MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211 Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected]
President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
U.S. Acadian Redfish, Pollock and Haddock Otter Trawl Fishery
Announcement Comment Draft Report
March 31st, 2021
Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) MRAG Americas, Inc.
Amanda Stern-Pirlot (team leader), Erin Wilson, Giuseppe Scarcella, Blanka Assessment team Lederer
Fishery client The Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Assessment type Reassessment
Date March 31st, 2020
1 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Document Control Record Document Draft Submitted By Date Reviewed By Date ACDR EW, ASP, GS, BL March 28, 2021 ASP March 30, 2021
2 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
1 Contents
1 Contents ...... 3 2 Glossary ...... 5 3 Executive summary ...... 7 4 Report details ...... 8 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 8 4.2 Version details ...... 9 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview ...... 9 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 9 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 9 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification ...... 11 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 12 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 12 5.2.2 Principle level scores...... 13 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 13 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 13 6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 14 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 14 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 14 6.2.1 Introduction ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.2.2 Traceability within the fishery...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.2.3 Findings ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 15 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody 15 7 Scoring ...... 16 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 16 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 17 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 17 Acadian Redfish (Sebastes fasciatus)...... 17 Pollock (Pollachius virens) ...... 19 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)...... 21 7.2.2 Fishery management...... 26 7.2.3 Data collection Programme ...... 28 7.2.4 Catch profiles ...... 30 7.2.5 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 30 7.2.6 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 35 ...... 36 ...... 40 3 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
...... 43 ...... 45 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 48 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 48 7.3.2 Overview of Non-target Catch ...... 48 7.3.3 Overview of Habitats and Ecosystems ...... 58 7.3.4 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 69 ...... 69 ...... 76 ...... 90 ...... 94 ...... 96 ...... 98 ...... 100 ...... 102 ...... 103 ...... 105 Principle 3 ...... 107 7.3.5 Area of operation ...... 107 7.3.6 Jurisdiction ...... 107 7.3.7 Recognized groups with interests in the fishery and details of the fleet ...... 107 7.3.8 Legal and policy framework ...... 108 7.3.9 Resolution of Disputes ...... 110 7.3.10 Respect of Rights ...... 111 7.3.11 Consultation, roles, and responsibilities ...... 112 7.3.12 Decision making process...... 114 7.3.13 Objectives for the Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock fishery ...... 116 7.3.14 Regulatory framework and measures to meet objectives ...... 117 7.3.15 Monitoring, control and surveillance...... 121 7.3.16 Management evaluation ...... 123 7.3.17 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 124 ...... 124 ...... 129 ...... 133 ...... 135 ...... 137 ...... 143 ...... 148 8 References ...... 150 9 Appendices ...... 155 9.1 Assessment information ...... 155 9.1.1 Previous assessments – delete if not applicable ...... 155 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 156
4 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.2.1 Site visits ...... 156 9.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 156 9.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 156 9.3 Peer Review reports...... 156 9.4 Stakeholder input ...... 157 9.5 Conditions – ...... 158 9.5.1 Open Conditions at reassessment announcement – delete if not applicable ...... 158 9.5.2 Conditions – delete if not applicable ...... 161 9.6 Client Action Plan...... 161 9.7 Surveillance ...... 162 9.8 Risk-Based Framework outputs – delete if not applicable ...... 163 9.8.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) ...... 163 9.8.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) ...... 164 9.8.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) ...... 166 9.8.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) ...... 167 9.9 Harmonised fishery assessments – delete if not applicable ...... 168 9.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable ...... 170
2 Glossary ABC Acceptable Biological Catch AP Advisory Panels APA Administrative Procedures Act ACE Annual Catch Entitlements ACL Annual Catch Limits AM Accountability Measures ASM At-Sea Monitoring ASO At Sea Observers C&P Conservation and Protection CCC Council Coordination Committee CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries CDF Cumulative Distribution Function CHP Conservation Harvest Plan CSAS Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DAS Day-at-Sea DFO Department of Fisheries and Ocean DMP Dockside Monitoring Programs EBFM Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ESA Endangered Species Act F Fishing Mortality FMP Fishery Management Plan FR Federal Register FSB Fisheries Sampling Branch GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office GB Georges Bank GSL Gulf of St. Lawrence GOM Gulf of Maine GOMAC Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee IATTC International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas IFMP Integrated Fisheries Management Plan IPOA International Plans of Action 5 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
IUU Illegal, unregulated and unreported LCH Laurentian Channel MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPAs Marine Protected Areas MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program MSRA Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) NEFAC Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council NEFOP Northeast Federal Observer Program NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NEMFMP Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPAFC north Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission NS National Standard OC Oversight Committee OFL Overfishing Level OGC Office of General Council OLE Office of Law Enforcement PDT Plan Development Teams PCTS Public Consultation Tracking System PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SFF Sustainable Fisheries Framework SSC Science and Statistical Committee RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RFMOs Regional fisheries Management Organizations RIR Regulatory Impact Review RMA Regulated Mesh Areas SAPs Special Access Programs SARA Species at Risk Act SFGAC Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Advisory Committee SOPP Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch TMGC Transboundary Management Guidance Committee TTACL Trimester Total Allowable Catch limits TRAC Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee TRSC Transboundary Resources Steering Committee UNCLOS United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea UNFA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis VRS Voice Response System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
6 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
3 Executive summary
Draft determination to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the executive summary:
- Date and location of site visit. - The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation. - From Public Comment Draft Report reporting stage only - the draft determination / determination reached with supporting justification.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.12, 7.18, 7.21
MRAG Americas was contracted by the Sustainable Groundfish Association, Ltd. to undertake a fishery reassessment for the U.S. Acadian Redfish, Pollock, and Haddock Otter Trawl Fishery. This Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) sets out the results of a preliminary desk review of this fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. This is this fishery’s second MSC full assessment, having been first certified in July of 2016. There are 4 Units of Assessment (UoAs); Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank (one stock), Pollock (Pollachius virens) in the GoM and GB (one stock), and Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in GoM and GB (two stocks) fished with otter trawl gear type, assessed for all four UoA stocks in the Northeast Atlantic groundfish fishery. See Section 5 for further details on the UoAs.
The assessment site visit will take place between 17 and 21 May, 2021 remotely due to the COVID-19 outbreak. During that time, the assessment team will meet with scientists, fishery managers and stakeholders as well as client representatives.
The assessment is being undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2, MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0/2.1, and using the MSC Guidance to MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.3 which sets out the assessment and certification process. The default assessment tree contained within FCP v2.1 and FCR v2.0/2.01 was used to evaluate the fishery. As a result, to date, the following steps have been undertaken: • Announcement of the assessment and publication of the Announcement Comment Draft Report • Appointment of the assessment team • Notification and undertaking of the site visit • Production of the Client and Peer Review draft report that describes the background to the fishery, the fishery management operation and the evaluation procedure and results • Response to Peer Review comments, and report revisions where necessary • Production of the Public Comment Draft Report • Response to stakeholder comments on the Public Comment Draft Report • Review by MRAG Americas’ qualified nominated Reviewer and Decision Maker • Consultation on the Final Report and Determination • Production of the Public Certification Report
The assessment of the fishery was undertaken by Amanda Stern-Pirlot (team leader) and covering Principle 2, Dr. Guiseppe Scarcella covering Principle 1, Erin Wilson covering Principle 3, and Blanka Lederer assisting primarily with Principle 2.
Principle 1 Strengths: Redfish/Pollock/ (GOM/GB) Haddock exhibit healthy spawner biomass and low exploitation level. Well-defined reference points and harvest control rules are in place for each fishery, in addition to well-organized data collection programme and provision of scientific advice.
Weaknesses No particular weaknesses were identified in the UoAs. However, the uncertainty related with the stock configuration of each UoA can be considered a potential issue.
Principle 2: Strengths: There is excellent information on bottom habitat in the UoA region, including the spatial overlap between the UoAs and different habitat types. 7 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Weaknesses: At the time of ACDR preparation, the assessment team still lacks updated catch composition data to enable accurate scoring of the species PIs in P2.
Principle 3: Strengths: This is a well-managed fishery in both the US and Canada, with clear objectives and a policy framework that is regularly reviewed. Weaknesses: It is not clear how the fishery specific management system is externally reviewed.
4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report:
- Names of team members. - Specification of which person is the team leader. - Names of the peer reviewers. - Statement that peer reviewers can be viewed on the assessment downloads page on the MSC website.
If the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery, the CAB shall state in the report which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.6, 7.14, Annex PC
Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Team leader and Principle 2). Amanda is an M.Sc graduate of the University of Bremen, Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT) in marine ecology and fisheries biology. Ms. Stern-Pirlot joined MRAG Americas in mid-June 2014 as MSC Certification Manager (now Director of the Fishery Certification Division) and is currently serving on several different assessment teams as team leader and team member. She has worked together with other scientists, conservationists, fisheries managers and producer groups on international fisheries sustainability issues for over 15 years. With the Institute for Marine Research (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, she led a work package on simple indicators for sustainable within the EU-funded international cooperation project INCOFISH, followed by five years within the Standards Department at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in London, developing standards, policies and assessment methods informed by best practices in fisheries management around the globe. Most recently she has worked with the Alaska pollock industry as a resources analyst, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process, focusing on bycatch and ecosystem-based management issues, and managing the day-to-day operations of the offshore pollock cooperative. She has co-authored a dozen publications on fisheries sustainability in the developing world and the functioning of the MSC as an instrument for transforming fisheries to a sustainable basis.
Ms. Erin Wilson (Principle 3). Ms. Wilson joined MRAG Americas, Inc. in February 2015, where she currently works as a Senior Fisheries Consultant and Program Manager. She has collaborated as a team member on several MSC assessments and is team leader for all the Alaska Groundfish fisheries and the West Coast Groundfish limited entry trawl fishery. She provides routine audit services for the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) and is the MRAG Project Manager for the ISSF ProActive Vessel Registry (PVR). Prior to joining MRAG Americas, she spent 2 years working at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as a Natural Resource Specialist and Biological Technician for the Oregon Marine Reserves. She has collaborated on a multitude of projects that focus on marine science and conservation in both a biological and social science aspect. She received a M.Sc. in Marine Resource Management from Oregon State University and a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University, along with a Spanish minor. Ms. Wilson has passed MSC v1.3, v2.0, v2.1 and ISO 19011 training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery.
Dr. Giuseppe Scarcella (Principle 1). Giuseppe Scarcella is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of demersal stocks. He holds a first degree in Marine Biology and Oceanography (110/110) from the Unversità Politecnica delle Marche, and a Ph.D. in marine Ecology and Biology from the same university, based on a thesis "Age and growth of two rockfish in the Adriatic Sea". After his degree he was offered a job as project scientist in several research programs about the structure and composition of fish assemblage in artificial reefs, off-shore platform and other artificial habitats in the Italian Research Council – Institute of Marine Science of Ancona (CNR-ISMAR, now CNR-IRBIM). During the years of employment at CNR-ISMAR he has gained experience in benthic ecology, statistical analyses of fish assemblage evolution in artificial habitats, fisheries ecology and impacts of fishing activities, stock assessment, otholith analysis, population dynamic and fisheries management. During the same years he attended courses of uni- multivariate statistics and stock 8 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 assessment. He is also actively participating in the scientific advice process of FAO GFCM in the Mediterranean Sea. At the moment he is member of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for the European Commission (STECF).
He is author and co-author of more than 50 scientific paper peer reviewed journals and more than 150 national and international technical reports, most of them focused on the evolution of fish assemblages in artificial habitats and stock assessment of demersal species. For some years now, Dr Scarcella has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 1 of the Standard. Dr Scarcella holds the credential as Fishery team leader (MSC v2.0) and he completed the MSC procedure training 2.1. He also holds the credential as certifier of Responsible Fisheries Management (RFM).
