS Global Services Report 1.2.1 No No NA SI a) Harvest strategy design The text for this PI1.2.1, SIa has been Although the rationale supports the revised. given score, in this case, and contrary to PI 1.1.1 the CAB has With regard to PI1.2.1, SIf, the CAB decided to give a very extense disagrees with the reviewer comment that rationale (3 pages!!!) concatenating our scoring justification did not address the whole paragrahs copied from the unwanted catch of the target species. The section Description of the fishery. justification specifically addressed the This makes reading very tedious unwanted catch of longfin squid, and intead of focusing the rationale to specifically referred to it as the target show the elements that makes the species. The jusitfication has been revised Harvest Strategy responsive to the to include additional detail, including a state of the stock and how it is reference to the most recent report on designed to achieve stock bycatch (Wigley & Tholke 2017). However, management objectives. the assessment team does not beleive that this SI sould be scored as not relevant as I do not disagree with the scoring suggested by the reviewer, and the SI of this SI, but strongly recommend meets the SG100 level requirements, as to focus the rationale for clearly described in the justification. supporting the score given. SI f) Review of alternative measures The CAB focused the rationale on bycatch instead of on the “unwanted catch of the target stock”. The Wigley & Tholke (2017) NOAA report on discards gives information on the proportion of the longfin inshore squid that is discarded in the otter trawl small- mesh fishery, being 5.7% in Mid- Atlantic and only 0.7% in New England. The report also gives information on the reasons of discarding. The discard rate of longfin inshore squid seems Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 313 SCS Global Services Report minimal (although an in depth search of information should be done by the CAB), so this SI could be finally “not relevant” for this fishery. The rationale given does not show any information on the rate of the “unwanted catch of the target stock”, and the alternative measures, if any, implemented to reduce this unwanted catch. No information is given on the review frequency of the alternative measures. Therefore, SI f should be rewritten and rescored. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 314 SCS Global Services Report 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given score 1.2.3 No No NA Si a) Range of information The text of the jusitifcation for SIa has been Sufficient relevant information revised and strengthened in response to related to stock structure, stock the reviewer comments, and the score has productivity, fleet composition and been lowered to SG80. other data like stock abundance Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 315 SCS Global Services Report and UoA removals, is available to support the harvest strategy, but there is not a comprehensive range of information available such as how environmental information supports the harvest strategy. The CAB states that all this information (including environmental information) is used in the stock assessments, but it is not shown how and where in the stock assessment models those variables are taken into account. Moreover, it is know that longfin inshore squid strongly depends on environmental variables; recruitment is driven primarily by environmental factors, water temperatures have a major influence on growth rates and it also plays a large role in migrations and distribution, and spawning (Arkhipkin et al 2017). Moreover, there are still relevant gaps in understanding the effects of bottom trawling on the inshore spawning grounds and on the egg massess attached to the seabed. This unknowns are very relevant to support the harvest strategy especially during the T2 on inshore waters, wich is actually a current issue. Following the gaps in information, the 51st SAW Assessment summary report points out that no Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 316 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) overfishing threshold has been recommended, which leaves overfishing status officially unknown, until a better understanding of seasonal cohort recruitment, growth rate, mortality, catch and effort, might allow within-season or within-year management schemes. Therefore, I do think that so far there is not a comprehensive range of information, so SG 100 is not meet. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 317 SCS Global Services Report 1.2.4 No No NA The stock assessment model used in The reviewer makes many interesting this fishery is appropriate for the stock observations with regard to the the recent and for the harvest control rule. stock asssessments of longfin squid that Nevertheless is has several issues that have been noted in reports form those the CAB has not reflected when scoring stock assessments. The CAB agrees that this PI. any stock assessment soley based on In the 51st SARC-SAW report from 2011, surveys is not perfect, as is it subject to the majority of SARC panelists consider catchability issues for the survey gear. the assessment to be adequate for developing annual management advice However with regard to SIa, the SG100 as long as the exploitation rate stays requires that the major features relevant low. Seems that several panelists do to the biology of the species and the nature not consider it is adequate, although of the UoA are considered. Clearly, the not more information is given. But, main issue of a shortlived species with a besides this, the SARC expressed seasonal abundance pattern is accounted concerns on the proposed BMSY proxy, and states that no overfishing for by averaging the spring and fall indices, threshold has been recommended, and because the stock is lightly fished which leaves overfishing status overall, the current assessment officially unknown. SARC also advocates methodology is appropriate, so the SG100 for a better understanding of seasonal score is met. The justification and the cohort recruitment, growth rate, score remain unchanged. mortality, catch and effort, which might allow within-season or within-year With regard to SIc, the SG100 requires that management schemes. Some of the weak points of the model pointed out the assessment takes into account in the report are: 1) there are no uncertainty and is evaluating stock status existing biomass reference points for relative to reference points in a the stock because the previous Bmsy probabilistic way. The jusitifcation has proxy was deemed inappropriate at been revised to strengthen the argument SARC-34 and a revised estimate was that the assessment takes into account not provided. As a result of this, uncertainty. The CAB accepts that that an overfished status cannot be improved model based assessment may be determined, 2) stock size projections able to be developed, but also notes that were not possible due to the lack of an assessment model, 3) several caveats the majority of SARC panelists consider the are important in interpreting historic assessment to be adequate for developing landings data, 4) issues regarding the annual management advice as long as the overlappin with D. pleii, … between exploitation rate stays low. Therefore, the others. scoring remains at 100. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 318 SCS Global Services Report Moreover, several recommendations With regard to SId, the SG100 requires that are given in the SARC-51 for improving the assessment has been tested and shown the model, some of them still pending to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and since the 34th SARC-SAW report from assessment approaches have been 2002 (see section New research recommendations for SARC51). A very rigorously explored, evidenced by changes important recommendation given is to in methdologies between stock “investigate the use of assessment assessments. models with short time steps (i.e., The peer reviewer notes that some of the weekly) that incorporate data which panelists in the assessment review process allow for cohort-based estimates of have suggested alternative strategies, biomass and exploitation (e.g., including a model with very short time depletion models)”. Depletion models steps, and the CAB agrees that this might combined with biomass projections be useful or interesting, but notes that it is models have been succesfully applied to other squid fisheries like in the a subject of research, and that again the Falkland Islands (see Roa-Ureta & majority of the assessment review panel Arkhipkin, 2006. ICES Journal of Marine consider the existing assessment Science, 64, 3–17). methodology adequate for developing annual management advice as long as the Additionally, the CAB itself when exploitation rate stays low. So, both the scoring PI 1.1.1. pointed out the justification and the scoring remain uncertainties in the stock assessment unchanged. model relative to the life history of the species. All these issues and uncertaintites have not been taken into account by the CAB when scoring this PI, specially in SI a, c and d. I do not think that neither of those 3 SI (a, c and d) gets SG100 for the reasons given above. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given score Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 319 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The evidences presented for No response required. scoring the PSA atributes support the given score. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 320 SCS Global Services Report 2.2.2 No No NA SI b) Management strategy The peer reviewer is correct in that when evaluation taken apart, there is a wide variability in SI c) Management strategy discarding between the 2016 and 2017 implementation SBRM reports (the percentages quoted are correct). Looking back further at previous At a first glance, it seems that all SBRM reports, in the 2013-2014 season relevant information have been (2015 report) 12% of shortfin squid were used to score this indicator, but, discarded and in the season preceding this when looking carefully i´ve realized only 2% was discarded (2014 report). We that by grouping the data available, note that the SBRM reports cited include a relevant issue was masked. fishing from July 2014-June 2016, and are not calendar year based. The intent was In SI e (Review of alternative never to mask such variability but rather to measures to minimise mortality of see on a greater time scale what the scale unwanted catch), the CAB has only of discards are relative to catch. The shown the results for the % of complete catch and estimated discards shortfin squid discarded, combining from the 2016 and 2017 SBRM reports for the information from 2016 and all federally managed species encountered 2017 SBRM Reports. By doing that by the UoA are available in Appendix 6. the discart rate is 5.24%, as stated in the rationale, although when The relatively high overall discard rate in checking the information separated the UoA has been thoroughly and explicitly by year (not shown on the evaluated in the background, in Section rationale), the discard rate was 3.4.5 under the discussion of federally 14.8% in 2017 but only 1.8% in managed species. For each main species, 2016. When years are so different, including Northern shortfin squid, there is data should not be aggregated, but an explicit discussion of UoA impacts differences should be shown to the including discard rates, and relevant reader, especially when 2017 data management measures. An extensive are much worst than in previous explanation of the regulatory approach to years. minimization of bycatch is provided under SI 2.1.2e, and cross referenced in this I have not checked previous years rationale. to 2016, nor did I checked data for other secondary species, but this As noted in this rationale, it is important to finding shown above, strongly note that both the MSC and National compromises the SG100 score the Standard 9 provide a subjective criteria for Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 321 SCS Global Services Report CAB gave to SI b and the SG80 determining whether implemented score of SI c. A trend in discard rate measures to minimize bycatch are along years shoud be shown to adequate (“as appropriate” according to really find out if measures/partial the MSC criteria and “to the extent strategy are in fact successful in practicable” by NOAA). Thus, there is no minimising the mortality of prescribed threshold for an acceptable Secondary species, or not. But, level of discards against which a fishery is based