Ms. Blanka Lederer (Principle 2). Ms. Lederer’s graduate degree and some professional experiences are in aquaculture, but most background focuses on fisheries. Before becoming an MSC assessor, she was a fisheries biologist for North Pacific Groundfish and At-Sea Hake Observer Programs. For six years, she worked on the catcher trawlers, catcher-processors, and longline vessels collecting data that provided the best scientific information to manage the fisheries and develop measures to minimize bycatch in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and West Coast. She was also working as a Setline Survey Specialist collecting, independent from commercial fishing, halibut data for the International Pacific Halibut Commission in Southeast Alaska and Canada. She designed a commercial fishing apprenticeship program for California Sea Grant. She collected data on fisheries and bycatch reduction strategies in Mexico, Australia, and Costa Rica. She participated in multiple Scripps Institution of Oceanography research projects, including water studies, exploring deep-sea chemosynthetic environments, and the San Diego Coastal Expedition research cruise. She holds a Master's Degree in Professional Science has completed the MSC Team Member training, including relevant updates
A discussion between team members regarding conflict of interest and biases was held and none were identified.
4.2 Version details The CAB shall include in the report a statement on the versions of the fisheries program documents used for this assessment.
Table 1 Fisheries program documents versions
Document Version number
MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2
MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01
MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1
MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2
5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment The CAB shall include in the report a statement of the CAB’s determination that the fishery is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard. For geographical area, the CAB should refer to G7.5.6. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.4 and 7.5
9 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
MRAG Americas has confirmed that this fishery is within scope for MSC fisheries certification through the following determinations (FCP v2.2 7.4): 7.4.2.1 The following taxa are not target species under Principle 1: a. Amphibians b. Reptiles c. Birds d. Mammals 7.4.2.2 The fishery does not use poisons or explosives. 7.4.2.3 The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. 7.4.2.4 No member of the client group has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years. 7.4.2.10 The fishery has not been convicted for a shark finning violation in the last 2 years. 7.4.2.11 The fishery has a mechanism for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery. 7.4.2.12 The fishery is not enhanced. 7.4.2.13 The fishery is not based on introduced species.
Table 2 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)
UoA 1 Description
Species Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
UoA 2 Description
Species Pollock (Pollachius virens)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
UoA 3 Description
10 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ Gulf of Maine
UoA 4 Description
Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ Georges Bank
5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification
Table 3 Units of Certification (UoC)—Since this is a reassessment, these are the UoCs carried over.
UoA 1 Description
Species Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
UoA 2 Description
11 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Species Pollock (Pollachius virens)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank)
UoA 3 Description
Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Gulf of Maine)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ Gulf of Maine
UoA 4 Description
Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Stock NW Atlantic, US EEZ (Georges Bank)
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Otter trawl type(s)
Client group Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc.
Other eligible fishers All the vessels holding the license to fish in the NE Atlantic groundfish fishery
Geographical area NW Atlantic, US EEZ Georges Bank
5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.
12 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-maker in response to the determination recommendation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2, 7.20.3.h and Section 7.21
5.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17
Table 4 Principle level scores
Principle UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4
Principle 1 – Target species ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
Principle 3 – Management system ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
5.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the CAB shall include in the report a statement confirming this.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18
Table 5. Summary of conditions
Carried Related to Condition Performance Exceptional over from previous Condition Deadline number Indicator (PI) circumstances? previous condition? certificate? Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA
5.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.
13 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
6 Traceability and eligibility 6.1 Eligibility date The CAB shall include in the report the eligibility date and the justification for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability and segregation systems in the fishery are appropriately implemented.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.8
Because this fishery is already certified, product is expected to remain continuously eligible. However, if there is any lapse in certified status, the eligibility date will be the date of publication of the Public Comment Draft Report, as the earliest allowable point in the assessment process for eligibility. Adequate traceability and segregation systems are already in place in this fishery. .
6.2 Traceability within the fishery The CAB shall include in the report a description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery and how these systems will allow any products sold as MSC certified to be traced back to the Unit of Certification.
The CAB shall include in the report an evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.
The CAB shall include in the report any traceability references, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
The CAB shall include in the report a description of the factors that may lead to risks of non-certified seafood being mixed with certified seafood prior to entering Chain of Custody using the table below. For each risk factor, there shall be a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the fishery and, if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5.7, 7.9, 7.10, 7.20.3
This report deals only with the harvesting of US Acadian Redfish/Pollock/Haddock at the point of landing, and not beyond processing which constitutes the first step in the chain-of-custody process. All US Acadian redfish/pollock/haddock harvested by the registered fleet of approximately 50 vessels operating from Gulf of Maine, and Georges Bank are eligible to display the MSC logo. However, only those companies that have a certificate sharing arrangement with the client group, the Sustainable Groundfish Association, Inc. may carry the MSC label and claim forward through the MSC chain of custody. The units of certification includes all US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock landed by the US fishing fleet using trawl fishing gear. The catch and location of catch are monitored by logbook, VMS, fish dealer slips, sector managers, observers and fishery officers. Therefore, it is certain that Chain of Custody requirements in the fishery will extend to landing at the wharf. At that point, fish are sold to fish dealers and offloaders working on behalf of fish processors. A credible catch monitoring program takes place during harvesting and offloading operations to identify the fishery of origin for all landed US Acadian redfish/pollock/haddock. The regulatory requirements include mandatory logbook completion prior to catch landing (i.e. vessel name, CFV number, estimated catch on-board, location of catch, port of landing, date, and number of trawl nets fished), a daily trip limit. These requirements are sufficient to allow Chain of Custody to be established from the point of landing forward. Table 6 Traceability within the fishery
Factor Description
Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)?
If Yes, please describe: Never occurs - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated. 14 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area?
Never occurs If Yes, please describe: - If this may occur on the same trip; - How any risks are mitigated. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-certified products during any of the activities covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at- Yes, these stocks are caught as part of the Northeast sea activities and on-land activities. multispecies fishery, and as such they handle other non-
certified species at sea and to the point of landing. All - Transport species are readily visually distinguishable and stored in - Storage separate totes on board until landing, where composition - Processing and weight of landed fish are verified and VTRs are - Landing produced. - Auction
If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Does transhipment occur within the fishery?
If Yes, please describe: - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or Never occurs both; - If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? No other risks
If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.
6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.
The CAB shall include in the report a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.
The CAB shall include in the report the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.
If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9
Products from this fishery will continue to be eligible to enter certified chains of custody if the fishery is recertified. The fishery certificate will end and the CoC will begin at landing, regardless if this is the point of ownership change. Landing points will be listed in subsequent versions of this report.
6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody N/A No IPI stocks are present.
15 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
7 Scoring 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
The CAB shall include in the report a completed copy of the Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17
Score Score Score Score Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 UoA4 1.1.1 Stock status ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 1.2.1 Harvest strategy ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 1 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.1.1 Outcome 60-79 Primary 2.1.2 Management species ≥ 80 2.1.3 Information ≥ 80 2.2.1 Outcome ≥ 80 Secondary 2.2.2 Management species ≥ 80 2.2.3 Information ≥ 80 2.3.1 Outcome ≥ 80 2 ETP species 2.3.2 Management ≥ 80 2.3.3 Information ≥ 80 2.4.1 Outcome ≥ 80 Habitats 2.4.2 Management ≥ 80 2.4.3 Information ≥ 80 2.5.1 Outcome ≥ 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management ≥ 80 2.5.3 Information ≥ 80 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework ≥ 80 Governance 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities and policy ≥ 80 3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥ 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives ≥ 80 3 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes ≥ 80 specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 60-79 management system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 60-79 performance evaluation
16 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background Most of the data and information used in the background Principle 1 section was available from the Operational Assessment of 14 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated Through 2018 (NEFSC, 2020) and the Stock SMART website (see: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stocksmart?stockname=Atlantic%20herring%20- %20Northwestern%20Atlantic%20Coast&stockid=10572). In addition, previous Public Certification Reports (SAI- Global, 2017; Acoura, 2018) were utilized for the scoring section.
Acadian Redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Biology. Acadian redfish [Sebastes fasciatus (Storer, 1856)], also called ocean perch, is the only fish in the rockfish/ocean perch family in the Atlantic, compared to the more than 50 Sebastes species in the Pacific. The fish is called redfish in New England and Canada but is not to be confused with redfish from the Gulf of Mexico (which is a drum). Acadian redfish are harvested year-round, but harvests are usually largest during spring and summer in the Gulf of Maine. Acadian redfish are slow-growing, long-lived fish and can grow up to 18 to 20 inches long and live 50 years or more. The species matures at a late age (5 to 6 years) and has low reproductive rates. They mate in late autumn and early winter. Redfish give birth to live young (an unusual feature for fish), and fertilization, incubation, and hatching of eggs all occur within the female’s body. Eggs are not fertilized until spring and then incubate for 45 to 60 days. Females release their hatched larvae from late spring through July and August. Females generally produce between 15,000 and 20,000 larvae per spawning cycle. Newly hatched redfish can swim well at birth and are soon able to forage for plankton (tiny floating plants and animals). Their survival rate is relatively high compared with that of egg-laying fish. Young redfish stay in the upper waters feeding on small crustaceans until they are about 2 inches, long while older redfish feed on larger invertebrates and small fish (Trophic level 3.2 ±0.2 se; based on diet studies.). In the fall, the young settle to the ocean bottom. Acadian redfish is long-lived (the oldest recorded age is 58 years, Penttila et al., 1989), slow growing and believed to have a 50% maturity rate at five years old when it is about eight inches long (O’Brien et al. 1993). Females typically grow larger and live longer than males (Penttila et al., 1989). Natural Mortality is about 0.125. Recruitment is sporadic and difficult to predict, and a strong new cohort may be introduced to the population as infrequently as every 5-10 years (Klein-MacPhee and Collette, 2002). Stock configuration. Redfish species are currently managed under nine management areas in the Northwest Atlantic. They are based on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organizations (NAFO) Divisions: West Greenland (Subarea 1), Labrador Shelf(2GHJ-3K), Flemish Cap (3M), North and East Grand Banks (3LN), South Western Grand Bank(3O), Gulf of St. Lawrence (“*Management Unit 1” consisting of 4RST, 3Pn4Vn [Jan. to May]), Laurentian Channel (“Management Unit 2” consisting of 3Ps4Vs4Wfgj, 3Pn4Vn [June to Dec.]), Scotian Shelf (“Management Unit 3”consisting of 4WdehklX) and Gulf of Maine (Subarea 5). The overall population structure of S. fasciatus is complex. The population structure of S. fasciatus appears to be characterized by the presence of 3 broad groups corresponding to three geographic areas). The first group comprises the Gulf of St. Lawrence – Laurentian Channel. However, there are indications of genetic heterogeneity within this area. The second group is distributed from the slope of the Grand Banks (3LNO) to the southern margin of Unit 2 (southern tip of St. Pierre Bank). The third group the Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia Shelf. Overall, this southern group tends to be genetically differentiated from the northern group and from that of the Gulf of St. Lawrence – Laurentian Channel. An approach combining genetics and geometric morphometrics has been used by Valentin et al. (2014) to define the population structure of S. fasciatus in the northwest Atlantic. The genotype at 13 microsatellite loci, and body shape (defined by 10 anatomical landmarks) were determined on specimens representing 19 S. fasciatus fishing aggregations from the north west Atlantic. Two of the samples came from two fjords, the Saguenay and Bonne Bay. A Mantel test performed on the matrices of pairwise genetic and morphometric distances between samples revealed an overall strong concordance between the two datasets within the species. Altogether, the combination of genetic and morphometric data indicated weak but consistent population structure in the Northwest Atlantic. For S. fasciatus, the combined analysis revealed the presence of a highly differentiated population in the Bonne Bay Fjord. The analysis also detected a weak structure at a large geographical scale, between three broad geographical regions, (i) the Gulf of St. Lawrence-Laurentian Channel (GSL-LCH) area, where there is a signature of introgressive hybridization with S. mentella, (ii) the Gulf of Maine, and (iii) the continental slope from the northern Grand Banks to the mouth of the Laurentian Channel. Population structure of S. fasciatus at a smaller spatial scale is suggested by genetic (in the GSL-LCH area) and morphometric (in the Gulf of Maine) heterogeneity. The present stock configuration used in the framework of the stock assessment (Gulf of Maine and Georges Banks) is acceptable, considering the evidence provided by Valentin et al. (2014).
17 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Status of the stock. The 2020 assessment for Acadian redfish is an expedited review (Level 2) update of the 2017 ASAP based operational assessment (Figure 1). The re-estimated Biological Reference Points include: FMSY = 0.038, BMSY = 200,586mt, and MSY = 7,561mt. The most recent biomass estimate is near 400,000 mt which is above BMSY. The 2019 fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.014, which is lower than FMSY. The stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Projections were carried out following accepted protocols assuming that 5,184 mt would be caught in 2020 and setting fishing mortality in 2021-2023 equal to the FMSY proxy of F50%. A retrospective adjustment was applied. Resulting catches at F50% are 13,525mt for 2021, 13,235mt for 2022 and 12,990mt for 2023. The first review by Peer Review Panel observed that the two stock size indices used in the ASAP model had been declining more steeply than the estimated biomass in the assessment. The Peer Review Panel considered rejecting the assessment on that basis but given that the ASAP modelling did not show other problems, the analyst was asked to explore ways to better fit recent survey indices. The analyst found that altering the weighting of the various data sources provided a better fit to recent indices and improved the retrospective pattern. The Peer Review Panel accepted the base case assessment but cautioned that it may overestimate stock size as indicated by the sensitivity run where a different weighting scheme was used. The Peer Review Panel concludes that the 2020 assessment update for Acadian redfish is technically sufficient to evaluate stock status and provide scientific advice. The assessment represents Best Scientific Information Available for this stock for management purposes. Retrospective adjustments were made to the model results. The Peer Review Panel concurs with the assessment that Acadian redfish are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.
Figure 1 – 2017 assessment outputs of Acadian Redfish (Sebastes fasciatus). (Source: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stocksmart?stockname=Acadian%20redfish%20- %20Gulf%20of%20Maine%20/%20Georges%20Bank&stockid=10455)
18 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Pollock (Pollachius virens) Biology. Pollock [Pollachius virens (Linnaeus, 1758)] is closely related to both cod and haddock and is part of the gadid family of fish. It is found throughout a similar range to both cod and haddock, occurring throughout the coastal and continental shelf region of the North Atlantic. In the Northwest Atlantic, it ranges from Greenland to North Carolina, in both inshore and offshore areas, typically forming shoals (Froese and Pauly, 2012). Pollock eggs and larvae are found in the water column. Juveniles are found inshore and move offshore as they grow older. When in inshore waters, juvenile pollock school in the open water at low tide, then scatter at high tide and hide in intertidal seaweed beds. Average fecundity is 220,000 eggs per female, but large fish may lay up to 4,000,000 eggs (Cohen et al., 1990). Pollock typically reach complete sexual maturity by age six. Spawning occurs from November through February with a peak in December. There is a major spawning area in the western Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank, and several areas on the Scotian Shelf (Mayo, 2006). The von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k) for Atlantic pollock ranges between 0.07 and 0.17 (Fishbase, 2007). Pollock can grow to over 3-1/2 feet long and 35 pounds and can live a long time, up to 23 years. Instantaneous annual natural mortality rate of 0.2 was used in previous assessments and corresponds to approximately 1% survival to age 24. Pollock, like haddock, has highly variable recruitment episodes, characterized by periods of low recruitment punctuated by exceptionally high years. Smaller fish in inshore waters feed on small crustaceans (copepods, amphipods, euphausiids) and small fish, while the large saithe prey predominantly upon fishes (Trophic level 4.3 ±0.4 se; based on diet studies.). Stock configuration. There is considerable movement of the species between the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. Thus, although some differences in meristic and morphometric characters have been shown, there are no significant genetic differences among areas (Mayo et al., 1989). As a result, the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine pollock (NAFO divisions 4V, 4W, 4X and subareas 5, 6) are assessed as a single unit. Status of the stock. The last available assessment of the pollock stock is an update of the existing 2017 operational assessment (NEFSC 2017). This assessment updates commercial and recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, the ASAP analytical models, and biological reference points through 2018. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2022. In what follows, there are two population assessment models brought forward from the 2017 operational assessment: the base model (dome-shaped survey selectivity), which is used to provide management advice; and the at sel sensitivity model (at-topped survey selectivity), which is included for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sensitivity of assessment results to survey selectivity assumptions. The most recent benchmark assessment of the pollock stock was in 2010 as part of the 50th Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 50; NEFSC 2010), which includes a full description of the model formulations. The pollock stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Retrospective adjustments were made to the model results. Retrospective adjusted spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2018 was estimated to be 212,416 (mt) under the base model and 71,322 (mt) under the at sel sensitivity model which is 170 and 101% (respectively) of the biomass target, an SSBMSY proxy of SSB at F40% (124,639 and 70,721 (mt); Figure 2 and Table 6 and Table 7). Retrospective adjusted 2018 age 5 to 7 average fishing mortality (F) was estimated to be 0.038 under the base model and 0.094 under the at sel sensitivity model, which is 14 and 36% (respectively) of the over threshold, an FMSY proxy of F40% (0.272 and 0.26; Figure 3). Short term projections of median total fishery yield and spawning stock biomass for pollock were conducted based on a harvest scenario of fishing at an FMSY proxy of F40% between 2020 and 2022. Catch in 2019 has been estimated at 5,140 (mt). Recruitments were sampled from a cumulative distribution function derived from ASAP estimated age 1 recruitment between 1970 and 2016. Recruitments in 2017 and 2018 were not included due to uncertainty in those estimates. The annual fishery selectivity, natural mortality, maturity ogive, and mean weights used in projections are the most recent 5-year averages. Retrospective adjusted age 5 to 7 average F in 2018 fell outside the 90% confidence intervals of the unadjusted 2018 value under the base model. Retrospective adjusted SSB and age 5 to 7 average F in 2018 fell outside the 90% confidence intervals of the unadjusted 2018 values under the at sel sensitivity model. Therefore, age-specific abundance rho values were applied to the initial numbers at age in the projections for the base model and the flat sel sensitivity model.
19 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 2 – Estimated trends in the spawning stock biomass of pollock between 1970 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding SSBThreshold (0.5 * SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dashed line) as well as SSBTarget (SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2019 assessment models base (A) and at sel sensitivity (B). Biomass was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The approximate 90% lognormal confidence intervals are shown. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Table 7 - Comparison of biological reference points for pollock estimated in the 2017 assessment and from the current base model and at sel sensitivity model. An FMSY proxy of F40% was used for the overfishing threshold and was based on yield per recruit analysis. FMSY is reported as the age 5 to 7 average F. Recruits represent the median of the predicted recruits. Intervals shown are 5th and 95th percentiles. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
20 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 3 - Estimated trends in age 5 to 7 average F (Favg) of pollock between 1970 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding FThreshold (FMSY proxy; dashed line) based on the 2019 assessment models base (A) and sel sensitivity (B). Favg was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The approximate 90% lognormal confidence intervals are shown. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Table 8 - Catch and status table for pollock. All weights are in (mt), recruitment is in (000s), and Favg is the age 5 to 7 average F. Unadjusted SSB and F estimates are reported. Model results are from the current base model and flat sel sensitivity model. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Biology. Atlantic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Linneaus 1758) is part of the family Gadidae that consists of cod, and pollock, among other species. They are considered one of the most important families of commercial fishes (FishBase, 2010). In the western north Atlantic, haddock occur from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in the south to the Strait of Belle Isle, Newfoundland in the north. Haddock stocks are most abundant in the areas off Cape Cod, the Gulf
21 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 of Maine and Nova Scotia. After fertilization occurs, eggs become buoyant, and float on the surface where subsequent development occurs. Haddock eggs have a wide range of salinity tolerance. Early-stage eggs concentrate near the surface, whereas later stages are distributed either uniformly over depth or with a sub-surface maximum. Larvae are generally pelagic at 10 m to 50 m depth over a period of three months or more. Juvenile haddock occupy bottom habitats following the larval phase but are found in shallower water on bank and shoal areas compared to larger adults that typically occur in deeper water. Both juvenile and adult haddock rarely occur near ledges, rocks, kelp or soft oozy mud. Although haddock may mature earlier than <3 years, 100 % of females are mature by age 3 in Eastern Georges Bank (5Zjm). Major spawning grounds for haddock in the Northwest Atlantic are Georges Bank, and on the Scotian Shelf, Browns Bank, Western, and Sable Island Banks. Haddock form spawning aggregations at various times of the year, although a seasonal peak of spawning occurs on Georges Bank in late-March through April (Brodziak, 2005). Spawning occurs on rocks, gravel, smooth sand, and mud (Klein-MacPhee, 2002). Haddock have high reproductive capacity. Annual egg production for a mature female is approximately 850,000 eggs with the potential of producing up to 3 million. A female will spawn batches of eggs near the bottom over rocks, gravel, smooth sand and mud at 1-to-2-day intervals over a period of 2 to 3 weeks. Age and size at maturity of haddock vary slightly among stocks, but in all stocks 50% of females are mature by age three. It has been suggested that selective fishing pressure may have reduced size at maturity of in Georges Bank haddock (Brodziak, 2005). The growth rate or von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (K) for haddock is 0.12–0.23. The maximum known age for haddock is 14 years, but only a small proportion of haddock survive past age 9 (Brodziak, 2005). Stock assessments for haddock currently assume a natural mortality rate of M = 0.20. Larval retention in suitable nursery habitats is an important determinant of the strength of haddock recruitment (i.e., the number of individuals surviving until the size of entry into the fishery) (Brodziak, 2005). Georges Bank distributions of haddock larvae are associated with gyres that tend to concentrate and maintain offspring over relatively shallow banks of the shelf, hereby playing a functional role in maintenance of stock integrity (O’Boyle, 1981). Smith and Morse (1985) found that haddock eggs and larvae originating on Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, and Scotian Shelf spawning grounds do not intermix, and hence, are geographically isolated and constitute separate stocks. Haddock recruitment on Georges Bank is highly variable, characterized by periods of low recruitment that are punctuated by exceptionally high years. For example, low recruitment on Georges Bank for the past 40 years has been punctuated by extremely high years in 1963, 2000 and 2003. Trophic level 4.0 ±0.1 se; based on diet studies. Stock configuration. Combined information from demographic, recruitment, meristic, parasitic, and genetic studies as well as tagging studies provide documentation of discrete haddock stocks, with major population divisions occurring between New England, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland waters. Status of the Georges Bank stock. The assessment of the Georges Bank haddock stock is a Level-2 operational update of the existing 2017 update virtual population analysis (VPA) assessment (NEFSC, 2017). The last benchmark for this stock was in 2008 (Brooks et al., 2008). Based on the previous assessment in 2017, the stock was not overfished, and overfishing was not occurring. This assessment updates commercial fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, weights and maturity at age, and the analytical VPA assessment model and reference points through 2018. Stock projections have been updated through 2022. Based on the updated assessment, the Georges Bank haddock stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring (Figure 4, Table 8 and Table 9). Retrospective adjustments were made to the model results. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2018 was estimated to be 507,130 (mt) which is 365% of the biomass target (SSBMSY proxy = 138,924). The 2018 average fishing mortality on ages 5-7 was estimated to be 0.061 which is 18% of the overfishing threshold proxy (FMSY proxy = 0.33; Figure 5). The FMSY proxy is expressed as the average F on ages 5-7 for comparability with the VPA estimated F. Short term projections of biomass were derived by sampling from a cumulative distribution function (CDF) of recruitment estimates from ADAPT VPA (corresponding to SSB>75,000 mt and dropping the two most recent year class estimates for 2017 and 2018). The extremely large 1963, 2003-, 2010-, 2013-, and 2016-year classes were included in the CDF. The annual fishery selectivity was a recent 5-year average except for the 2013-year class, which was assigned the same selectivity at age as the 2010-year class. The 2010- and 2013-year classes have demonstrated the slowest growth of any observed year classes in the time series. The maturity was a recent 5-year average. Mean weights at age were a recent 2-year average, except for the 2010- and 2013-year classes, where recent trends in growth were assumed to continue. Retrospective adjustments were applied to the starting numbers at ages (2019) in the projections (each age was multiplied by 0.59).