on the information i´ve evaluated. presented here for shortfin squid, neither of the two SI (b and c) In regards to Northern shortfin squid, in reach SG80. order to minimize regulatory discarding of incidentally caught shortfin squid, where discard mortality is assumed to be very high, vessels holding an incidental permit can harvest up to 10,000 lb of shortfin per trip, and this limit applies to moratorium vessels once the quota is reached. Management has continued to exempt targeted Illex trips from minimum mesh size requirements, where smaller mesh is typically used in the Illex fishery because the body shape of the species causes it to incur damage, or ‘gill up’, in larger meshes (See comments in Appendix 1.2 on gear selectivity and post-capture mortality). The presence of Illex on US EEZ fishing grounds is highly variable, as the stock distribution expands North, South, and East of the US Mid-Atlantic and has a temporal presence on the shelf. The unpredictability in availability is cited in Fishery Performance Report as an environmental challenge. Low market demand and unpredictability of the presence of Illex may contribute to discards by vessels, and management attributes years of higher Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 322 SCS Global Services Report discard rates as typically occurring in years where there is greater spatial overlap with the longfin inshore squid directed fishery. Nearly all discards are reported as due to a lack of market in SBRM reports. It is important to note that, discards included, the total catch of Illex has been well below its quota in recent years (See the 2017 MSB Informational Document). The assessment team has carefully considered this matter, and considers that there is evidence of at least regular monitoring and consideration of unwanted mortality, as detailed in the background section 3.4.5 and 2.1.2e. The National Standards ensure that all FMP actions be considered relative to broader implications for other species, habitats, and practical and economic consequences, in alignment with GSA3.5.3.3. The assessment team has concluded that while discarding remains significant, management measures in place (such as the incidental trip limit) have been designed and implemented for the fishery to support minimization of unwanted mortality, in consideration of the practicality factors recognized by both the MSC Standard and United States legislation. The rationale has been revised with greater detail on discards over time and management measures in place, but neither score has been revised. 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 323 SCS Global Services Report 2.3.1 Yes No NA SI a) Effects of the UoA on SI 2.3.1a assesses whether impacts of a population/stock within national UoA (or all MSC UoAs) are within limits, or international limits where those limits exist. For long-finned From my point of view the pilot whales, the team considers that limits rationale for scoring this SI does are established in the PBRs. The aggregate not support the given score. The nature of the LOF grouping is such that combined effects of the MSC UoAs there is not a clear estimate of the on the population/stock of long- proportion of mortality attributable to any finned pilot whales are actually not one fleet within, but the assessment team known, and only conjetures can be has complementary observer data from done in relation if the impact of 2012-2016, wherein only 1 pilot whale those fisheries are likely or highly interaction is recorded. Considering that likely to be higher or not relative to the total take of the NE bottom trawl fleet the PBR of 35. was less than the PBR, we consider that we can determine with confidence that the As the CAB stated, the PBR is 35 for small mesh bottom trawl fleet as a subset long-finned pilot whales and total of this NE fleet is not responsible for 35 or reported takes across all fisheries more long finned pilot whale mortalities. exceeded this at 38. But, the portion attributable to specific In regards to other MSC UoAs, the MSC has fisheries within the Northeast expressed a recognition of the bottom trawl fisheries LOF impracticality of consideration of designation is unknown. Therefore cumulative impacts where other MSC it is unknown what portion of the UoAs, still on V1.3, are not required to 38 corresponds to the MSC UoAs, express impacts in the same manner. An and consequently it is also uknown interpretation on the MSC website states if this effect is highly likely or not to that CABs are not required to assess be within the PBR limits. cumulative impacts of V1.3 fisheries. This means cumulative impacts are only Based on the information above, considered for the US Gulf of Maine and SG80 is not meet for marine Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish mammals. But, based on NEFOP trawl fishery, which is also a NE botttom data on the small mesh bottom trawl fishery. Therefore, even if these two trawl fleet that comprises this UoA UoAs were responsible for 100% of the given along the rationale (1 mortalities of LF pilot whales as estimated interaction with a pilot whale in the NE Bottom Trawl LOF, this would still reported), it is highly likely that this be less than the PBR and therefore within Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 324 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) UoA is not exceeding the PBR, and biologically based limits. The original score therefore SG60 is meet. of 80 remains. 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 325 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given The CAB considers that the issue of the score inshore area is more localized and has been addressed as a component of ecosystem Although it does not change the management as relevant to the ongoing scoring, it could be good to point EFH redo. out along the rationale that one very relevant gap of understanding is the impact of excessive effort on inshore spawning grounds during T2. 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 326 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.1 No No NA Although long term fishery specific The objectives listed from the FMP are objectives have been clearly both long-term and short-term objectives. indicated, short term objectives has For example, achieving and maintaining only been outlined. It is not clear to optimal stocks for future recruitment is the reader what are the short term both a long-term and a short-term objectives, therefore the rationale objective. Simiilarly with the other does not support the SG100 score objectives of the FMP. Language to this given. effect has been added to the scoring rationale to make this clear to the reader. The CAB believes that this clarification supports the SG 100 score. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 327 SCS Global Services Report 3.2.2 No No NA SI b) Responsiveness of decision- The reviewer seems to equate the making processes responsiveness of the decision-making It is not that clear to me that the process with the resolution of all issues in decision-making processes respond accord with the concerns of those who to all issues identified. The CAB raise the issue. The fact that the clearly gave an example based on transparent and peer-reviewed stock Amendment 15, but I do not think assessment process has not resolved all that this is the case for all issues. issues raised by some participants in the SARCs does not mean that the decision- For axample, issues related to the making process has not considered those stock assessment model (see my issues, particularly when the need to take comments given on Justification for account of wider implications of decisions PI 1.2.4). I do not think that the is considered. The assessment team decision-making processes has interviewed the lead stock assessment respondend to the issues raised in scientist responsible for the longfin squid the 34th and 51st SARC-SAW reports assessment and is satisfied that the stock from 2002 and 2011 respectively, assessment system is working continuously regarding the weaknesses of the to improve all aspects of the stock stock assessment model and the assessment, including the issues raised in alternative assessment approaches the SARC reports and pointed out by the given. Concerns raised in those reviewer. Even if everyone involved in the reports have not been responded stock assessment process had the same in a transparent, timely and concerns and was working diligently to adaptive manner taking account of resolve the issues raised, the issues might the wider implications of decisions. not be susceptible to resolution under the current circumstances. This is one example that comes to The CAB also interviewed MAFMC fishery my mind, but there are probably lead, Jason Didden, who acknowledged the more, therefore, from my possibility of transition to alternative understanding, SG100 is not meet. models that would also facilitate real-time management, but stated that the Council is taken a purposefully cautious approach in considering such a transition because of perceived risks and the evidence that the current management approach, while perhaps not optimal, has been demonstrated as effective in maintaining Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 328 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) the stock at sustainable levels. The CAB does not believe that the reviewer’s comment demonstrates a failure of the decision-making system to respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation, and consultation in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The CAB considers the score of 100 to be justified. 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale supports the given No response required. score Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 329 SCS Global Services Report Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or raised documentation where possible. Please information rationale used improve the attach additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this fishery’s Note: Justification to support your score this Indicator performance answers is only required where Indicator? support the to the SG80 answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.4 No No NA SI a) Evaluation coverage 3.2.4 SI a) SG 100 requires that “There are I do not think that there are mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts mechanisms in place to evaluate all of the fishery-specific management parts of the fishery-specific system.” The CAB believes that this management system. Actually, the requirement is met. The harvest strategy is CAB itsef pointed out in PI 1.2.1 continually monitored and reviewed to that “the performance of the assure that it is meeting the objectives of harvest strategy has not been fully the FMP. The fact that one particular evaluated using a Management evaluation method that has been given the Strategy Evaluation (MSE)”. The name Management Strategy Evaluation has performance of the harvest not been carried out does not negate the strategy has been only subject to fact that other evaluation methods are some evaluation, when it is a key used. The score has not been changed. part of the fishery-specific management system. Based on the above information, SG100 is not meet. Table 39 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 330 SCS Global Services Report Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to how the referenced? specific scoring issues and any relevant process(es) Yes/No documentation where possible. Please attach applied to additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF has led to the Note: Justification to support your answers is stated only required where answers given are ‘No’. outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1 NA NA 2.1.1 NA NA 2.2.1 Yes Yes The evidences presented for scoring the PSA No response required. atributes support the given score. 2.3.1 NA NA 2.4.1 NA NA 2.5.1 NA NA Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages SCS responses in italics Glossary 1.1. An abbreviation for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) should be added. Thank you, this has been added. 1. Executive summary. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 331 SCS Global Services Report 1.1. Following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the first time the species is mentioned in the report its full scientific name should be provided including the “authority” (name of the scientist or scientists who first validly published the name and did the original description). The Code Recommendation 51A suggests: "The original author and date of a name should be cited at least once in each work dealing with the taxon denoted by that name. This is especially important in distinguishing between homonyms and in identifying species-group names which are not in their original combinations". For the purpose of information retrieval, the author citation and year appended to the scientific name, e.g. genus-species-author-year, genus-author-year, family-author-year, etc., is often considered a "de facto" unique identifier. In this case the scientific name is Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii (Lesueur, 1821) and it should be stated at the beginning of the report. Thank you, this has been corrected. 1.2. The term “Loligo” should not be used along the document since it is not accepted anymore as the genus for this species and it is not a common name. Therefore, its use can only create confusion on readers. Longfin squid (or longfin inshore squid) and D. pealeii can be used along the document for common and short scientific names respectively. Despite the change in scientific name, Loligo is the most common name used to refer to the species used and appears in several documents used by the assessment team. The peer reviewer is correct, however, in pointing out this as a technical inaccuracy that could cause confusion among non-local stakeholders. All references to Loligo have been changed to longfin inshore squid. 3. Description of the fishery General repetition on information in several different places with exactly the same sentences and even paragraphs which makes reading quite repetitive and tedious. 3.1.1. UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC): - Loligo pleii is no longer valid, the current accepted name is Doryteuthis (Doryteuthis) pleii (Blainville, 1823). This should be changed in the paragraph starting by “The southern limit of the species’ distribution …” - The southern limit of distribution of D. pealeii in east coast USA waters is unknown because D. pealeii is sympatric (i.e. occurring within the same or overlapping geographical areas) with D. pleii, mainly south of Cape Hatteras (Arkhipkin et al., 2015). Although it is acknowledged that D. pleii tends to be limited to warmer waters than D. pealeii and that where the two species are sympatric, D. pealei is usually found in deeper water than D. pleii, considerable overlap occurs (Vecchione et al., 1989). Although D. pleii is rare north of Cape Hatteras, it is not absent; it is considered as very rarely to southern New England (Vecchione & Young, 2010), and it has been collected as far north as the New York Bight (Vecchione et al., 1989). Due to this overlapping and because the two species cannot be visually distinguished between based on gross morphology (Cohen, 1976), consideration as an IPI catch (7.4.13-15) should Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 332 SCS Global Services Report be taken into account in the section 5.4 (Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody). Moreover, this traceability risk factor has not been considered in the Notification Report. This issue regarding the overlapping with D. pleii has also been raised in the 51st SARC-SAW report in 2011 (see Term of Reference 2). The scientific name has been corrected in the report. The assessment team did directly consider IPI potential with this species, but has determined that the geographic range does not significantly overlap with that of the UoA. The 2011 SAW report noted by the Peer Reviewer does state that the two species may co-occur in catches south of Cape Hatteras (NEFSC 2011). However, we note that this is beyond the geographic scope of this UoA. The distribution of fishing effort of the UoA is not focused in the Southern portion of the UoA range, leading the assessment team to conclude that there are not likely to be significant catches of this species by the UoA. This perspective was confirmed by the lead stock assessment scientist at the on-site meetings. This is described in Section 3.1.1 and because IPI requirements were deemed not necessary, Section 5.4 is not completed. - The UoA Gear type should be called “Small mesh bottom otter trawl (<5.5in codend mesh size)” since the term otter instead of bottom is usually used in the official NOAA documents when referring to this fishery. If both terms are used for naming the gear type, no confusion will happen. Thank you. The word ‘otter’ has been added to the UoA descriptions in the Executive Summary and Section 3.1. 3.3.2. Biology (Special comments from the NMFS NEFSC 2017 stock assessment update): Henderson (2017) is not listed on the References’ section, I guess you mean Hendrickson (2017). Same error seems to happen in the Harvest Control Rule section (page 33: “The special comments that Henderson (2017) offered in the 2017 stock …”). This was a typo that is now corrected. Thank you. 3.3.3. Harvest Strategy, Control Rule and Management (Table 3.2): no information is given why in T2 (48 mm) the mesh used is smaller than in T1 (54 mm) and T3 (54 mm). An explanation has been added. 3.4.5. Fishery information and monitoring: from this section I missed a very relevant piece of information for giving the reader a general perspective of the bycatch and discard rate in this fishery. I strongly recommend to place here as a table the data the CAB has sent to Appendix 6 (SBRM Data Summary), but not only showing the % of the catch that each species represents in the UoA (relevant to decide if main or minor) as CAB did, BUT also, and more important in this part of the document, showing the % of discard for each species (discarded/ total for each species) by year (2014-15 and 2015-16). This information is not shown anywhere in the report and it is fundamental for generally understanding the impact of the UoA on other species and the whole ecosystem. Moreover, Wigley Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 333 SCS Global Services Report & Tholke 2017 and Wigley, Tholke & Shiled 2016 reports, also give information on the reason for the species being discarded (no market, under size, no quota, …). The CAB should summaries all this information pointing out the most relevant species (related to total catch), but also the ones with higher discarding rates. After this general view, CAB can go on to categorize which of these species are Primary-Secondary, Main-Minor. Please, see at the end of the document how I understand Table from Appendix 6 should be shown in section 3.4.2 Fishery Information and monitoring. Thank you for this comment. The assessment team agrees that discards are a critical aspect of the evaluation, but in terms of Principle 2 classification, total catch (including kept and discards) is the relevant figure. The CAB does not want to leave the reader with the impression that only the SBRM data was considered in determining the appropriate classification of species, due to its coverage of federal species only. For this reason, both sources of information are explained and summarized together in the background, and point to appendices for raw data. (The recommended revision to the table referred to by the Peer Reviewer has been adopted in Appendix 6, and we agree this provides a more thorough description of the data, and appreciate the Peer Reviewer’s time in developing this specific recommendation). We also note that for each ‘Main’ species there is a section dedicated to UoA impacts, in which the discard information from the most recent 2 SBRM reports (covering 2014-2016 fishing) is included, providing the reader with the overall discard proportion, the proportion attributed to the UoA, and the precision with which the estimates were achieved. Where there are particularly high levels of discarding, or relevant management measures targeted at reducing UoA impacts on the species, these are explained in detail. This is in addition to a section describing the approach to bycatch management at the national, regional, and UoA level at the beginning of Section 3.4.5. Therefore, we agree that discarding is an important consideration when evaluating impacts, but disagree that the discard rates should drive Principle 2 species classification instead of total catch, which includes both discarded and kept weight. 3.4.4. Primary and Secondary Species Classification Information – Table 10: it would be good to point out in the legend that SBRM is 2014- 2016 data (combined from 2016 and 2017 reports) and NEFOP is 2012-2016 data. Thank you, this clarification has been added. 3.4.6. Primary Species – Overview of Main Primary Species Management: the U.S. National Bycatch Report is referred in the text, nevertheless no information on the Mid-Atlantic Small-Mesh Otter Trawl fishery from this very relevant report is given in the text, when an updated 2016 report is available. The CAB is aware of and has reviewed the 2016 update, available online at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-2. This report was not considered the most current information available on bycatch in the fishery because it reports on data from 2011-2013. The Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 334 SCS Global Services Report most up to date and complete information on bycatch in the UoA is available from the observer program and from the SBRM reports, both of which were reviewed comprehensively for the purposes of evaluating fishery impacts. 3.5.5. Recognized Interest Groups and Arrangements for Consultations: only general information on the composition and members of the council is given, but an in depth description on all the members that are part of the council, their roles, weight in the council and how the votes are shared between members is not given. This information is fundamental for understanding how decision are taken inside the council as part of the Decision Making Process. Additional information on council membership and practices has been provided in section 3.5.5. All council members have the same role, the same weight, and equal votes. An in-depth description of all the individual council members is beyond the scope of this assessment. 4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1. Harmonized Fishery Assessment - Table 23: in the text below the table it is stated that “All scores are within 5 points of each other” when actually the US Atlantic Spiny Dogfish OTB Fisheries in the PI 3.1.1 is 10 points away from the Longfin Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery off the Northeast Coast of the US and another 2 fisheries; 90 and 100 respectively. Thank you. This oversight has been corrected. We do not consider this a material scoring difference for harmonization purposes as the final scoring outcome remains in the 80-100 range. We further recognize that the spiny dogfish fishery is undergoing re-assessment at this time. 4.4.1. Site visits: The CAB only meet with the MAFMC and two different NOAA offices (GARFO and NEFSC). Surprisingly no meetings were set with any scientific institution, conservation NGOs, and other stakeholders. No meetings were set with any institution involved in the Research Set-Aside (RSA) program for this fishery which was created in FW1 2001 for the purpose of conducting scientific research. Several sensitive topics should be addressed during the onsite visit in greater depth with independent scientist from scientific institutions: 1) as the CAB acknowledge in several parts of the document, “discard rates in the longfin inshore squid fishery are relatively high”, 2) the current management measures during the T2 are under review to reduce impact of trawling on inshore spawning grounds and egg masses, since the degree of both impacts are still mainly unknown … for citing some. In the same way, only representatives from NOAA, industry and the MAFMC participated in the webinar for conducting the PSA to northern shortfin squid as Main Secondary species; no academic researchers participated. The CAB disagrees that there was insufficient engagement of stakeholders and inadequate investigation of noted areas of concern. The assessment team in conducting the on-site visit did meet with NOAA and MAFMC staff, in addition to the industry representatives. However, this does not represent the full range of input sought or obtained and used to support the assessment. First, our direct email outreach included not only typical MSC assessment interested parties, but also included the list of stakeholders registered with the MAFMC. As noted in the numerous comments and interviews conducted by the assessment team prior to and immediately following the on-site, this extension of outreach was effective in drawing a wide range of participation