22 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 4 - Trends in spawning stock biomass of Georges Bank haddock between 1931 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding SSBThreshold (1/2 SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dashed line) as well as SSBTarget (SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2019 assessment. Biomass was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The 90% bootstrap probability intervals are shown. (Source: Groundfish Operational Assessments 2020).
Figure 5 - Trends in the average fishing mortality (F5-7) of Georges Bank haddock between 1931 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding FThreshold (FMSY proxy=0.33;
23 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 horizontal dashed line) based on the 2019 assessment. F5-7 was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red. The 90% bootstrap probability intervals are shown. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Table 9 - Catch and status table for Georges Bank haddock. All weights are in (mt), recruitment is in (000s), and F5-7 is the average fishing mortality on ages 5 to 7. Model results are from the current updated VPA assessment. A rho adjustment was not applied to values in this Table. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Table 10 - Comparison of reference points estimated in an earlier assessment and from the current assessment update. An F40% proxy was used for the overfishing threshold (simple average for the current assessment, numbers weighted average for the previous assessment). The medians and 90% probability intervals are reported for MSY, SSBMSY, and RMSY, based on long-term stochastic projections with fishing mortality fixed at F40%. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Status of the Gulf of Maine stock. The Gulf of Maine haddock assessment is an operational assessment of the existing benchmark assessment. Based on the previous assessment (NEFSC 2017), the stock was not overfished, and overfishing was not occurring. This assessment updates commercial and recreational fishery catch data, research survey indices of abundance, and the analytical ASAP assessment model and reference points through 2018. Additionally, stock projections have been updated through 2022. Based on this updated assessment, the stock status for the Gulf of Maine haddock stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Retrospective adjustments were made to the model results (see Special Comments section of this report). Spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2018 was estimated to be 82,763 (mt) which is 1035% of the biomass target (SSBMSY proxy = 7,993; Figure 6, Table 10 and Table 11). The 2018 fully selected fishing mortality was estimated to be 0.082 which is 22% of the overfishing threshold proxy (FMSY proxy = F40% = 0.369; Figure 7). Short term projections of median total fishery yield and spawning stock biomass for Gulf of Maine haddock were conducted based on a harvest scenario of fishing at the FMSY proxy between 2020 and 2022. Catch in 2019 has been estimated at 5,239 mt. Recruitment was sampled from a cumulative distribution function of model estimated age- 1 recruitment from 1977-2016. The age-1 estimate in 2019 was generated from the geometric mean of the 1977-2018 recruitment series. The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age used in the projections were estimated from the most recent 5-year averages. Retrospective adjustments were applied in the projections.
24 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 6 - Trends in spawning stock biomass (SSB) of Gulf of Maine haddock between 1977 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the corresponding SSBThreshold (1/2 SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dashed line) as well as SSBTarget (SSBMSY proxy; horizontal dotted line) based on the 2019 assessment. SSB was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is shown in red based on the 2019 assessment. The approximate 90% lognormal confidence intervals are shown. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Figure 7 - Trends in the fully selected fishing mortality (F) of Gulf of Maine haddock between 1977 and 2018 from the current (solid line) and previous (dashed line) assessment and the FThreshold (FMSY proxy=0.369; horizontal dashed line) from the 2019 assessment model. F in 2019 was adjusted for a retrospective pattern and the adjustment is
25 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 shown in red based on the 2019 assessment. The approximate 90% lognormal confidence intervals are shown. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
Table 11 - Catch and status table for Gulf of Maine haddock. All weights are in (mt) recruitment is in (000s) and FFull is the fully selected fishing mortality. Model results below are from the current updated ASAP assessment without retrospective adjustment. (Source: Groundfish Operational Assessments 2020).
Table 12 - Comparison of reference points estimated in an earlier assessment and from the current operational assessment. The overfishing threshold is the FMSY proxy ( F40%). The biomass target, (SSBMSY proxy) was based on long-term stochastic projections of fishing at the FMSY proxy. Median recruitment reflects the median estimated age-1 recruitment from 1977 - 2016. Intervals shown reflect the 5th and 95th percentiles. (Source: NEFSC, 2020).
7.2.2 Fishery management Off the eastern seaboard of the U.S., fish species are managed by defined management areas (Figure 8). Individual stocks of the same species may be managed by area (e.g., cod in GB and cod in GOM) or over the full range of the species (e.g., redfish). The Northern most areas are shared with Canada and since 1998 the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) has reviewed stock assessments and projections necessary to support management activities for shared resources across the USA Canada boundary in the GOM-GB sea areas. The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies management measures for thirteen groundfish species (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout) off the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. Most recently, Framework Adjustment 48 was partially implemented on May 1, 2014. The action revised the status determination criteria for several stocks, modified the sub-annual catch limit system, adjusted monitoring measures for the overall groundfish fishery, and changed several accountability measures. Framework Adjustment 50 was implemented on September 30, 2013 and set specifications for many groundfish stocks and modified the rebuilding program for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder. Framework Adjustment 51 was primarily intended to meet regulatory requirements by modifying the rebuilding programs and setting specifications for some of the groundfish stocks and continue to improve management of the fishery. It incorporates the results of new stock assessments into the specification- setting process, including catch limits governed by the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding and the distribution of ACLs to various components of the fishery. Framework 51 also established additional management measures related to U.S./Canada shared stocks and yellowtail flounder in the groundfish and scallop fisheries.
26 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Groups of fishing vessels (sectors) are each allotted a share (quota) of the total annual groundfish TACs based on the historical fishing of individual member boats in each sector. Each sector received quota for 9 of 14 groundfish species in the FMP and became exempt from many of the effort controls such as multispecies DAS limitations. Fishermen who chose not to belong to a sector operate under a common pool that maintains the traditional management tools of DAS and trip limits.
Figure 8 - Distribution of US Northeast Fisheries Management Areas. (Source: NOAA 2009).
There have been groundfish fisheries in NE Atlantic for over 200 years, commencing with sail boats. A Boston trawler fleet started in the 1920’s and this was followed by greater mechanisation, and freezing technology that led to greater commercialisation into the 1960s. Interest grew and distant water fishing fleets from European countries further added to fishing effort on groundfish species found in waters off the U.S until 1976 when US claimed 200-mile jurisdiction and implemented the MSA (Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act – (MSA). This led to the establishment of the NEFMC to manage the fisheries in this US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and in 1977 NEFMC produced its first fisheries management plan (FMP) covering cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder. Management measures included annual quotas, trip limits, minimum sizes and gear restrictions. Because of the new opportunities afforded by the EEZ, between 1975 and 1980 the size of the groundfish fleet almost doubled and overfishing and significant depletion of ground-fish stocks ensued. Since this time, the fishery has advanced and amended its management system progressively under the objectives of rebuilding stocks and developing sustainable fishing. In 1986, the FMP was implemented to reduce the fishing mortality (F) of heavily fished groundfish stocks and promote their rebuilding to sustainable biomass (B) levels. Management measures were applied to gears, areas (seasonal and permanent closures), minimum landing sizes, trip limits, access limits, and days at sea restrictions. Since that time, there have been a number of amendments to the FMP. In 2008, NEFSC conducted benchmark assessments for the 19 groundfish stocks managed under the NEMFMP. On 1 May 2010, a new management program, Amendment 16 to the NEMFMP was implemented to comply with the requirements of the MSRA. This amendment introduced two main changes. Firstly, “hard quota” annual limits on the total allowable catch (TAC) for all of the 20 stocks in the groundfish complex were introduced. Secondly, the use of fishing sectors was extended, strengthening the concept of improved management through the introduction of quasi- property rights. The New England fisheries for redfish, haddock, and pollock are managed by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) through the NEMFMP. Originally enacted in 1985, the NEMFMP has been amended a number of times to improve the management of the relevant fisheries, including the introduction of gear restrictions (e.g. mesh size, number of nets/hooks etc.), seasonal closures, spatial closures, minimum landing sizes, trip limits on poundage of fish landed, limited access (a restriction on the number of vessels able to work within the fishery), effort limits based on a days at sea (DAS) system, and most recently a system based on transferable quotas set against a hard annual catch limit (ACL). In 2010, Amendment 16 to the NEMFMP greatly expanded catch share, or sector-
27 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 based, management. The sectors function essentially as cooperatives, as they are self-selecting and largely self- regulating; albeit within a framework designated and closely monitored by federal agencies. The sectors are exempt from many of the effort controls previously used to manage the fishery; instead, they adhere to an overall hard quota known as an ACL, which is subdivided into Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE) allocated to each sector. The shift to output management instead of effort management enables efficiency gains by allowing increased operational efficiency. While the sectors are optional to join, the majority of fishers have chosen to participate. Sector vessels made 65% of all NE Multispecies landings in 2010, including 98% of groundfish and 54% of non-groundfish ((Kitts et al. 2011), (Labaree 2012), (Federal Register 2012)). Under the MSRA, 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 assessment) (Federal Register 2009a; Figure 9). Fishing mortality targets are set for each stock independently based on achieving MSY in the long term, therefore for stocks which are overfished (and may also be subject to overfishing) the target fishing mortality is set at a level which will have a reasonable probability (>50%) of ensuring rebuilding of the stock within the timeline set within the relevant rebuilding program. However, should a sector approach the ACE for one of the target stocks, then the area inhabited by that stock is closed to all gears capable of catching that stock, resulting in a potential ‘under-harvest’ of more abundant stocks. The sector system allows fishermen to share trade or lease quota within a fishery, reducing the chance of overfishing depleted stocks while targeting more abundant stocks; and if a sector is nearing its quota for a particular species, it may be possible to lease it from another sector. There have been some concerns with the management strategy in the past, particularly with respect to depleted stocks. In addition, in many cases target TACs have been set too high, due to errors in stock assessments, and there has been a need for increased precaution. The management system, however, has substantially changed under Amendment 16, which is expected to reduce the race to fish and improve conservation outcomes. For example, discarding appears to have been reduced, and the fishery now relies on hard ACLs (which include discards) rather than target TACs, all of which helps reduce the likelihood of exceeding sustainable fishing mortality rates for targeted stocks. In addition, sectors have not exceeded their ACEs, while in the past it was possible for target TACs to be exceeded, as the regulations were based on effort control (DAS) rather than output control (Kitts et al. 2011). The new management regime has not been in place long enough to fully assess its impact.
Figure 9 - Relationship between OFL, ABC, ACL, and ACT as described by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Source: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/frequent-questions-annual-catch-limit- monitoring).
7.2.3 Data collection Programme The Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) collects information from commercial and recreational fisheries and support the use of that information to inform fisheries science and management, bringing also the fisherman’s perspective into the federal process through collaboratively producing scientific information. NEAFC works directly 28 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 with fishermen and their vessels to collect information on fishery landings and fishing operations. NEAFC staff and observers accompany a subset of commercial fishing trips as observers or monitors. While aboard, NEAFC staff collects biological samples from the catch that are used for stock assessments and ecological studies. NEAFC staff also watch for interactions with protected species such as loggerhead sea turtles and harbor porpoises. NEAFC staff collects data reflecting: • Fishing effort • Catch kept for landing as well as that classified as bycatch and/or discarded • Trip costs • Vessel efficiency Further support at-sea activities by: • Processing the data and ensuring its quality • Training and certifying observers and at-sea monitors • Monitoring and sampling takes of protected species • Implementing the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology • Overseeing industry-funded observer programs • Evaluating electronic monitoring systems NEAFC provides certified biologists for at-sea fishery observing and monitoring. This kind of data collection requires significant training and skill to ensure that all data meet the high standards necessary to inform management decisions in our Northeast and Mid-Atlantic fisheries. NEAFC staff uses a variety of innovative techniques to teach a wide range of subjects, including: • Sampling methodology • Data documentation • Biological sampling • Species identification • Safety After each trip’s data is reported, our data processing staff thoroughly review it for quality assurance. They work with data collectors to address sampling issues and correct errors, ensuring that high quality data are available to stakeholders in a timely fashion. High quality and representative data underpin effective fisheries science. NEAFC staff manages data collected directly from the fisheries and develop modernized information systems to enhance our fisheries monitoring and research operations. We lead the development and/or maintenance of the following fisheries information systems or applications: • Northeast Electronic Monitoring Information System • Fishery Monitoring Portal • Observer Trip Editing System • Observer At Sea Information System • Pre-Trip Notification System • Observer Database System These systems or applications support a wide range of fisheries monitoring programs in the region. NEAFC staff expands and improves the effectiveness of collaborative research throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England. This collaboration enhances the data used to make fishery management decisions and increases coordination, communication, learning, and trust among scientists, managers, and members of the industry. NEAFC staff creates opportunities to leverage expertise, research infrastructure, and unique field and analytical skills that further constructive collaboration within the Northeast and with diverse regional partners. Emphasis is placed on working with industry to provide high quality fisheries and environmental data in near real-time to improve:
29 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
• The understanding of species distribution and environmental drivers • The predictive modelling of these factors • The precision of stock assessments • The temporal and spatial resolution of multi-species catch and life history data NEAFC staff is responsible for coordination, scientific and administrative oversight, peer review, and data archiving for NOAA Fisheries activities supported by Northeast and National cooperative research funds, as well as Congressionally funded non-governmental cooperative research programs. Research Set-Aside programs are unique to federal fisheries in the Greater Atlantic Region. No federal funds are provided to support the research. Instead, research funds are generated through the sale of set-aside allocations for quota managed or days-at-sea managed fisheries. There are active programs under the Atlantic Sea Scallop, Atlantic Herring, and Monkfish Fishery Management Plans.
The CAB shall include in the report a summary of the fishery based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:
- An outline of the fishery resources including life histories as appropriate. - An outline of status of stocks as indicated by stock assessments, including a description of the assessment methods, standards, and stock indicators, biological limits, etc. - Information on the seasonal operation of the fishery. - A brief history of fishing and management.
The CAB shall provide any information used as supporting rationale in the scoring tables.
The CAB shall indicate in the report whether the target species is key Low-Trophic Level (LTL). If there are multiple Principle 1 species, the CAB shall indicate in the report which are key LTL.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PA, Fisheries Standard v2.01
7.2.4 Catch profiles Catch profiles for the four UoA are available in Figure 1, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 10.
7.2.5 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data The CAB shall include in the report a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data table using the table below. If possible, a separate table should be provided for each species or gear.
Table X – Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
and catch data
TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
UoA share of TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
UoA share of total TAC Year YYYY Amount n, unit
Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC YYYY Amount n, unit recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC Amount most recent) YYYY n, unit
This table will be completed in the next draft of the report—data is not typically reported for this fishery in the above format. 30 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The following table was accessed at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectors/Commercial_Summary_2020.html
7.2.6 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
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
Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI). Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish) 31 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The most recent biomass estimate of Acadian Redfish is near 400,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 200,000 mt). According to GSA2.2.3.1 of MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.0, in the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This case covers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified. In the present case, BMSY is analytically determined as 200,000 mt kt but there is not estimate of B0. Assuming a precautionary approach PRI is determined as ½BMSY (around 100 mt). Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. However, the last stock assessment report is not yet available, and the values reported were available from 2020 Management Track Peer Review Panel Report (Maguire et al., 2020). During the site visit, the last stock assessment report with the relative time series of biomass and fishing mortality will be requested to better justify the scoring.
UoA 2 (Pollock) The most recent biomass estimates of pollock in Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank is near 277,000 mt which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 125,000 mt). According to GSA2.2.3.1 of MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.0, in the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This case covers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified. In the present case, BMSY is analitically determined as 125,000 mt kt but there is not estimate of B0. Assuming a precautionary approach PRI is determined as ½BMSY (around 62,500 mt). Taking into account that the lower confidence limit of the 2018 model base estimate of SSB is above PRI, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
UoA 3 (GOM Haddock) The most recent biomass estimate of haddock in Gulf of Maine is near 63,000 mt, which is above the analitically determined value of BMSY (around 8,000 mt). According to GSA2.2.3.1 of MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.0, in the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This case covers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified. In the present case, BMSY is analytically determined as 8,000 mt kt but there is not estimate of B0. Assuming a precautionary approach PRI is determined as ½BMSY (around 4,000 mt). Considering that the lower confidence limit of the 2018 model base estimate of SSB is above PRI, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
UoA 4 (GB Haddock) The most recent biomass estimate of haddock in Georges Bank is near 860,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 140,000 mt). According to GSA2.2.3.1 of MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.0, in the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0, and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½BMSY. This case covers the situation of low productivity stocks, where higher default PRIs may be justified. In the present case, BMSY is analytically determined as 140,000 mt kt but there is not estimate of B0. Assuming a precautionary approach PRI is determined as ½BMSY (around 70,000 mt). Taking into account that the lower confidence limit of the 2018 model base estimate of SSB is above PRI, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a b post level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish) No UoA 2 (Pollock) Yes Met? All UoAs: Yes UoA 3 (GOM Haddock) Yes UoA 4 (GB Haddock) No Rationale
UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish) The most recent biomass estimate of Acadian Redfish is near 400,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 200,000 mt). Therefore, it is clear that the stock is above a level consistent with MSY, and SG 80 is met. Considering that the time series of biomass at sea is not available it is not possible to conclude that there is degree of certainty that stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY over the recent years. Thus, SG
32 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
100 is not met. During the site visit the last stock assessment report with the relative time series of biomass and fishing mortality will be requested to better justify and in case increase the scoring.
UoA 2 (Pollock) The most recent biomass estimates of pollock in Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank is near 277,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 125,000 mt). In addition, the SSB lowest 90% lognormal confidence interval is above the SSBMSY since 1995, more than 2 generation time (Generation time: 7.3 (5.6 - 11.0) years, estimated as median ln(3)/K, based on 12 growth studies; see: https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Pollachius- virens.html). Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been above a level consistent with MSY over recent years, meeting SG 80 and 100.
UoA 3 (GOM Haddock) The most recent biomass estimate of haddock in Gulf of Maine is near 63,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 8,000 mt). In addition, the SSB lowest 90% lognormal confidence interval is above the SSBMSY, and the SSB is fluctuating around this value since 2000 and more than 2 generation time (Generation time: 4.8 (4.4 - 5.0) years, estimated as median ln(3)/K based on 40 growth studies; see: https://www.fishbase.se/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1381&AT=haddock). Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been above a level consistent with MSY over recent years, meeting SG 80 and 100.
UoA 4 (GB Haddock) The most recent biomass estimate of haddock in Georges Bank is near 860,000 mt, which is above the analytically determined value of BMSY (around 140,000 mt). In addition, the SSB lowest 90% lognormal confidence interval is above the SSBMSY since 2015, less than 2 generation time (Generation time: 4.8 (4.4 - 5.0) years, estimated as median ln(3)/K based on 40 growth studies; see: https://www.fishbase.se/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1381&AT=haddock). Therefore, the stock is at a level consistent with MSY meeting SG 80, but there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock has been above a level consistent with MSY over recent years, and SG 100 is not met.
References
NEFSC 2020, Maguire, et al., 2020
Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): 4 used in scoring ½BMSY 100,000 mt UoA 2 (Pollock): 4.4 stock relative to UoA 2 (Pollock): ½BMSY UoA 2 (Pollock): 62,500 mt UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): 15.8 PRI (SIa) UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): 4,000 UoA 4 (GB Haddock): 12.3 ½BMSY mt UoA 4 (GB Haddock): UoA 4 (GB Haddock): 70,000 ½BMSY mt Reference point UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): 2 used in scoring BMSY 200,000 mt UoA 2 (Pollock): 2.2 stock relative to UoA 2 (Pollock): BMSY UoA 2 (Pollock): 125,000 mt UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): 7.9 MSY (SIb) UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): 8,000 UoA 4 (GB Haddock): 6.1 BMSY mt UoA 4 (GB Haddock): BMSY UoA 4 (GB Haddock): 140,000 mt
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage UoA 1 (Acadian Redfish): ≥80 UoA 2 (Pollock): ≥80 Draft scoring range UoA 3 (GOM Haddock): ≥80 UoA 4 (GB Haddock): ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought
33 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
During the site visit the last stock assessment report with the relative updated time series of biomass and fishing mortality will be requested for UoA1.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
34 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not a Guide times its generation time. exceed one generation time post For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? NA NA
Rationale
The stocks are not depleted.
Rebuilding evaluation Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on b Guide stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, post timeframe. or previous performance that exploitation rates or previous they will be able to rebuild the performance that they will be stock within the specified able to rebuild the stock within timeframe. the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
The stocks are not depleted.