including the NGO and non-commercial fishing community. All stakeholders were invited to Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 335 SCS Global Services Report participate in the on-site meeting, and an open meeting was held even though no stakeholders expressed interest in attending (and none did attend). The CAB verbally notified stakeholders that expressed interest in the assessment prior to the onsite that the assessment team would be pleased to meet with them on-site, and encouraged stakeholders to submit written comments as well in order for their concerns to be explicitly integrated and addressed in the report. This outreach is described in Section 4.4.2. Following the on-site, the CAB conducted phone interviews with additional relevant stakeholders identified in the course of the on-site meetings, including Ryan Silva of NOAA regarding seabird impact management, John Manderson of NEFSC regarding the Cooperative Research Program and Study Fleet, and Dan McKiernan regarding the State management perspective in Massachusetts, an area relevant to the noted stakeholder concerns. We note that the Cooperative Research Program is a similar initiative to the research set-aside, and that the research set-aside is focused currently on the monkfish, sea scallop and Atlantic herring fishery. The Peer Reviewer notes that interviews with academia were not sought. For the PSA, the assessment team targeted fishery representatives for direct input on susceptibility traits, where there is a depth of available literature on life history of the species in question. All written submissions from stakeholders are included and responded to in Appendix 3, and the objective information obtained through interviews have been incorporated into the background and scoring. The assessment team considers that the diverse outlets through which the assessment team pursued stakeholder input was quite active and provided for greater input into the early stage of the assessment process (as recommended in MSC guidance). Peter Kaizer (see Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions) mentioned that several scientists provided very impacting data showing a 100% mortality of longfin inshore squid eggs during the spawning aggregations due to the increase of fishing pressure. It is not clear to me if the CAB has investigated this information and has tried to get in contact with those scientists for checking this worrying data. In regards to Trimester 2 impacts cited by stakeholders and specifically the comment by Peter Kaizer, the high mortality rate for egg masses the assessment team (CAB) has considered the issue of squid egg mortality following disturbance by bottom fishing gear and agrees that there is a likely a high mortality, this was also confirmed in site visit meeting Lisa Hendrickson (NEFSC stock assessment scientist). The assessment report acknowledges this high mortality. The assessment team believes that the issue in not the high mortality of those egg masses disturbed by bottom trawling, but the consequence of that mortality. The assessment team recognizes that mobile bottom fishing activity, in general (small mesh for squid, whiting and other species, large mesh for groundfish and skate, and scallop dredging) has been impacting areas where longfin squid spawn and deposit egg mops for decades both in New England and in the mid-Atlantic. The assessment team also recognizes the fishing effort in general has decreased in the region during the last two decades due to increased regulation, so the potential impact of disturbance of squid egg mops has decreased overall (Thunberg & Correia 2015; Orphanides & Magnusson 2007). Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 336 SCS Global Services Report Following the same concern, the PEW letter (Appendix 3) called attention to very robust and well documented data showing how squid mop bycatch during Trimester 2 has gone from an average of 26,809 pounds in 2007-2015 to 56,211 pounds in 2016, whereas there is a negligible amount of mop bycatch in Trimesters 1 and Trimester 3. Based on this and other concerns (higher juvenile and pre-spawning fish bycatch in T2, …) PEW suggested a 12 mile longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2, based on experiences in other squid fisheries worldwide supported by scientific data. Although I recognize that the CAB has no obligation to comment on or recommend specific management measures, it is its obligation to gain understanding on the alternative measures explored to minimize the UoA-related mortality (PIs 2.x.2). Again it is not clear to me if the CAB has gain enough understanding through consultation with scientists on the different impacts of the UoA while fishing in the spawning aggregations during T2. Maybe because, as the CAB stated in its response to concern A of the PEW letter, “though variation in catch composition occurs, the fluctuations are not of the magnitude to render the catch composition as evaluated from the year- round perspective unviable”. Contrary to the CAB, I do think that according to the information provided by PEW mainly based on official (MAFMC and NOAA reports) and scientific published data, and other information showed by the CAB along the report, there are enough differences from T2 compared to T1 & T3 related to the bycatch composition, to actually evaluate the information separately. In general, I do not think the CAB has adequately evaluated the issues raised around T2 fishing on the spawning aggregations. In regards to the submission from Pew, we first note that the impacts and figures cited come primarily from documentation produced by the MAFMC and NEFSC, and not from independent research. Regarding the increase in egg mop bycatch in 2016: The assessment team was aware of the increased bycatch of squid eggs in the most recent observer data, but also has questions regarding the relevance of that information. First, we note that the figures presented by Pew are primarily based on the 2017 Squid Capacity Amendment Document, and thus present rough extrapolations and a fishery scope that is not precisely aligned with the scope of this UoA, because the MAFMC document defines the fishery based on landings and the MSC does not define UoAs retroactively based on catch composition in this manner. This point aside, the NEFOP data received by the team from the UoA does indicate an increase in egg mop catch in 2016. However, this increase in observed squid egg mop catch during this period may reflect an increased fishing effort in T2 directed at squid and/or a good year for squid spawning. Due to a shift from a pre-trip notification system, the number of trips observed for the squid fleet in 2016 was nearly double that in previous years, which also may affect the observed weight of particular bycatch (G. Chamberlain, pers. comm). The assessment team (CAB) has made every effort to fairly evaluate the science related to the understanding the differences between the bycatch composition of T2 versus T1 and T3. In this case the assessment team apparently disagrees with the Peer Reviewer as whether there is scientific evidence that demonstrates that the mortality of squid eggs associated with their disturbance by the squid trawl fleet during T2 in the Nantucket sound area has any effect of the subsequent population abundance of that cohort. The fact that squid eggs are disturbed by mobile fishing gear Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 337 SCS Global Services Report and that this results in the mortality of those eggs is agreed by most scientists familiar with the issue, and acknowledged by the CAB in the report. The unresolved issue is: is there any scientific evidence that this egg mop mortality has any effect of subsequent abundance of adult squid, and the assessment team does not find any convincing evidence of this. We also note the context of the comments provided by Pew and the Council document cited: which is in regards to an Amendment spurred in part by the excess effort in T2 in 2016. The Amendment includes as a specific objective to re-evaluate the management of longfin squid in T2 “because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted by excessive fishing in T2”. The approval process for this Amendment has been ongoing in the course of this full assessment and thus has not be evaluated for effectiveness as it is not yet implemented; however, the assessment team has evaluated the fishery in acknowledgement that action is being taken with the express objective of preventing excessive effort during T2. The assessment team has acknowledged the inshore fishery’s particular impacts on squid mops, and has considered this impact in light of all available information on the stock status, evidence regarding the appropriateness of the harvest strategy to maintain the stock at productive levels, and responsiveness of management. While the management system has not addressed all relevant uncertainties and there remains room for improvement, the assessment team has not found that these provide cause for conditions under Principle 1. After the development of the draft report the Council, at its December meeting, directly evaluated buffer area management options, and in the briefing document concludes that closing the inshore area may actually result in an increase in discards overall. With regards to the differential impacts of the UoA on bycatch species in Trimester 2, the assessment team disagrees that differences merit a unique evaluation of Trimester 2 relative to the other Trimesters. It is apparent in the data received by the assessment team, and in the analyses of bycatch produced by the Council that the overall level of bycatch is consistent across trimesters. In terms of inter-annual variation of catch composition relative to the MSC Standard, the team reminds the Peer Reviewer that the MSC Standard evaluates as main only catch that comprises at least 2% of catch by weight, and only if this species qualifies as less resilient. If not less resilient, ‘main’ species are only those that comprise ≥5% of the fishery volume by weight. Therefore, inter-annual variation would only be relevant to the species classification at these thresholds. The assessment team did review inter-annual variation using the observer data provided (in quarters) and did not find evidence that any ‘minor’ species merited reclassification as ‘main’ due to this variation. We have further expanded on this evaluation, using the species identified explicitly by Pew, in the response to their comments in Appendix 3 (Concern A). The CAB agrees that particularly for non-federally managed species, which are all ‘minor’ under this assessment, bycatch impacts are not well known and the management strategy incomplete, which is why the Secondary Species scores in particular do not meet the SG100 where minor species are considered. However, we also note that whether any non-target species would benefit from reduced fishing effort is not the criteria put forth by the MSC Standard, and it is also relevant to consider that the squid fishery is not the only fishery active in this area. Lastly, we note Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 338 SCS Global Services Report that the stakeholder comments here focus exclusively on federal waters, and it is important to recall that there are adjacent State waters that do impose area closures for the squid fishery during the Trimester 2 period See Section 3.5.4). We do not discount the importance of understanding the importance of the area in question as a spawning ground and habitat for pre-spawning fish, but the assessment team considers that generalized concerns over the adequate protection of important habitat areas is most relevant to the EFH strategy implementation. Noting that EFH designations and impacts have not been reconsidered in more than 5 years, the CAB has placed a condition on the fishery to ensure that such considerations are re-evaluated with the best available and updated information. As I am sure the CAB knows, a robust stakeholder consultation process is fundamental to conducting a quality assessment (G4.2 Consultation requirements), and in order to achieve meaningful consultation, CABs have to engage stakeholders in the consultation process, therefore, stakeholder input must be actively sought out, not merely invited (Fishery Process Annex GPX - Guidance to CABs on Stakeholder Consultation – Informative). The CAB agrees that a robust stakeholder process is important, and the CAB also notes that the assessment team has made every effort to engage all stakeholders potentially concerned about the fishery. See previous response regarding Section 4.4.1. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 339 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions Several stakeholders responded to the announcement of the fishery to express interest in receiving assessment updates. No stakeholders registered interest in attending the on-site meetings, but several stakeholders expressed concerns over management of Trimester 2: specifically impacts of the fishery on the inshore spawning grounds off of Nantucket in terms of impacts on longfin inshore squid egg mops and resource sustainability as well as impacts on other species in the area and fisheries targeting such fisheries (with particular attention to impacts on the striped bass resource). Stakeholders expressing such concerns prior to and after the on-site meetings included: . The Pew Charitable Trusts (Call July 14, 2017; Comments received August 1, 2017) . Peter Kaizer (email received April 21, 2017) . Cam Gammill of Fisher Real Estate (Call September 26, 2017) . Capt. John McMurray (Email received October 3, 2017) . Tobias Glidden (Call October 5, 2017) The assessment team responded to all stakeholders with concerns via email and spoke on the phone with Purcie Bennett-Nickerson of Pew, Cam Gammil, and Tobias Glidden directly. Of these stakeholders, only Pew submitted written comment prior within 30-days of the fishery announcement (by July 29, 2017) and prior to development of the client draft. A brief email was also submitted by Peter Kaizer. Due to late receipt of contact from the additional stakeholders, lack of written comment, and because Pew’s comments encompass all concerns expressed by these additional parties by phone, the assessment team has included a formal response to the Pew submissions, which we believe adequately addresses all topics of concern brought forth by stakeholders to date that are relevant to the MSC standard. The assessment team response to the Pew submission seeks to characterize the concerns in terms of their relevance to the MSC standard and explain how these concerns are evaluated and how they do and do not affect scoring outcomes. Important to note is that the MSC Standard does not evaluate user rights and allocation issues within fishing grounds, and thus concerns focused on access rights, versus resource impacts, are not considered relevant to this assessment. The assessment team also does not comment on or recommend specific management measures, as the assessment team’s obligation and authority is only to evaluate the extent of current fishery management compliance with the MSC criteria set forth in MSC FCRV2.0. All stakeholders are invited to submit further comment and additional objective evidence at the Public Comment Draft Report stage. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 340 SCS Global Services Report Comment 1: Peter Kaizer, April 21, 2017 SCS Brief Response Notes See SCS response to Pew’s letter below, specifically the section regarding “Concern B: (IB in Document) Reduce Risks to Longfin Squid from Targeted Fishing during Spawning”. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 341 SCS Global Services Report Comment 2: Pew Charitable Trusts, August 1, 2017 The Pew submission comprises three documents: an email and two associated attachments. Email Submission Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 342 SCS Global Services Report Letter 1: Public Comment on Measures to Modify Trimester 2 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 343 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 344 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 345 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 346 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 347 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 348 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 349 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 350 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 351 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 352 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 353 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 354 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 355 SCS Global Services Report Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 356 SCS Global Services Report Letter 2: Public comment to MAFMC on behalf of 13,074 U.S. residents Due to the length of the submission to the MAFMC (381 pages), which is comprised of brief individual comments reflecting the concerns outlined in more detail in Letter 1, only the cover page of this submission is included here. The entire text of the document is available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5927480715cf7d731d5ff460/149 5746574325/Squid+Amendment+Comments%3B+The+Pew+Charitable+Trusts%3B+Action+Alert+May+2 017.pdf Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 357 SCS Global Services Report Comment 3: Summary of Notes from Call with Cam Gammill on September 26, 2017 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 358 SCS Global Services Report SCS Brief Response Notes The MSC standard does not evaluate user rights or economic concerns, and therefore will not comment on such concerns. The consideration of bycatch under the MSC framework is responded to in the below response to Pew’s submission. We refer the reader to the response to “Concern A”. Concerns regarding impacts on the longfin squid resource are responded to directly in the section on “Concern B” below. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 359 SCS Global Services Report SCS Response to Pew’s Letter and General Trimester 2 Stakeholder Concerns Pew provided copies of comment letters submitted to the Council as Public Comment on Measures to Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management in the Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The letters provide Pew and supporting U.S. resident comments specifying preferred actions to be undertaken by the Council regarding the draft Squid Capacity Amendment. The assessment team has no obligation or authority to comment on or recommend specific management measures to be selected amongst the alternatives under consideration, as the current evaluation concerns itself only with the level of compliance with the explicit criteria of the MSC standard, and as auditors we refrain from any consultative role. The team will review ongoing developments in the management system throughout the certificate cycle, pending successful certification. The MSC Standard likewise does not evaluate allocation concerns between different fleets, where only the UoA’s impacts are subject to evaluation (with additional consideration for cumulative impacts where indicated). However, the concerns and supporting information provided by Pew do have relevance to various aspects of the MSC Standard, and thus, the assessment team has provided responses regarding our consideration of the information provided by Pew, and any implications to scoring. Content focused on support for a specific management measure, and/or comparing management systems, are not provided a response, for the reasons noted above. Concern A: (IA in document) Minimize Bycatch of Other Economically and Ecologically Important Species Excerpt from Comment Letter: The best available science demonstrates that intense fishing (bottom trawling) on spawning squid has negative impacts on squid and the marine ecosystem…. Reduced squid fishing in Trimester 2 would benefit an array of economically and ecologically important species. Overall, current bycatch in the squid fishery is approximately 35 percent on observed trips (33 percent in Trimester 1, 35 percent in Trimester 2, and 36 percent in Trimester 3). This longfin fishery dumped an average of approximately 12.8 million pounds of bycatch annually from 2007-2015. 7 In 2016 there were approximately 21.5 million pounds of wasted sea life.8 Bycatch may be even higher on unobserved trips.9 This high level of bycatch of economically and ecologically important species is wasteful and inconsistent with National Standard 9.10 Notably, bycatch during Trimester 2 from nearshore habitat has a different species composition than other Trimesters with a greater impact on juvenile and pre-spawning fish and on managed species that are important to this Council and its constituents.11 For example, most of the bycatch of striped bass, black sea bass, summer and winter flounder, and scup happens in Trimester 2.12 In addition, there is significant bycatch of blueback herring in Trimester 2 – the most imperiled stock of the river herring and shad (RHS) stock complex.13 In the absence of a mortality cap for river herring and shads, similar to the cap in the mackerel fishery, estimates of incidental catch in the squid fishery indicate over 100,000 pounds of RHS are dumped every year (equivalent to half of the RHS cap in the mackerel fishery).14 Finally, an average of 26,809 pounds of squid mops are caught as bycatch during Trimester 2. SCS response Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 360 SCS Global Services Report Bycatch and ecosystem impact considerations are relevant to Principle 2. Impacts on non-target species that are not considered ETP are evaluated under components 2.1 and 2.2. Only species that comprise >5% of the catch by weight of the total fishery are evaluated as ‘Main.’ Other species are evaluated as ‘Minor’, where scoring of minor species for some Scoring Issues occurs only at the SG100 level. The catch composition of the fishery is assessed at the level of the entire UoA, which is in compliance with the MSC requirements. We note that the catch data used to evaluate the fishery does not align precisely with that used in the Pew comment letter, because we must define the fishery according to MSC scope criteria and not by landings. However, noting stakeholder concerns, the assessment team considered variation of observer catch composition by calendar year quarter and also reviewed the catch data as presented by the MAFMC. Though variation in catch composition occurs, the fluctuations are not of the magnitude to render the catch composition as evaluated from the year-round perspective unviable. In terms of the species of concern listed by Pew, only scup is a main species. Summer flounder is minor, and its catch as a percentage of the fishery may exceed 5% in some quarters of some years according to NEFOP data, but a sum of the quarterly data suggests that the catch of this species is highest outside of Trimester 2. Further, summer flounder is a species subject to the SBRM, whose estimation methods results in a more accurate estimate of discards and therefore total impacts by the fishery, and under which summer flounder comprises <2% of the fishery catch by weight. Black seabass is a minor species, whose catch in some quarters may exceed 2%, but it does not qualify as ‘less resilient’ and therefore even when exceeding 2% does not merit evaluation as ‘main’. Blueback herring and striped bass catches comprise <1% of the total fishery catch across all quarters in all years. Scup is a federally managed species that is assessed as well above biologically based limits. There is evidence of actions being taken historically to minimize impacts of the directed longfin inshore squid fishery via the scup GRAs, and these measures are still in place today. In fact most of UoA catch by weight is comprised of federally managed species (~90%), and there are no ‘Main’ species not subject to federal management. As federally managed species, species undergo stock assessment, which will incorporate discards as estimated under the SBRM, and are subject to an FMP that considers the impact of all other fisheries on the target stock with the ability to impose measures on other fisheries as needed to protect the stock status. The assessment team acknowledges the relatively high discard rate in this UoA, which is consistent across Trimesters. The MSC standard does not provide an acceptable threshold for discard or bycatch rates, but under V2.0 does consider the regularity of reviews of alternatives to minimize unwanted mortality and appropriateness of implementation under Sis 2.1.2e and 2.2.2e. We refer the reader to PI 2.1.2e for a complete rationale for discard considerations relative to the MSC criteria. We also note that the scores under Principle 2 acknowledge the extent to which non-federally managed species are subject to less comprehensive management, and in several PIs and SIs the SG100 was not awarded on the basis of deficiencies in explicit management for species that are not subject to federal fisheries management. Information scoring issues (PIs 