References
The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range NA
Information gap indicator -
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
35 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to Guide a reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish are all managed by the New England Fishery Management Council under a single management plan, the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Northeast Multispecies FMP). The Northeast multispecies FMP (large-mesh and small-mesh) includes a total of 13 species of groundfish (Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, American plaice, Atlantic halibut, redfish, ocean pout, white hake, and wolffish) harvested from three geographic areas: Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Bight, and represents 19 distinct stocks (NEFMC, 1986). In 1986, the NEFMC implemented the Northeast Multispecies FMP with the goal of rebuilding stocks. In 1994 Amendment 5 to the FMP limited access to the multispecies fishery to any vessel that could document the landing of one pound of groundfish during the previous five years. After 1994, the fishery was managed through a variety of effort control measures including days at sea (DAS), area closures, trip limits, minimum size limits, and gear restrictions. Partially in response to those regulations, landings decreased throughout the latter part of the 1980s until reaching a more or less constant level of around 40,000 tons (36,287 mt) annually since the mid-1990s. In 2004, the final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP allowed for self-selecting groups of limited access groundfish permit holders to form sectors. These sectors developed a legally binding operations plan and operated under an allocation of Georges Bank cod. While approved sectors were subject to general requirements specified in Amendment 13, sector members were exempt from DAS and some of the other effort control measures that tended to limit the flexibility of fishermen. The 2004 rule also authorized implementation of the first sector, the GB Cod Hook Sector. A second sector, the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, was authorized in 2006. Through Amendment 16, the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) sought to rewrite groundfish sector policies with a scheduled implementation date of May 1, 2009. When that implementation date was delayed until fishing year (FY) 2010, the NMFS Regional Administrator announced that, in addition to a previously stated 18 percent reduction in DAS, interim rules would be implemented to reduce fishing mortality during FY 2009. These interim measures generally reduced opportunity among groundfish vessels through: − differential DAS counting depending on the area fished, − elimination of the Southern New England (SNE) / Mid-Atlantic (MA) winter flounder Special Access Program (SAP) and elimination of the state waters winter flounder exemption − revisions to incidental catch allocations, and − a reduction in some groundfish allocations. In 2007, the Northeast Multispecies fishery included 2,515 permits. Of these permits about 1,400 were limited access, and 658 vessels actively fished. (Numerous lobster boats were given limited access multispecies permits based on their incidental catch of groundfish in lobster pots, but Amendment 5 prohibited the retention of any groundfish caught in lobster traps.) The active groundfish vessels included a range of gear types including hook, bottom longline, gillnet, and trawlers (NEFMC 2009a). In FY 2009, between 40 and 50 of these vessels were members of the Georges Bank Cod Sectors. The passage of Amendment 16 prior to FY 2010 issued in a new era of sector management in the New England groundfish fishery. Over 50 percent of eligible northeast groundfish multispecies permits and over 95 percent of landings history were associated with sectors in FY 2010. Approximately 56 percent of the eligible northeast
36 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 groundfish multispecies permits constituting between approximately 99.4 percent and 77.5 percent of the various species ACLs were included in sectors for FY 2011. The remaining vessels were common pool groundfishing vessels. Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP was finally implemented for the New England groundfish fishery starting on May 1st 2010, the start of the 2010 fishing year. The new management program contained two substantial changes meant to adhere to the catch limit requirements and stock rebuilding deadlines of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSFCMA). The first change developed “hard quota” annual catch limits (ACLs) for all 20 stocks in the groundfish complex (Figure 9). The second change expanded the use ofSectors, which are allocated subdivisions of ACLs called Annual Catch Entitlements (ACE) based on each sector’s collective catch history. Sectors are incorporated entities that must have operations plans approved by NMFS. Sectors determine their own membership rules and allocation procedures, although all sectors have distributed the overall sector allocation in proportion to the allocation of each member permit. Sector members do not necessarily share any geographical, boat size, or gear type characteristics, although some do. Sectors received ACE for nine of 13 groundfish species (14 stocks + quotas for Eastern U.S./ Canada cod and haddock; 16 ACEs) in the FMP and became exempt from many of the effort controls previously used to manage the fishery. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Standard 1 as described in the Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 11, 16 Jan 2009, (50 CFR part 600), sets Annual Catch Limits (ACL) at 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 Limit (OFL) to account for scientific uncertainty in the in the stock assessment. Fishing mortality targets are set for each stock independently based on achieving MSY in the long term, therefore for stocks that are overfished, the target fishing mortality is set at a level which will have a reasonable probability (>50%) of ensuring the rebuilding of the stock within the timeline set in the relevant rebuilding program. However, should a sector approach the ACE for one of the target stocks, then the area inhabited by that stock is closed to all gears capable of catching that stock, resulting in a potential ‘under-harvest’ of more abundant stocks. The sector system allows fishermen to share, trade or lease quota within a fishery, reducing the chance of overfishing depleted stocks while targeting more abundant stocks; and if a sector is nearing its quota for a particular species, it may be possible to lease it from another sector. There have been some concerns with the management strategy in the past, particularly with respect to depleted stocks. In addition, in many cases target TACs have been set too high, due to errors in stock assessments, and there has been a need for increased precaution. The management system, however, has substantially changed under Amendment 16, which is expected to reduce the race to fish and improve conservation outcomes. For example, discarding appears to have been reduced, and the fishery now relies on hard ACLs (which include discards) rather than target TACs, all of which helps reduce the likelihood of exceeding sustainable fishing mortality rates for targeted stocks. In addition, sectors have not exceeded their ACEs, while in the past it was possible for target TACs to be exceeded, as the regulations were based on effort control (DAS) rather than output control. The harvest strategy as described above for all four UoA stock units (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock, and Acadian redfish) is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, specifically, that it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI (SIa), and that the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY (SIb). Therefore, all four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 100 level for SI a in PI 1.2.1.
Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is b post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: No
Rationale
All four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) are managed under a single FMP, that is supported by an operational framework with 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 37 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
2015 Operational Assessment of Northeast Groundfish Stocks, updated through 2014, demonstrates that the four UoAs are 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 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 four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all met the SG80 requirements, but do not fully meet the SG 100 level requirements. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is c Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.
Met? All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoA stocks, the NMFS NEFSC has a program of fishery independent, seasonal scientific trawl surveys for fishery resources on US northeast coast. This is complemented with a program of fishery dependent surveys including an at-sea observer program, dockside sampling, logbooks, 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. Therefore, the four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all met the SG60 requirements that the monitoring that is in place will determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? All UoAs: Yes
Rationale Appropriate to all four UoA stocks, the harvest strategy is based on the Magnuson Stevens Act as implemented by the NEFMC through the Northeast Multispecies 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. Therefore, the four UoAs (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all met the SG100 requirements that the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of e Guide not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
Sharks are not a target species. f Review of alternative measures
38 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoA stocks, as part of the annual monitoring program of New England fisheries as conducted by the NEFSC there is the evaluation and analysis of the discards in the trawl fishery based on observer data. 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. In 2011 the NMFS published the National Bycatch Report, and it is periodically updated. In 2016, update 2 was released. The next edition of this report is scheduled for 2017. Updated versions of this report are released on a biennial basis. The report specifically evaluates the new England large mesh otter trawl fishery, among many other US fisheries. Therefore, the all four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) met 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 they are implemented, as appropriate References Federal Register. 2009. Vol. 74, No. 11, 16 Jan 2009, (50 CFR part 600) National Standards. New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2009. Final Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan. NEFMC. Newburyport, MA. NMFS. 2011. 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. 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- editionupdate-1 NMFS. 2016. 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.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
39 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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 Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoAs stocks, the current regulations, which were implemented by Amendment 16 in 2010, implement new requirements under MSRA of 2006 (NEFMC, 2009). The MSRA requires the NEFMC to determine 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 stock. Amendment 16 to the Groundfish FMP established an ABC control rule, as described in PI 1.1.2 SIa. The process of setting the ACL, OFL and ABC is described in the following. 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 NEFMC approves final ACLs, but cannot exceed the SSC’s recommended levels. ACLs may be broken into subcomponents for different segments of the fishery, including state waters, commercial, recreational, sectors, and the common pool. Although the following stocks do have ACLs, possession is prohibited due to their overfished status: SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, and wolffish. In addition, halibut catch is limited to one fish per trip. Northeast Multispecies permit holders are eligible to receive an allocation for the remaining 14 groundfish stocks. ABC recommendations for the Northeast Multispecies 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. Amendment 16 adopted a system of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measure (AMs) that are designed to ensure catches remain below desired targets for each stock in the management complex. The National Standard Guidelines provide advisory guidance (that does not have the effect or force of law) for the implementation of these requirements. AMs are management controls to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur. AMs should address and minimize both the frequency and magnitude of overages and correct the problems that caused the overages in as short a time as possible. AMs can be either in season AMs or AMs for when the ACL is exceeded. NMFS has acknowledged in the publication of the guidelines that there is no requirement that AMs and ACLs be implemented as hard TACs or quotas, but conservation and management measures must be implemented so that the ACL is not exceeded, and AMs must apply if the ACL is exceeded. While many measures in the management program are intended to control fishing mortality and might be interpreted to be AMs since they are “management controls to prevent the ACL from being exceeded,” the term AM is usually applied to specific, automatic measures that are implemented either as an ACL is approached or after an ACL is exceeded. These regulations require a reduction in exploitation using reduced ACLs that are implemented through AMs, so that as once a stock is below the target biomass level (Bmsy), exploitation is reduced as the stock approaches PRI (1/2 Bmsy). Therefore the four UoAs stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all meet the SG60 requirements, that is generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached, the SG80 requirements, that is well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and the SG100 requirements, that is the HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY.
40 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role b of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.
Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: No
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoAs stocks, the HCRs are considered to be robust to the main uncertainties. As described in the justification of PI1.2.2 SIa, the uncertainties in management (i.e., landings) and scientific (i.e., model error) are now identified, quantified and must be accounted for in setting ACLs. As noted in prior justifications related to the HCR, the management current regulations were implemented under the MSRA of 2006. This legislation requires the NEFMC 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 NEFMC approves the final ACL, but that value cannot exceed the SSC's recommended value. ACLs may be divided into subcomponents for different segments of the fishery, including state waters, commercial, recreational, sectors, and the common pool. Although the following stocks do have ACLs, possession is prohibited due to their overfished status: SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, and wolffish. In addition, halibut catch is limited to one fish per trip. Northeast Multispecies permit holders are eligible to receive an allocation for the remaining 14 groundfish stocks. ABC recommendations for the Northeast Multispecies 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 HCRs can likely to account for the main uncertainties, but do not consider for a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock and the level of connectivity with other areas, and there is no evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Therefore, the four UoAs stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all met the SG80 requirements, but not the SG 100 requirements.
HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoA stocks, the evidence (stock status and fishing mortality rates relative to targets) clearly demonstrate that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. The most recent information of the stock status and exploitation level for the four stocks is available in NEFSC, 2020 and Maguire, et al., 2020. The current fishing mortality rates observed for the four stocks (see tables: Table 6 to Table 11 and figures: Figure 1, 3, 5 and 6) are always below the FMSY level and the biomass of each stock is increasing in the last years. Therefore, the tools in use as the catch fishing limits are part of the HCR that is effective. In addition, the lower levels of F observed when the biomass was reduced in the past is a clear evidence that the tools in use are maintaining the stock above a target level consistent with BMSY. Thus, SG 60, 80 and 100 are met.
References
41 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2009. Final Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan. NEFMC. Newburyport, MA. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Operational Assessment of 20 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated Through 2014. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 15-24; 251 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http:// www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/. NEFSC 2020, Maguire, et al., 2020
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information about the tools in use and the Information gap indicator evidence to show that are effective will be requested duing the site visit (especially for Acadian redfish)
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
42 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock Guide support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals a the harvest strategy. and other information such as post environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoAs stocks, there is a comprehensive range of available 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. This information is used in stock assessments (NEFSC, 2015; 2020). 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. Fishery information including 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 government management agency. The NEFSC observer program provides about 20% coverage of the bottom trawl fishery in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank areas. Dockside monitoring includes weigh out information on landings and biological sampling. This data is corroborated with dealer reports and vessel trip reports (VTRs). Therefore, the four UoAs stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 60, 80, and 100 requirements.
Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by 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 with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a b support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: No
Rationale
43 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Appropriate to all four UoAs stocks, abundance is monitored by way of two annual RV bottom trawl surveys (NMFS spring and fall), which provide ongoing, fishery-independent indices of abundance and biomass at age as well as detailed information on size, age and maturity composition. Observer coverage of UoA removals is carried out to monitor with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Therefore SG 60 and 80 are met. While monitoring is carried out with a high degree of certainty, there is not a good understanding of inherent uncertainties as the dispersal pathways and population connectivity, which are important for devising effective harvest strategies. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock.
Met? All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Appropriate to all four UoA stocks, the gears used to prosecute other fisheries for the four UoA species tend to capture a variety of groundfish species, whether they are the target of the fishery or not. Federal management agencies are responsible for accounting for all fishing mortality quota for all the gears used by the commercial fisheries. 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 included landings and discards from both the commercial and recreational fleets. The other fisheries (gillnet and hook and line) that also remove the UoA species are required to have 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 the four UoAs (NEFSC, 2015; 2020). Therefore, the four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 80 requirements.
References
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2015. Operational Assessment of 20 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated Through 2014. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 15-24; 251 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http:// www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/.