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) also reflect the relatively low Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 361 SCS Global Services Report level of observer coverage noted by Pew. Broader considerations regarding the importance of the inshore area for juvenile and pre-spawning fish is evaluated as part of the Essential Fish Habitat strategy under PI 2.4.2. Concern B: (IB in Document) Reduce Risks to Longfin Squid from Targeted Fishing during Spawning Excerpt from Comment Letter: Targeted fishing on short-lived longfin squid during spawning could have detrimental impacts on the species. Little is known about stock biomass at any given point in time.32 The most recent stock assessment (2010) was unable to determine whether the stock was experiencing overfishing (no threshold reference point for fishing mortality) because there is no clear relationship between catch and biomass estimates.33 However, their short lifespan makes them highly susceptible to recruitment overfishing34 and New England Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between intense squid fishing from April through September in one year, and decreased catch the following October through March.35 Current catch of squid is less than half of what it was this time last year,36 and based on peer-reviewed science that demonstrates a causal link between fishing rates and annual abundance, it is reasonable to conclude that this decline is a consequence of the extraordinarily high catch during spawning last summer. The MSB FMP states that an objective of the Squid Plan is to “prevent destructive exploitation of squid species.”37 Bottom trawling over squid mops is detrimental to paralarvae survival as bycatch. For example, from 2007-2015 there was an average of 26,809 pounds of direct mop bycatch during Trimester 2.38 Even this number is likely an underestimate as egg biomass is not recorded consistently by all fishery observers and observers are only required to record egg biomass in the cod end of the net, and not the biomass also caught in the wings and/or other parts of the net. In comparison, there is a negligible amount of mop bycatch in Trimesters 1 (January 1st through April 30th) and Trimester 3 (September 1st through December 31st).39 Alarmingly, in 2016 mop bycatch increased to 56,211 pounds during Trimester 2, more than double the nine-year average, and for similar reasons this is likely and underestimate. SCS response The assessment team recognizes the concern over bottom trawling in the Nantucket Shelf area during Trimester 2, and the resulting disturbance of egg mops in this area. Based on the assessment team's discussions with Lisa Hendrickson at the NEFSC during the site visit and our reading of the published literature, we understand that longfin squid are short-lived, are almost continuous spawners with two major cohorts annually, and that these squid spawn almost all along the northeast shelf, not solely on Nantucket Shelf area. We also note that there have been cycles in the abundance and landings of longfin squid for the last several decades for which there is good data, and that bottom trawling is almost ubiquitous on the northeast shelf, with the exception of closed areas. It is with context that the team has evaluated the longfin squid fishery against the MSC standard and in particular the impacts of the fishery both on the squid resource itself and on other species. We note that there are ongoing management action reviews by both the MAFMC and the NEFMC that may potentially effect this fishery, and we will be monitoring the outcome of those reviews, as well as the status of the fishery and the stock of longfin squid in subsequent annual surveillance audits if the fishery is certified. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 362 SCS Global Services Report Concern C (II.A in document): The Nantucket Shelf Region is Ecologically Important Excerpt from Comment Letter: The Nantucket Shelf includes the waters of Vineyard Sound, Nantucket Sound, Nantucket Shoals, the continental shelf south of Martha’s Vineyard, the Great South Channel, and Georges Bank.56 “[T]hese areas form part of a large, shallow, coastal shelf eco-region that is characterized by a common geological origin, extremely dynamic sedimentary environment, tidally well mixed water, high biological productivity, and unique ecological features.”57 The area is one of the most biologically productive places along the Atlantic Coast and vital for feeding, spawning, migration, and as nursery grounds for countless biologically and economically important marine species. Essential forage species like Atlantic herring and squid spawn on Nantucket Shelf all summer, as do other commercially and ecologically important predator species like summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. Other important fish like striped bass, winter flounder, and the imperiled blueback herring and American shad migrate through this area at various times of the year… The trawl gear damages habitat, disrupts deposited eggs and spawning fish, and takes an average of approximately 12.8 million pounds of bycatch annually from 2007-2015. 60 In 2016 there were approximately 21.5 millions of pounds of wasted sea life.61 The effects of this are wasted resources, and negative impacts to the squid population and the populations of many non-target species inevitable caught as bycatch in these small mesh nets. SCS response The habitat management strategy in the US is largely centered on EFH and associated requirements. EFH is designated for all federally managed species, with the goal of minimizing adverse impacts to the extent practicable. Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP (2008) designated EFH for the MSB species and evaluated impacts on EFH, resulting in the designation of two canyon closures. The assessment team notes that inshore areas were included for preliminary evaluation as GRAs on the basis of the high overlap of fishing effort and number of EFH vulnerable to trawl impacts. However, because the substrate is considered to have a high recovery rate from trawl disturbance, these inshore areas were not further considered for management measures. Under PI 2.4.2 the assessment team notes that the EFH strategy requires a review at least every 5 years, and that this has not been completed. The management system has not demonstrated evaluation of available updated information on EFH and fishery impacts. A comprehensive review of EFH has been initiated by the MAFMC, successful completion of this technical review of EFH and fishery impacts is necessary to provide sufficient current fishery-specific information to inform ongoing management. A condition is in place to this effect. See Section 3.4.8 for more detail on this topic. Concern D (III in document): Recommended Measures Are Consistent with the Council’s Ecosystem Approaches To Fisheries Management Guidance Document Excerpt from Comment Letter: Management measures that limit fishing on spawning squid would address numerous concerns about the impacts of fishing during summer spawning. First, squid are a vital forage species in the Northeast Large Marine Ecosystem, and the impacts of fishing cannot be measured on the target species alone when there are significant impacts on a bevy of predator fish, marine mammals, and birds that rely of squid as an essential element of their diet.79 Second, there is evidence that intense fishing during spawning disrupts and discourages spawning behaviors and such disturbance has been correlated with a decreased population the next summer.80 Third, there are concerns that fishing on spawning aggregations results in the removal of pre-spawned squid that further jeopardizes recruitment. Fourth, fishing on spawning aggregations results in the removal of egg masses from the ocean floor that are either caught as bycatch81 or set adrift to the peril of embryonic Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 363 SCS Global Services Report squid.82 Finally, bycatch of other important commercial and recreational species in the squid fishery is incredibly high, 33 to 36 percent.83 The composition of bycatch during summer months is particularly problematic as there is a higher concentration of ecologically and economically important species like summer flounder, striped bass, and blueback herring in the summer.84 SCS response The assessment team acknowledges the important ecological role of longfin squid, and this is a consideration relevant to the ecosystem component. The role of squid in the trophic web is described in the background section of this report (3.4.7). It is understood that natural mortality (including predation and cannibalism) far exceeds fishing mortality of the species: minimum estimates of longfin squid consumption by finfish showed high inter-annual variability, but were 0.8 to 11 times the annual catches during 1977-2009. The L. Hendrickson 2017 stock assessment update for longfin squid notes that the squid species exhibit large inter-annual fluctuations in biomass. During 1976-2016, annual biomass (the average of NEFSC spring and NEFSC and NEAMAP fall survey biomass) ranged between 25,806 mt and 175,894 mt. The average of annual biomass during 2015-2016 was 73,762 mt (80% CL = 67,198, 80,327) and was much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt (PRI) and the target BMSY proxy of 42,205 mt. (Didden 2015) Given the stock status and relatively high level of natural mortality relative to fishing mortality, there is no indication that fishing pressure is “disrupt[ing] the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.” However, uncertainties regarding squid population dynamics precluded several scores under the ecosystem component (2.5) from meeting SG100. Bycatch and egg mop impacts are addressed in responses above. Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 364 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency Table 40. Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale There are a limited number of conditions on the fishery certification, restricted to Principle 2. This, in combination with the generally transparent nature of fishery management documentation in the US On-site audits to fishery management system, lead the audit team to include at least 1 conclude that information on changes in the fishery auditor on-site, with and evidence regarding progress on conditions may the potential for be accessed electronically. The assessment team 1-3 Modified Level 6 remote support from has also experienced easy and fluid communication 1 auditor, or the with fishery management personnel and the client option for 2 auditors representatives, and considers teleconference an to attend meetings in effective means to discuss any outstanding separate locations. questions or concerns. We also note that by the Year 3 and 4 audit, the open conditions may be closed. In review of Table G13, these fishery characteristics are favorable to a reduced surveillance. Table 41. Timing of surveillance audit Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1-4 Expected: May By or within 6 In accordance with requirements of FCRV2.0 7.23.6 2018 months of the anniversary date Table 42. Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 6 On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit audit audit audit & re- certification site visit Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 365 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 5 Objections Process (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR) The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: FCR 7.19.1) Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 366 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 6: SBRM Data Summary Mid-Atlantic and Northeast small mesh otter trawl from the 2016 and 2017 SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017). Data in pounds. 2014-2015 Data (2016 report) 2015-2016 Data (2017 report) Sum 2016+2017 Reports 2016+2017 Sum of Discard Sum of Discard Discard Total Catch Sum of Total Sum of Kept Sum of Total Sum of Kept Total_Total Total_Kept Total_Discard Species Common Name Discarded % Discarded % % % Longfin inshore squid 1.16% 2.22% 1.86% 28,75% 19,328,091 19,102,994 225,097 37,983,032 37,141,075 841,957 57,311,123 56,244,069 1,067,054 Northern shortfin squid 1.82% 14.80% 5.24% 11,76% 17,271,673 16,956,730 314,943 6,173,951 5,260,016 913,935 23,445,624 22,216,746 1,228,878 Silver Hake (Whiting) 8.00% 3.54% 6.05% 13,73% 15,349,385 14,120,853 1,228,532 12,014,977 11,589,193 425,784 27,364,362 25,710,046 1,654,316 Scup 8.18% 23.50% 16.43% 10,43% 9,601,387 8,815,681 785,706 11,182,106 8,553,772 2,628,334 20,783,493 17,369,453 3,414,040 Atlantic Herring 1.38% 3.81% 2.35% 6,69% 8,032,039 7,921,368 110,671 5,294,850 5,092,901 201,949 13,326,889 13,014,269 312,620 Butterfish 23.76% 59.31% 40.07% 6,85% 7,396,414 5,638,993 1,757,421 6,267,800 2,550,089 3,717,711 13,664,214 8,189,082 5,475,132 Skate Complex 85.14% 93.06% 90.83% 8,40% 4,705,226 699,419 4,005,807 12,048,305 836,605 11,211,700 16,753,531 1,536,024 15,217,507 Spiny Dogfish 85.01% 87.43% 86.21% 4,18% 4,184,950 627,424 3,557,526 4,144,448 520,980 3,623,468 8,329,398 1,148,404 7,180,994 Atlantic Mackerel 2.04% 5.13% 2.60% 1,32% 2,149,683 2,105,883 43,800 476,110 451,702 24,408 2,625,793 2,557,585 68,208 Red Hake 54.89% 67.77% 62.64% 2,58% 2,048,585 924,016 1,124,569 3,091,066 996,331 2,094,735 5,139,651 1,920,347 3,219,304 Haddock 98.93% 99.45% 99.10% 1,11% 1,480,773 15,805 1,464,968 724,488 3,975 720,513 2,205,261 19,780 2,185,481 Fluke (summer flounder) 19.70% 35.62% 28.02% 1,50% 1,429,762 1,148,063 281,699 1,563,383 1,006,451 556,932 2,993,145 2,154,514 838,631 Black Seabass 35.35% 47.28% 42.01% 1,22% 1,078,599 697,265 381,334 1,363,183 718,672 644,511 2,441,782 1,415,937 1,025,845 Monkfish 36.34% 73.45% 61.65% 0,50% 316,077 201,218 114,860 677,446 179,833 497,614 993,523 381,051 612,474 Bluefish 4.32% 4.26% 4.29% 0,25% 235,059 224,914 10,145 264,020 252,777 11,243 499,079 477,691 21,388 Sea Scallop 66.87% 95.01% 82.59% 0,24% 208,959 69,223 139,736 264,307 13,195 251,113 473,266 82,418 390,849 Windowpane 98.30% 99.82% 99.31% 0,17% 109,469 1,863 107,606 220,604 401 220,203 330,073 2,264 327,809 Winter Flounder 76.82% 94.73% 88.69% 0,14% 91,587 21,231 70,356 180,262 9,505 170,757 271,849 30,736 241,113 Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 367 SCS Global Services Report Witch Flounder 97.74% 99.87% 98.79% 0,05% 51,076 1,155 49,921 49,995 65 49,930 101,071 1,220 99,851 Yellowtail 99.89% 99.60% 99.77% 0,03% 30,131 32 30,099 22,257 90 22,167 52,388 122 52,266 White Hake 96.45% 97.14% 96.69% 0,02% 20,645 733 19,912 10,835 310 10,525 31,480 1,043 30,437 American Plaice 76.80% 91.62% 82.51% 0,01% 15,062 3,494 11,568 9,430 790 8,640 24,492 4,284 20,208 100.00 100.00 Ocean Pout 100.00% 0,02% 13,957 - 13,957 % 19,590 - 19,590 % 33,547 - 33,547 Atlantic Cod 93.71% 78.91% 86.84% 0,01% 12,378 778 11,600 10,740 2,265 8,475 23,118 3,043 20,075 Offshore Hake 82.28% 89.65% 86.02% 0,01% 11,984 2,124 9,860 12,329 1,276 11,053 24,313 3,400 20,913 Tilefish 30.71% 56.86% 49.56% 0,02% 9,608 6,657 2,951 24,814 10,704 14,110 34,422 17,361 17,061 Redfish 98.03% 99.78% 99.53% 0,01% 3,558 70 3,488 21,907 49 21,858 25,465 119 25,346 Pollock 68.97% 99.70% 96.18% 0,01% 2,127 660 1,467 16,474 50 16,424 18,601 710 17,891 100.00 100.00 Atlantic Wolfish 100.00% 0,00% 1,583 - 1,583 % 284 - 284 % 1,867 - 1,867 100.00 100.00 Atlantic Halibut 100.00% 0,00% 1,321 - 1,321 % 1,581 - 1,581 % 2,902 - 2,902 Surfclam and ocean 100.00 100.00 100.00% 0,01% Quahog 287 - 287 % 12,622 - 12,622 % 12,909 - 12,909 100.00 100.00 R.D. Crab 100.00% 0,01% 82 - 82 % 14,408 - 14,408 % 14,490 - 14,490 16.69% 27.81% 22.50% 95,191,517 79,308,646 15,882,872 104,161,604 75,193,072 28,968,534 199,353,121 154,501,718 44,851,406 100,03% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 368 SCS Global Services Report Appendix 7: NEFOP Data Summary Small mesh (<5.5in) bottom trawl (gear codes 050 and 053) operating in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, 2012-2016. Catch volume includes retained and discarded species. Data in pounds. Common Name 2012 % 2013 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 640,403 14.55% 1,071,824 15.73% 1,144,698 18.64% 1,167,577 17.48% 762,190 11.39% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 542,606 12.33% 714,080 10.48% 710,474 11.57% 557,399 8.35% 1,384,956 20.69% SCUP 427,153 9.70% 705,985 10.36% 583,478 9.50% 1,098,013 16.44% 794,006 11.86% HERRING, ATLANTIC 596,818 13.56% 849,426 12.46% 871,793 14.20% 380,666 5.70% 252,487 3.77% DOGFISH, SPINY 425,321 9.66% 405,618 5.95% 423,244 6.89% 509,386 7.63% 389,610 5.82% SKATE, LITTLE 254,737 5.79% 382,709 5.62% 259,073 4.22% 452,245 6.77% 448,274 6.70% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 322,078 7.32% 270,174 3.96% 262,503 4.27% 299,919 4.49% 260,559 3.89% HAKE, RED (LING) 141,166 3.21% 232,263 3.41% 153,142 2.49% 275,550 4.13% 220,892 3.30% BUTTERFISH 139,770 3.18% 107,660 1.58% 163,733 2.67% 197,621 2.96% 303,490 4.53% SEA BASS, BLACK 43,798 0.99% 76,602 1.12% 142,457 2.32% 179,792 2.69% 166,170 2.48% CRAB, HORSESHOE 63,092 1.43% 133,197 1.95% 85,619 1.39% 197,557 2.96% 105,600 1.58% CROAKER, ATLANTIC 61,762 1.40% 144,019 2.11% 189,807 3.09% 62,713 0.94% 50,977 0.76% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 58,499 1.33% 132,812 1.95% 65,019 1.06% 102,898 1.54% 142,978 2.14% REDFISH, NK (OCEAN PERCH) 284 0.01% 217,236 3.19% 443 0.01% 172,534 2.58% 37,821 0.57% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 28,541 0.65% 161,037 2.36% 71,295 1.16% 27,262 0.41% 133,011 1.99% HADDOCK 18,018 0.41% 12,820 0.19% 177,003 2.88% 107,382 1.61% 79,033 1.18% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 65,072 1.48% 97,380 1.43% 65,188 1.06% 58,537 0.88% 90,516 1.35% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 41,682 0.95% 45,195 0.66% 65,675 1.07% 79,257 1.19% 109,238 1.63% HAKE, SPOTTED 54,276 1.23% 62,440 0.92% 30,281 0.49% 42,804 0.64% 123,782 1.85% SKATE, NK 18,127 0.41% 81,791 1.20% 54,093 0.88% 76,864 1.15% 72,524 1.08% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 20,604 0.47% 55,223 0.81% 46,610 0.76% 46,967 0.70% 87,175 1.30% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 17,258 0.39% 37,549 0.55% 80,087 1.30% 46,630 0.70% 42,960 0.64% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 46,065 1.05% 52,597 0.77% 31,022 0.51% 42,509 0.64% 38,432 0.57% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 46,189 1.05% 31,674 0.46% 23,561 0.38% 59,590 0.89% 40,045 0.60% SKATE, BARNDOOR 30,565 0.69% 40,578 0.60% 26,209 0.43% 39,280 0.59% 41,249 0.62% SKATE, LITTLE/WINTER, NK - 0.00% 85,030 1.25% 46,603 0.76% 13,954 0.21% 11,563 0.17% HAKE, NK 20,040 0.46% 57,181 0.84% 36,291 0.59% 16,765 0.25% 7,700 0.12% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 18,846 0.43% 20,973 0.31% 14,352 0.23% 33,672 0.50% 30,523 0.46% SCALLOP, SEA 15,943 0.36% 17,042 0.25% 8,512 0.14% 15,067 0.23% 37,994 0.57% SQUID, NK 3,024 0.07% 2,787 0.04% 10,863 0.18% 1,899 0.03% 66,327 0.99% BLUEFISH 27,904 0.63% 21,151 0.31% 8,201 0.13% 7,055 0.11% 16,956 0.25% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 10,792 0.25% 20,105 0.30% 14,929 0.24% 13,595 0.20% 18,918 0.28% ALEWIFE 3,100 0.07% 13,619 0.20% 11,621 0.19% 23,787 0.36% 16,921 0.25% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 369 SCS Global Services Report FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 12,150 0.28% 22,435 0.33% 10,796 0.18% 8,418 0.13% 15,228 0.23% POLLOCK 177 0.00% 39,101 0.57% 463 0.01% 12,323 0.18% 7,091 0.11% FISH, NK 480 0.01% 1,067 0.02% 28,713 0.47% 14,257 0.21% 11,235 0.17% SEA ROBIN, NK 296 0.01% 959 0.01% 1,758 0.03% 35,259 0.53% 17,050 0.25% MACKEREL, CHUB 1 0.00% 47,508 0.70% 3,898 0.06% 642 0.01% 156 0.00% WEAKFISH (SQUETEAGUE SEA TROUT) 4,138 0.09% 12,318 0.18% 6,879 0.11% 5,179 0.08% 20,319 0.30% STARFISH, SEASTAR,NK 3,407 0.08% 3,036 0.04% 22,714 0.37% 6,062 0.09% 9,853 0.15% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 7,427 0.17% 12,115 0.18% 3,972 0.06% 11,669 0.17% 9,884 0.15% FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE) 17,424 0.40% 11,533 0.17% 5,708 0.09% 6,178 0.09% 3,582 0.05% SHELL, NK 3,359 0.08% 13,176 0.19% 4,833 0.08% 12,292 0.18% 9,260 0.14% DEBRIS, FISHING GEAR 6,659 0.15% 11,533 0.17% 6,533 0.11% 10,458 0.16% 6,654 0.10% BASS, STRIPED 12,785 0.29% 8,773 0.13% 8,136 0.13% 2,072 0.03% 9,608 0.14% CRAB, DEEPSEA,RED 14,636 0.33% 24,165 0.35% 18 0.00% 341 0.01% 2,202 0.03% WHITING, BLACK (HAKE, OFFSHORE) 22,094 0.50% 14,350 0.21% 1,026 0.02% 678 0.01% 1,343 0.02% HERRING, NK 765 0.02% 8,533 0.13% 11,425 0.19% 10,172 0.15% 4,564 0.07% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 9,939 0.23% 6,551 0.10% 2,500 0.04% 4,951 0.07% 6,078 0.09% CRAB, LADY 4,989 0.11% 6,500 0.10% 7,205 0.12% 1,870 0.03% 8,566 0.13% CRAB, SPIDER, NK 608 0.01% 5,567 0.08% 8,679 0.14% 7,506 0.11% 6,634 0.10% CRAB, JONAH 4,500 0.10% 5,501 0.08% 3,970 0.06% 6,544 0.10% 8,360 0.12% FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL 9,988 0.23% 5,316 0.08% 6,985 0.11% 2,512 0.04% 2,529 0.04% SEAWEED, NK 2,404 0.05% 8,443 0.12% 5,769 0.09% 695 0.01% 9,673 0.14% STINGRAY, ROUGHTAIL 2,953 0.07% 6,596 0.10% 4,755 0.08% 4,315 0.06% 7,768 0.12% SHARK, BASKING 2,500 0.06% 15,500 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 6,350 0.09% SPOT 4,089 0.09% 15,293 0.22% 3,071 0.05% 578 0.01% 177 0.00% SHAD, AMERICAN 3,583 0.08% 3,951 0.06% 3,617 0.06% 6,332 0.09% 3,901 0.06% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 131 0.00% 11,854 0.17% 4,162 0.07% 2,755 0.04% 140 0.00% CUTLASSFISH, ATL 3,979 0.09% 49 0.00% 6,096 0.10% 1,992 0.03% 6,591 0.10% RAY, BULLNOSE 371 0.01% 3,440 0.05% 3,603 0.06% 3,465 0.05% 7,366 0.11% RAY, TORPEDO 3,008 0.07% 4,168 0.06% 4,378 0.07% 2,692 0.04% 3,701 0.06% DEBRIS, ROCK 1,665 0.04% 4,084 0.06% 1,062 0.02% 5,550 0.08% 4,647 0.07% HAKE, WHITE 860 0.02% 3,983 0.06% 5,796 0.09% 3,659 0.05% 1,789 0.03% RAY, BUTTERFLY, SPINY 652 0.01% 10,097 0.15% 1,273 0.02% 3,495 0.05% 278 0.00% SKATE, ROSETTE 1,831 0.04% 4,433 0.07% 2,789 0.05% 4,383 0.07% 2,161 0.03% DEBRIS, NK 946 0.02% 3,101 0.05% 6,421 0.10% 2,133 0.03% 2,429 0.04% CRAB, ROCK 600 0.01% 2,241 0.03% 3,116 0.05% 5,044 0.08% 3,008 0.04% DOGFISH, CHAIN 2,089 0.05% 2,497 0.04% 1,893 0.03% 2,875 0.04% 4,001 0.06% SHARK, SANDBAR (BROWN SHARK) 750 0.02% 1,516 0.02% 2,914 0.05% 1,652 0.02% 6,449 0.10% SQUID EGGS, ATL LONG-FIN 2,423 0.06% 1,717 0.03% 1,221 0.02% 186 0.00% 7,024 0.10% OCEAN POUT 2,373 0.05% 1,673 0.02% 5,126 0.08% 1,297 0.02% 1,647 0.02% MENHADEN, ATLANTIC 894 0.02% 2,013 0.03% 1,060 0.02% 4,482 0.07% 3,384 0.05% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 370 SCS Global Services Report DOGFISH, NK 0.00% 54 0.00% 1,517 0.02% 85 0.00% 8,801 0.13% WHELK, NK, CONCH 165 0.00% 331 0.00% 4,207 0.07% 1,818 0.03% 3,875 0.06% FLOUNDER, AMERICAN PLAICE 1,384 0.03% 3,309 0.05% 1,730 0.03% 1,786 0.03% 2,076 0.03% SHARK, ATL ANGEL 468 0.01% 5,535 0.08% 1,660 0.03% 1,489 0.02% 1,011 0.02% MOLA, OCEAN SUNFISH 350 0.01% 2,600 0.04% 870 0.01% 3,277 0.05% 2,970 0.04% STURGEON, ATLANTIC 1,054 0.02% 1,478 0.02% 3,900 0.06% 732 0.01% 1,691 0.03% SHRIMP, ROYAL RED 91 0.00% 5,983 0.09% 0.00% 220 0.00% 1,968 0.03% DEBRIS, WOOD 461 0.01% 1,495 0.02% 1,398 0.02% 4,103 0.06% 518 0.01% TAUTOG (BLACKFISH) 288 0.01% 2,266 0.03% 1,652 0.03% 1,512 0.02% 2,245 0.03% HERRING, ROUND 0.00% 2,511 0.04% 6 0.00% 1,213 0.02% 3,337 0.05% COD, ATLANTIC 966 0.02% 1,976 0.03% 406 0.01% 1,915 0.03% 1,506 0.02% ROSEFISH,BLACK BELLY 828 0.02% 2,739 0.04% 1,973 0.03% 330 0.00% 724 0.01% SHARK, ATL SHARPNOSE 966 0.02% 740 0.01% 207 0.00% 4,542 0.07% 52 0.00% SPONGE, NK 1,781 0.04% 1,983 0.03% 880 0.01% 1,091 0.02% 547 0.01% SHARK, SAND TIGER 553 0.01% 3,570 0.05% 949 0.02% 474 0.01% 244 0.00% DEBRIS, METAL 84 0.00% 550 0.01% 61 0.00% 1,294 0.02% 3,717 0.06% HERRING, BLUEBACK 721 0.02% 871 0.01% 1,102 0.02% 1,424 0.02% 1,329 0.02% STINGRAY, NK 537 0.01% 4,007 0.06% 406 0.01% 230 0.00% 235 0.00% SHARK, NK 0.00% 2,720 0.04% 275 0.00% 1,740 0.03% 50 0.00% SCULPIN, LONGHORN 392 0.01% 2,377 0.03% 292 0.00% 605 0.01% 1,060 0.02% RAVEN, SEA 946 0.02% 1,456 0.02% 1,799 0.03% 127 0.00% 390 0.01% SKATE, THORNY 460 0.01% 1,514 0.02% 257 0.00% 608 0.01% 1,713 0.03% SEA ROBIN, ARMORED 963 0.02% 252 0.00% 534 0.01% 901 0.01% 1,766 0.03% TILEFISH, BLUELINE 393 0.01% 2,821 0.04% 57 0.00% 164 0.00% 573 0.01% SHARK, THRESHER 965 0.02% 1,431 0.02% 421 0.01% 646 0.01% 430 0.01% SWORDFISH 228 0.01% 203 0.00% 7 0.00% 321 0.00% 3,062 0.05% KINGFISH, NORTHERN 280 0.01% 767 0.01% 680 0.01% 1,088 0.02% 1,005 0.02% STINGRAY, BLUNTNOSE 539 0.01% 2,800 0.04% 95 0.00% 298 0.00% 61 0.00% MUSSEL, NK 9 0.00% 117 0.00% 671 0.01% 2,885 0.04% 90 0.00% SHARK, CARCHARHINID,NK 24 0.00% 1,488 0.02% 840 0.01% 1,231 0.02% 90 0.00% RAY, COWNOSE 217 0.00% 474 0.01% 2,378 0.04% 315 0.00% 247 0.00% BEARDFISH 45 0.00% 1,269 0.02% 166 0.00% 183 0.00% 1,637 0.02% WHELK, KNOBBED 16 0.00% 1,138 0.02% 1,043 0.02% 833 0.01% 171 0.00% SHARK, HAMMERHEAD, SCALLOPED 239 0.01% 1,150 0.02% 1,143 0.02% 63 0.00% 460 0.01% TILEFISH, GOLDEN 540 0.01% 276 0.00% 385 0.01% 716 0.01% 1,077 0.02% ANEMONE, NK 87 0.00% 2,646 0.04% 2 0.00% 167 0.00% 68 0.00% JELLYFISH, NK 226 0.01% 338 0.00% 1,262 0.02% 