NEFSC, 2020.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information about the observed coverage of Information gap indicator the UoAs removals, stock connectivity and index of abundances available will be requested during the site visit.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
44 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
All four UoA stocks are assessed using age structured models that are most appropriate for relatively long lived species, that are easily aged so as to be able to identify specific year classes. As a result, age specific survey abundance and landings data are available that are used in the assessment models. These assessment models provide age specific biomass estimates, fishing mortality estimates, and allow for the understanding of recruitment processes. These models best account for the selective age specific mortality of the fishery, are appropriate for the stock and the harvest control rule, and the biology and nature of the species. As implemented these models provide estimates of the uncertainty in the estimated values and are used to develop reference points. Therefore, the four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 80 and 100 level requirements.
Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated.
Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
Relative to all four UoCs, the stock assessments estimate stock status relative to both 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 (NEFSC, 2020). Therefore, the four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) all meet the SG 60 and 80 level requirements.
Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: No
Rationale
For all four UoA stocks, the assessment takes into account uncertainty, but the uncertainty related with the level of connectivity with other populations is not clearly defined. For GOM haddock, the evaluation of stock status is based on results from an age structured analytical assessment (Virtual Population Analysis, VPA) that uses fishery catch statistics and sampling for size and age composition of the catch (including discards). The VPA is calibrated to trends in abundance from three bottom trawl survey series: NMFS 45 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 spring, NMFS fall and DFO winter. Robustness testing includes model fit diagnostics and retrospective analyses are conducted to detect any tendency to consistently overestimate or underestimate fishing mortality, biomass and recruitment relative to the terminal year estimates. Model projections provide a basis for determining probability of exceeding Fref for a range of catch options. For GB haddock, the evaluation of stock status is based on results from an age structured analytical assessment (Virtual Population Analysis, VPA) that uses fishery catch statistics and sampling for size and age composition of the catch (including discards). The VPA is calibrated to trends in abundance from three bottom trawl survey series: NMFS spring, NMFS fall and DFO winter. Robustness testing includes model fit diagnostics and retrospective analyses are conducted to detect any tendency to consistently overestimate or underestimate fishing mortality, biomass and recruitment relative to the terminal year estimates. Model projections provide a basis for determining probability of exceeding Fref for a range of catch options. For pollock, the evaluation of stock status is based on results from a statistical catch at age model, ASAP (Age Structured Assessment Program v2.0.20). ASAP is an age-structured model that uses forward computations assuming separability of fishing mortality into year and age components to estimate population sizes given observed catches, catch-at-age, and indices of abundance. The ASAP model is calibrated to trends in abundance from three bottom trawl survey series: NMFS spring, NMFS fall. Robustness testing includes model fit diagnostics and retrospective analyses are conducted to detect any tendency to consistently overestimate or underestimate fishing mortality, biomass and recruitment relative to the terminal year estimates. Model projections provide a basis for determining probability of exceeding Fref for a range of catch options. For Acadian Redfish, the evaluation of stock status is based on results from a statistical catch-at-age model, ASAP (Age Structured Assessment Program v2.0.20). ASAP is an age-structured model that uses forward computations assuming separability of fishing mortality into year and age components to estimate population sizes given observed catches, catch-at-age, and indices of abundance. The ASAP is calibrated to trends in abundance from three bottom trawl survey series: NMFS spring, NMFS fall. Robustness testing includes model fit diagnostics and retrospective analyses are conducted to detect any tendency to consistently overestimate or underestimate fishing mortality, biomass and recruitment relative to the terminal year estimates. Model projections provide a basis for determining probability of exceeding Fref for a range of catch options. Therefore, the four UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 60 and 80. However, the stock assessment methods employed do not identify and take into account major sources of uncertainties related to the metapopulation structure and SG100 level requirements are not met.
Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
For all four UoA stocks, the assessment model used in subject to 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. The characteristics of individual models used to assess stock status are described in the previous PI SI justifications and in the introduction section of this report. Therefore, the UoA stocks (GOM haddock, GB haddock, pollock and Acadian redfish) meet the SG 100 level requirements.
Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? All UoAs: Yes All UoAs: Yes
Rationale
46 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
NMFS conduct internal reviews and occasionally a framework review/assessment is carried out that is subject to review by external experts (see Maguire, et al., 2020 as example). Therefore, SG 80 and 100 are met for all the UoA stocks. References
NEFSC 2020, Maguire, et al., 2020.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information about the degree of self- Information gap indicator recruitment and demographic connectivity among sub-populations will be requested during the site visit.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
47 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background Species categorization in P2: Primary species in Principle 2 are those that meet the following criteria: • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA; • Species that are within scope of the MSC program as defined in FCR 7.4.1.1; and • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.
Secondary species are classified as follows: • They are not considered ‘primary’ as defined in SA 3.1.3; or • They are out of scope for MSC certification (i.e., birds, reptiles or mammals) but are not ETP species.
The team determined that catches averaging below approximately 0.1% of total catch would have little impact on the status of incidental species, considered smaller catches as de minimis, and did not further consider them. We designate “main” primary and secondary species as those which comprise at least 5% of the total catch, or at least 2% of the total catch for “more vulnerable/less resilient” species, whose life history characteristics may make them more prone to overexploitation. All “out of scope” secondary species must be classified as “main.” Habitats categorization in P2: MSC requires that if a fishery interacts with benthic habitats, they shall be categorized according to the characteristics “substratum, geomorphology, and biota,” and requires that encountered habitats are classified as “commonly encountered, VME, or minor/other” according to the following definitions: • “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 GSA3.13.3.22) [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.
7.3.2 Overview of Non-target Catch Species caught in this fishery are reported by GARFO in their commercial catch summary tables. These tables include catch and discards of species taken in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery by bottom trawl gear. Data used is an average of the GARFO summary catch tables for 3 years, 2018-2020 (US Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock otter trawl fishery 3rd Surveillance Report SAI Global, 2020). These data were the best available at the time of writing this ACDR and will be updated following the site visit. Data sources for this report include: (1) Vessels via VMS; (2) Vessels via vessel logbook reports; (3) Dealers via Dealer Electronic reporting; (4) Observers and at-sea monitors via the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program. Differences with previous reports are due to corrections made to the database. These data are from the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Monitoring Reports (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/h/nemultispecies.html).
48 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Table 13 Catch composition trawl data in metric tons. The target species are marked in green. Species in pink are the main primary (only white hake at 9.4%). All primary minor species are marked in yellow. GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and GB Witch Flounder GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and GB Witch Flounder are below the 5% threshold but because are all considered depleted, they are classified as minor primary due to their vulnerability. Plaice, just below the 5% threshold can still be considered as minor primary. Anything below 0.5% is not considered. (Table reference US Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock otter trawl fishery Surveillance Report SAI Global 2020).
05/01, 2019-04/30, 2020 05/01, 2018-04/30, 2019 05/01, 2017-04/30, 2018
Main Primary Species
A summary of status, management and information for White Hake, the only main primary species identified.
White Hake (Urophycis tenuis)
(Information adapted from: ://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/white-hake, unless otherwise stated)
The white hake stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The white hake stock shows no truncation of age structure. There may be a year class (2015 Age 1) that is above average. Also, estimates of commercial landings 49 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 and discards have decreased over time. There are multiple primary sources of uncertainty affecting this stock. Catch at age information is not well characterized due to possible misidentification of species in the commercial and observer data, particularly in early years, low sampling of commercial landings in some years, and sparse discard length data, particularly in early years. Since the commercial catch is aged primarily with survey age/length keys, there is considerable augmentation required, mainly for ages 5 and older. The numbers at age and mean weights at age in the catch for these ages may therefore not be well specified. White hake may move seasonally into and out of the defined stock area. There is no commercial catch at age data prior to 1989 and the catchability of older ages in the surveys is very low. This results in a large uncertainty in starting numbers at age. Since 2003, dealers have apparently been culling extra-large fish out of the large category. However, there was no market category for landings until June 2014. The length compositions are distinct from fish characterized as large and have been identified since 2011. This may bias the age composition of the landings, particularly in 2014 when 2000 of the 5000 large samples were these extra-large fish. A pooled age/length key is used for 1963-1981 and fall 2003 (second half of commercial key). (Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2017) Operational Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated through 2016).
According to the 2017 operational assessment, white hake is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. NOAA Fisheries and the New England Fishery Management Council manage the fishery. White hake, along with other groundfish in New England waters, is managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. White hake, along with other groundfish in New England waters, is managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, which includes:
o Permitting requirements for commercial vessels. o Separate management measures for recreational vessels. o Time/Area Closures to protect spawning fish and habitat. o Minimum fish sizes to prevent harvest of juvenile fish, although there is no minimum size for white hake. o Annual catch limits based on best available science. o An optional sector (catch share) program can be used for cod and other groundfish species. The sector program allows fishermen to form harvesting cooperatives and work together to decide when, where, and how they harvest fish.
(Source: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stocksmart?app=browse_by_stock&stockid=10518)
Figure 10 GB and GOM White hake 2019 trends in abundance and recruitment. Source: NEFSC 2019
Table 14 Comparison of reference points estimated in the 2015 and 2017 White hake stock assessments. An F40% proxy was used for the overfishing threshold and was based on long-term stochastic projections which sampled from a cumulative distribution function of recruitment estimates from ASAP from 1963-2014. The annual fishery selectivity, maturity ogive, and mean weights at age used in the projection are the most recent
50 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
5-year averages. Source: NEFSC (2017) Operational Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated through 2016.
Table 15 Summary of main primary species information relative to key metrics for scoring PI 2.1.1.
Stock SSB or proxy value (year of Stock relative to PRI Reference Score for most recent stock assessment) 2.1.1. a
White Hake SSB in 2016 was estimated to Bmsy (2018): 31,828 Metric Northeast 80 be 21,276 (mt) which is 69% of Tons Fisheries the biomass target (SSBMSY Science Center. proxy = 30,948. The 2016 fully Biomass/PRI (1/2Bmsy) = (2017) selected fishing mortality was 0.99855473 Operational estimated to be 0.066 which is Assessment of 36% of the overfishing 19 Northeast threshold proxy (FMSY proxy = Groundfish 0.1839) Stocks, Updated through 2016 Biomass estimate (2018): 15,891 Metric Tons https://www.st.n mfs.noaa.gov/st ocksmart?stockn ame=White%20 hake%20- %20Gulf%20of% 20Maine%20/%2 0Georges%20B ank&stockid=10 518
Minor Primary Species
At the time of the ACDR, not all the minors were assessed. Minor primary species will be evaluated in the next version of the report.