169 0.00% 779 0.01% SHARK, TIGER 0.00% 965 0.01% 670 0.01% 16 0.00% 875 0.01% BOARFISH, DEEPBODY 53 0.00% 351 0.01% 229 0.00% 336 0.01% 1,307 0.02% SHRIMP, NK 611 0.01% 221 0.00% 1,129 0.02% 2 0.00% 299 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 371 SCS Global Services Report SEA URCHIN, NK 42 0.00% 1,768 0.03% 68 0.00% 363 0.01% 0 0.00% RAY, BUTTERFLY, SMOOTH 35 0.00% 1,246 0.02% 697 0.01% 76 0.00% 144 0.00% EEL, CONGER 228 0.01% 271 0.00% 172 0.00% 809 0.01% 639 0.01% SHARK, PORBEAGLE (MACKEREL SHARK) 60 0.00% 200 0.00% 1,150 0.02% 272 0.00% 199 0.00% RAY, BUTTERFLY, NK 538 0.01% 1,078 0.02% 112 0.00% 0.00% 60 0.00% BONE, NK 616 0.01% 926 0.01% 3 0.00% 119 0.00% 51 0.00% STINGRAY, SOUTHERN 0.00% 1,101 0.02% 0.00% 551 0.01% 11 0.00% SKATE, SMOOTH 145 0.00% 223 0.00% 152 0.00% 884 0.01% 192 0.00% SHARK, BLUE (BLUE DOG) 100 0.00% 635 0.01% 300 0.00% 270 0.00% 220 0.00% KINGFISH, SOUTHERN 64 0.00% 742 0.01% 289 0.00% 314 0.00% 100 0.00% CRAB, CANCER, NK 120 0.00% 1,029 0.02% 150 0.00% 69 0.00% 99 0.00% GRENADIER, NK 948 0.02% 419 0.01% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 80 0.00% SCAD, ROUGH 294 0.01% 371 0.01% 63 0.00% 336 0.01% 261 0.00% CRAB, SPIDER, PORTLY 4 0.00% 0.00% 935 0.02% 15 0.00% 347 0.01% DRUM, BLACK 26 0.00% 111 0.00% 918 0.01% 73 0.00% 171 0.00% FLOUNDER, GULFSTREAM 24 0.00% 415 0.01% 39 0.00% 95 0.00% 696 0.01% DRUM, RED 0.00% 1,055 0.02% 4 0.00% 146 0.00% 60 0.00% SHARK, DUSKY 0.00% 200 0.00% 41 0.00% 900 0.01% 16 0.00% CLAPPER, NK 0 0.00% 6 0.00% 922 0.02% 200 0.00% 0.00% WHELK, CHANNELED (SMOOTH) 0.00% 261 0.00% 425 0.01% 201 0.00% 156 0.00% SNAIL, NK 3 0.00% 41 0.00% 34 0.00% 87 0.00% 876 0.01% PUFFER, NK (BURRFISH) 49 0.00% 154 0.00% 261 0.00% 286 0.00% 284 0.00% CRAB, BLUE 46 0.00% 260 0.00% 149 0.00% 169 0.00% 398 0.01% SHRIMP, MANTIS 39 0.00% 2 0.00% 857 0.01% 10 0.00% 108 0.00% WRYMOUTH 129 0.00% 259 0.00% 369 0.01% 203 0.00% 45 0.00% CLAM, NK 2 0.00% 509 0.01% 234 0.00% 110 0.00% 105 0.00% MOONFISH, ATLANTIC 3 0.00% 8 0.00% 121 0.00% 757 0.01% 29 0.00% SNIPEFISH, LONGSPINE 61 0.00% 438 0.01% 38 0.00% 223 0.00% 147 0.00% QUAHOG, OCEAN (BLACK CLAM) 0.00% 70 0.00% 35 0.00% 726 0.01% 19 0.00% LUMPFISH 29 0.00% 27 0.00% 298 0.00% 440 0.01% 8 0.00% RAY, NK 160 0.00% 0.00% 30 0.00% 200 0.00% 400 0.01% CRAB, HERMIT, NK 2 0.00% 170 0.00% 193 0.00% 373 0.01% 47 0.00% SHARK, WHITE 0.00% 0.00% 385 0.01% 195 0.00% 150 0.00% HAKE, LONGFIN 144 0.00% 0.00% 133 0.00% 293 0.00% 144 0.00% EEL, NK 640 0.01% 45 0.00% 1 0.00% 6 0.00% 9 0.00% COBIA 0.00% 362 0.01% 10 0.00% 126 0.00% 195 0.00% HALIBUT, ATLANTIC 23 0.00% 230 0.00% 82 0.00% 352 0.01% 0.00% CLAPPER, SCALLOP 3 0.00% 6 0.00% 125 0.00% 510 0.01% 5 0.00% KINGFISH, NK 627 0.01% 2 0.00% 19 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% STURGEON, NK 310 0.01% 0.00% - 0.00% 285 0.00% 50 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 372 SCS Global Services Report MOLA, NK 0.00% 200 0.00% 0.00% 90 0.00% 350 0.01% CUSK-EEL, NK 28 0.00% 156 0.00% 66 0.00% 288 0.00% 74 0.00% DEBRIS, PLASTIC 35 0.00% 118 0.00% 10 0.00% 278 0.00% 110 0.00% TRIGGERFISH, NK (LEATHERJACKET) 54 0.00% 173 0.00% 75 0.00% 91 0.00% 156 0.00% EGGS, NK 15 0.00% 55 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 447 0.01% SNAIL, MOONSHELL, NK 0 0.00% 15 0.00% 444 0.01% 49 0.00% 11 0.00% PUFFER, NORTHERN 19 0.00% 253 0.00% 65 0.00% 54 0.00% 124 0.00% CRAB, TRUE, NK 27 0.00% 282 0.00% 72 0.00% 62 0.00% 52 0.00% SHEEPSHEAD 0.00% 397 0.01% 23 0.00% 2 0.00% 66 0.00% CUSK 0.00% 51 0.00% 0.00% 353 0.01% 55 0.00% SAND DOLLAR 106 0.00% 57 0.00% 17 0.00% 102 0.00% 168 0.00% SHELL, SCALLOP 45 0.00% 50 0.00% 92 0.00% 8 0.00% 235 0.00% WHELK, TRUE UNC 0.00% 281 0.00% 4 0.00% 54 0.00% 74 0.00% HAGFISH, ATLANTIC 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% 407 0.01% 0.00% FLOUNDER, LEFTEYE, NK 0.00% 149 0.00% 259 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% INVERTEBRATE, NK 1 0.00% 137 0.00% 86 0.00% 7 0.00% 168 0.00% STARGAZER, NORTHERN 0.00% 346 0.01% 23 0.00% 21 0.00% 8 0.00% SHAD, HICKORY 22 0.00% 20 0.00% 149 0.00% 9 0.00% 155 0.00% SCALLOP, NK 0.00% 26 0.00% 48 0.00% 222 0.00% 42 0.00% PIGFISH 0.00% 186 0.00% 0.00% 88 0.00% 29 0.00% RAY, DEVIL 0.00% 300 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% RAY, MANTA, ATLANTIC 0.00% 300 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% RUNNER, BLUE 9 0.00% 216 0.00% 1 0.00% 13 0.00% 44 0.00% CLAM, SURF 0.00% 195 0.00% 9 0.00% 13 0.00% 51 0.00% TILEFISH, NK 3 0.00% 37 0.00% 1 0.00% 11 0.00% 212 0.00% LIZARDFISH 6 0.00% 8 0.00% 29 0.00% 144 0.00% 66 0.00% OCTOPUS, NK 56 0.00% 23 0.00% 12 0.00% 21 0.00% 141 0.00% MOLLUSCA EGGS, NK 15 0.00% 10 0.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% 221 0.00% ANCHOVY, NK 0.00% 46 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 201 0.00% MACKEREL, FRIGATE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 240 0.00% SHRIMP, PANDALID (NORTHERN) 135 0.00% 62 0.00% 8 0.00% 18 0.00% 9 0.00% STARGAZER, NK 10 0.00% 198 0.00% 8 0.00% 5 0.00% 0 0.00% CLAPPER, CLAM 0.00% 3 0.00% 1 0.00% 159 0.00% 48 0.00% TUNA, LITTLE (FALSE ALBACORE) 57 0.00% 142 0.00% 0.00% 5 0.00% 4 0.00% SILVERSIDE, ATLANTIC 5 0.00% 200 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FLOUNDER, NK 36 0.00% 10 0.00% 0 0.00% 70 0.00% 66 0.00% SHARK, MAKO, SHORTFIN 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 180 0.00% 0.00% TUNA, NK 0.00% 150 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 14 0.00% SCORPIONFISH, NK 8 0.00% 11 0.00% 9 0.00% 7 0.00% 121 0.00% JACK, NK 2 0.00% 10 0.00% 5 0.00% 55 0.00% 81 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 373 SCS Global Services Report HOGCHOCKER 0 0.00% 13 0.00% 17 0.00% 2 0.00% 115 0.00% EGGS, ELASMOBRANCH, NK 0.00% 26 0.00% 3 0.00% 45 0.00% 63 0.00% SHELLFISH, NK 0.00% 0.00% 95 0.00% 0.00% 39 0.00% MOLLUSK, NK 87 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 13 0.00% 28 0.00% WOLFFISH, ATLANTIC 0.00% 16 0.00% 0.00% 80 0.00% 30 0.00% DEBRIS, GLASS 1 0.00% 11 0.00% 0.00% 54 0.00% 58 0.00% SHARK, SEVENGILL SHARPNOSE 30 0.00% 9 0.00% 0.00% 17 0.00% 64 0.00% CUNNER (YELLOW PERCH) 2 0.00% 92 0.00% 13 0.00% 6 0.00% 6 0.00% BONITO, ATLANTIC 11 0.00% 7 0.00% 26 0.00% 41 0.00% 16 0.00% SHARK, HAMMERHEAD,NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100 0.00% 0.00% ANCHOVY, BAY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98 0.00% CRAB, NORTHERN STONE 0.00% 58 0.00% 0 0.00% 11 0.00% 19 0.00% SPADEFISH 2 0.00% 58 0.00% 0.00% 9 0.00% 4 0.00% AMBERJACK, NK 50 0.00% 4 0.00% 1 0.00% 13 0.00% 5 0.00% EELGRASS 50 0.00% 0.00% 20 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% RIBBONFISH, SCALLOPED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 65 0.00% MACKEREL, NK 15 0.00% 0.00% 46 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% EEL, SAND LANCE, NK 14 0.00% 8 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 36 0.00% MACKEREL, KING 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 55 0.00% 0.00% TUNA, BLUEFIN 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 52 0.00% SHARK, SPINNER 27 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 0.00% 0.00% MACKEREL, SPANISH 3 0.00% 1 0.00% 8 0.00% 1 0.00% 35 0.00% UNKOWN LIVING MATTER 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45 0.00% DRUM, NK 40 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SLENDER SNIPEFISH 14 0.00% 26 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ROCKLING, FOURBEARD 0.00% 33 0.00% 3 0.00% 2 0.00% 1 0.00% SEATROUT, NK 0.00% 0.00% 7 0.00% 28 0.00% 2 0.00% SHARK, SILKY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35 0.00% 0.00% SNIPEFISH, NK 0 0.00% 6 0.00% 0.00% 26 0.00% 0.00% WORM, NK 0.00% 8 0.00% 0.00% 24 0.00% 1 0.00% EEL, AMERICAN 0.00% 14 0.00% 18 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% HALIBUT, GREENLAND 0.00% 31 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FILEFISH, NK 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 0.00% 21 0.00% 3 0.00% SEA SQUIRT, NK 25 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% SEA BASS, NK 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 19 0.00% 4 0.00% CRAB, SNOW 0.00% 24 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% FLOUNDER, SOUTHERN 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24 0.00% 0.00% STINGRAY, PELAGIC 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13 0.00% 0.00% WRECKFISH 18 0.00% 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% STARFISH, BRITTLE,NK 21 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 374 SCS Global Services Report DRUM, BANDED 0.00% 0.00% 17 0.00% 5 0.00% 0.00% MACKEREL, SNAKE, NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 19 0.00% GRENADIER, COMMON (MARLINSPIKE) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19 0.00% 1 0.00% SILVERSIDE, NK 15 0.00% 4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% BATFISH, ATLANTIC 0.00% 9 0.00% 0.00% 5 0.00% 5 0.00% LANTERNFISH, NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16 0.00% TOADFISH, OYSTER 0.00% 0.00% 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LOOKDOWN 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15 0.00% GROUPER, SNOWY 0.00% 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% HARVESTFISH 0.00% 8 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 0.00% 1 0.00% SEA CUCUMBER, NK 1 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 8 0.00% 1 0.00% REMORA, NK 0.00% 2 0.00% 4 0.00% 4 0.00% 2 0.00% CLAPPER, OCEAN QUAHOG 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12 0.00% BATFISH, NK 8 0.00% 2 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% STINGRAY, ATLANTIC 0.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% 5 0.00% 1 0.00% ROUGHY, BIG 0.00% 0.00% 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% BARRACUDA, NK 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% RIBBONFISH, NK 6 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PORGY, NK 0.00% 5 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% SHARK, BIGNOSE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 0.00% 0.00% BOARFISH, NK 4 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ROUGHY, NK 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCULPIN, NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 0.00% SCALLOP, BAY 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% BULLET MACKEREL 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% SNAPPER, NK 0.00% 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PILOTFISH 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% SAURY, ATLANTIC 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 0.00% DORY, NK 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% EEL, SLENDER SNIPE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% SHARK, BLACK TIP 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% POMPANO, FLORIDA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% JACK, CREVALLE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% EEL, ROCK (GUNNEL) 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% PINFISH 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% SNAPPER, RED 0.00% 2 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOADFISH, NK 2 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% QUAHOG, HARD SHELL CLAM 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% KINGFISH, GULF 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% LAMPREY, NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 375 SCS Global Services Report PIPEFISH/SEAHORSE,NK 1 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% GARFISH (NEEDLEFISH) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% WHELK, LIGHTNING 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ANCHOVY, STRIPED 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% BARRELFISH 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% BLUESPOTTED CORNETFISH 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% DRAGONFISH, BOA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% ARGENTINE, ATLANTIC 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% CLAM, BLOODARC 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCAD, BIGEYE 0.00% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% CORAL, SOFT, NK 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% POMPANO, AFRICAN 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% FISH EGGS, NK 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% GROUPER, NK 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NEEDLEFISH, ATLANTIC 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SEATROUT (WEAKFISH), SPOTD 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SHRIMP, PENAEID (SOUTHERN) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 376