Main Secondary
None of the seabirds qualify for ETP classification, and thus they are considered "secondary main" species. We identified 11 seabird species to be in the vicinity of this fishery. In subsequent versions of this report, we will confirm the list when we have actual fishery data. We will provide more information on specific encounters and follow up with population status information. Table 15 lists "secondary main" species and their population trends:
Table 16 Secondary Main species and their population trends Common Name Scientific Name Population Trend Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis Stable Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus Decreasing 51 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
White-winged Scoter Melanitta deglandi Decreasing Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Decreasing Common Eider Somateria mollissima Unknown Thin-billed Murre Uria aalge Increasing Common Loon Gavia immer Stable Corys Shearwater Puffinus diomedea Decreasing Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus Unknown Herring Gull Larus argentatus Decreasing Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis Increasing
The greater shearwater population is estimated as stable at around 15 million individuals and is classified as “least concern” on the IUCN red list because of its extremely large range, and stable and large population size. Of the remaining species, the population sizes of northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), common loon (Gavia immer) and thin-billed (common) murre (Uria aalge) are either stable or improving, and all are “least concern” on the IUCN red list. Population trends for common eider (Somateria mollissima), and Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus) are unknown. Common eider has a population size of 3.1-3.8 million globally and is near threatened on the IUCN red list, although this is due to decreases in population in Europe (overfishing is listed as one of the threats), thought to be compensated for at least partly by increases elsewhere in the world. Eiders are not necessarily highly likely above biologically based limits. Manx shearwater has an extremely large range and a population size of between 680,000 and 790,000 individuals globally. It is evaluated as least-concern on the IUCN red list due to its large range and population size. Although the population trend is unknown, it is not thought to be declining at a rate necessary to consider reclassification as near threatened. Populations of sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), white-winged scoter (Melanitta deglandi), black scoter (Melanitta nigra), Cory’s shearwater (Puffinus Diomedea), and herring gull (Larus argentatus) are all thought to be decreasing across their ranges. Herring gull has a global population of 1.37-1.62 million individuals and IUCN red list “least concern”. Although the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is currently thought to be part of a longer-term fluctuation following previous increases. Its range is throughout northern Europe, so interaction with a fishery in the western Atlantic seems unusual. Sooty shearwater has a global population of roughly 20 million individuals. This species is classified as Near Threatened on the IUCN red list because it is thought to have undergone a moderately rapid decline owing to the impact of fisheries, the harvesting of its young for traditional purposes in New Zealand (trapping and killing an estimated 250 thousand birds per year) and possibly climate change. The population size of white-winged scoter is unknown. Although it is thought to be declining, the rate of decline is not sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for vulnerable under the IUCN population trend criterion. The distribution of this species extends along both the Pacific and Atlantic US and Canadian coasts of North America and they breed in north-western Canada and Alaska, where there is subsistence harvest and sport take of birds from breeding colonies (also for black scoters). According to Koneff et. al (2017) white-winged scoters are at moderate risk of overharvest (direct take for subsistence or sport) and estimated an “allowable harvest” level of 13,068 birds. Koneff et. al. (2017) also included eastern and western black scoter in their analysis of harvest and information needs for North American sea ducks. They evaluated eastern black scoter as lowest risk of overharvest with an estimated allowable harvest of 39,062 individuals. This species is listed as near threatened on the IUCN red list and has a global population of 530,000-830,000 individuals. Black scoters are subject to a combination of threats and ongoing impacts. These include contaminants in the food chain, subsistence harvest, sport harvest, and habitat disturbance and fragmentation, including large-scale habitat disturbance from resource-extraction industries in the Bering Sea of Alaska and in north-central Canada, and hydrologic projects in northern Quebec (Sea Duck Joint Venture 2016). Hunting accounts for roughly 15,000 black scoter mortalities annually.
Seabird management
Migratory bird conventions impose substantive obligations on the United States for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and these migratory bird conventions have been implemented with respect to the United States through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act). Executive Order 13186 (2012) directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Act. Relevant to NOAA and NOAA fisheries, this executive order includes the following directions:
…identify where unintentional take reasonably attributable to agency actions is having, or is likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. With respect to those actions so identified, the agency shall develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen the amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the Service. These principles, standards, and practices shall be regularly evaluated and revised to ensure that they are effective in lessening the detrimental effect of agency actions on migratory bird populations. The agency also shall inventory and monitor bird habitat and populations within the agency’s capabilities and authorities to the extent feasible to facilitate decisions about the need for, and effectiveness of, conservation efforts:
52 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
To this end, the National Seabird Program within NOAA fisheries has been developed. The following text is excerpted from the National Seabird Program website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/bycatch/seabirds The National Seabird Program, formed in 2001, comprises managers and scientists form across NOAA Fisheries working domestically and internationally to protect and conserve seabirds. Activities are guided by a number of statutes and agency priorities, and the program has two overarching goals: Monitor and Mitigate Bycatch: NOAA Fisheries is directly responsible for monitoring and mitigating bycatch in U.S. fisheries and supports a variety of international agreements and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to mitigate bycatch associated with non-U.S. fisheries. Promote Seabirds as Ecosystem Indicators: Seabirds are excellent indicators of ecosystem status. As highly migratory, near-apex predators, they travel across trophic levels, space, and time, and are easily studied relative to other marine species. This makes them excellent sources of information for ecosystem-based fisheries management plans, a holistic framework for ensuring that our fisheries are sustainable. The National Seabird Program has representatives who sit on various working groups and steering committees focused on national and international coordination of efforts to manage and conserve seabirds. The National Seabird Program is a nationally coordinated program that benefits from significant leveraging at the regional level. Included in the National Seabird Program are several national and regional initiatives aimed at reducing seabird bycatch, including in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, however, longline fisheries are the current highest priority for seabird bycatch reduction action.
Seabird mortalities in all fisheries are monitored and recorded as part of the standard protocols of the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program.
Endangered Threatened and Protected (ETP) and other out of scope species
The definition of ETP species includes those protected by national or international legislation, and names a number of international lists/agreements where, if a species is listed, it must be considered as ETP, regardless of other national protection. The list of agreements is as follows: • Annex 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA is not endangered; • Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP); • Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA); • Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS); • Wadden Sea Seals Agreement; and • Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). • Any out of scope species (birds, mammals or reptiles) not otherwise protected under the above or national legislation, but with a status of Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Threatened on the IUCN red list.
The legislative basis for the protection of ETP species in the United States is found in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
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 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 53 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
(Incidental Take Statements; ITS), with the requirement of a conservation plan to minimize and mitigate impacts to the affected species. Section 4(f) ESA directs NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop and implement recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement works with the U.S. Coast Guard and other partners to enforce and prosecute ESA violations (NOAA).
Recovery plans are to include: (1) a description of site-specific management actions necessary to conserve the species or populations; (2) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, will allow the species or populations to be removed from the endangered and threatened species list; and (3) estimates of the time and funding required to achieve the plan’s goals. Each ESA-listed species has a recovery plan, and regular updates on progress toward recovery.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), enacted in 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. For a more detailed explanation of the MMPA is see the Marine Mammals Section.
There is a formal review in place to evaluate the impact of fisheries on ETP species, to measure the performance of the measures implemented and to take corrective actions as necessary. These reviews are documented in Biological Opinions (BO) given within the ESA Section 7 consultation.
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.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) classifies commercial fisheries on its List of Fisheries (LOF) each year, according to the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occur in the given fishery. The classification of the fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements. The Northeast bottom trawl fishery is Category II. The classification is given based on the marine mammal for which the expected impact is highest:
Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).
Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).
Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level (i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).
For the Northeast bottom trawl fishery, the basis for classification as Category II is interactions with western north Atlantic white-sided dolphins. 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. The fishery is primarily managed by TACs, individual trip limits (quotas), effort caps (limited number of days at sea per vessel), time and area closures, and gear restrictions under several interstate and federal FMPs.
54 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 11 MMPA List of Fisheries 2021. Source NOAA Fisheries 2021
State of the Ecosystem 2020 Protected species include marine mammals (under the Marine Mammal Protection Act), endangered and threatened species (under the Endangered Species Act). In the Northeast US, endangered/threatened species include Atlantic salmon, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, all sea turtle species, and 5 baleen whales. Fishery management objectives for protected species generally focus on reducing threats and on habitat conservation/restoration (source https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23890).
Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and this stock is not considered strategic under the MMPA. Harbor porpoise bycatch continues to be quite low as reported previously, in 2020 there was continuation of four Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) for three large whale species and four seal species, with several mortalities attributed to human interactions. (State of the Ecosystem 2020: New-England (source https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23890)
Harbor seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and the western North Atlantic stock is not considered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The best current abundance 55 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 estimate of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) is 75,834 (CV = 0.15), based on a survey conducted during the pupping season in 2012. A population survey was conducted in 2018 to provide updated abundance estimates and these data are in the process of being analyzed, as part of a larger trend analysis. Tagging studies of both gray and harbor seals demonstrate long-range movements throughout the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic. (State of the Ecosystem 2020: New-England (source https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23890)
Gray seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and the western North Atlantic stock is not considered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The number of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in U.S. waters has risen dramatically in the last 2 decades, with few observed in the early 1990s to roughly 24,000 observed in southeastern Massachusetts in 2015. Roughly 30,000 - 40,000 gray seals were estimated in southeastern Massachusetts in 2015, using correction factors applied to seal counts visible in Google Earth imagery. As of 2016, the size of the grey seal population in Canada, which is part of the same stock as the grey seals in the U.S., was estimated to be roughly 425,000, and increasing by 4% a year. In U.S. waters, the number of pupping sites has increased from 1 in 1988 to 9 in 2019. Mean rates of increase in the number of pups born at various times since 1988 at 4 of the more data-rich pupping sites (Muskeget, Monomoy, Seal, and Green Islands) ranged from -0.2% (95%CI: -2.3 - 1.9%) to 26.3% (95%CI: 21.6 - 31.4%). These high rates of increase provide further support that seals from Canada are continually supplementing the breeding population in U.S. waters. Fisheries interactions have also increased over the past 2 decades, with fewer than 10 total estimated grey seal interactions in 1993, to more than 1000 annually in four out of the last 5 years; this is the highest bycatch of any US marine mammal species. (State of the Ecosystem 2020: New-England (source https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23890))
A UME for both gray and harbor seals was declared in 2018, triggering an investigation into the cause of this event. Tests so far suggest phocine distemper virus as a potential cause, although the investigation is not yet complete. Several cases of phocine distemper in harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) have been identifed recently, and these two species have been added to the UME. (State of the Ecosystem 2020: New- England (source https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23890)
Harp seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and the western North Atlantic stock is not considered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The level of human-caused mortality and serious injury in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is low relative to the total stock size. The status of the harp seal stock, relative to OSP, in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown, but the stock’s abundance appears to have stabilized. The total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for this stock is very low relative to the stock size and can be considered insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. Based on the low levels of uncertainties, it expected these uncertainties will have little effect on the status of this stock. (Information in this section is excerpted or summarized from the 2019 stock assessment report for harp seals).
Common dolphins are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and the Western North Atlantic stock is not considered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The 2013–2017 average annual human-related mortality does not exceed PBR. The total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for this stock is not less than 10% of the calculated PBR and, therefore, cannot be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. The status of common dolphins, relative to OSP, in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown. Population trends for this species have not been investigated. (Information in this section is excerpted or summarized from the 2019 stock assessment report for common dolphins).
White-sided dolphins are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Western North Atlantic stock of white-sided dolphins is not considered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The estimated average annual human-related mortality does not exceed PBR and is less than 10% of the calculated PBR; therefore, it is considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. The status of white-sided dolphins, relative to OSP, in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown. A trend analysis has not been conducted for this species. Even with the levels of uncertainties regarding the stock structure within the western North Atlantic white-sided dolphin stock described above, it is expected these uncertainties will have little effect on the designation of the status of this population. (Information in this section is excerpted or summarized from the 2019 stock assessment report for white-sided dolphins).
Bottlenose Dolphin in the United States are not endangered or threatened, but they are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Long-finned pilot whales are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Risso’s Dolphin is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
56 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
GARFO ESA-listed species influenced by Bottom Trawl Gear
Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-sturgeon)
Gulf of Maine ESA status: Threatened
Atlantic sturgeon was listed under the ESA in 2012 as five distinct population segments. A distinct population segment is the smallest division of a species permitted to be protected under the ESA. Atlantic sturgeon that hatches out in Gulf of Maine rivers are listed as threatened. Bycatch occurs primarily in gillnet and trawl fisheries. The prevalence and likelihood of bycatch varies by fishing season. The fishing season also impacts the likelihood of sturgeon survival, which is more likely in cooler waters. Adults can be captured when moving into rivers to spawn. Juveniles can be captured in rivers and estuaries when moving from their nursery habitat or year-round while swimming and feeding. Fisheries conducted within rivers and estuaries may intercept any life stage, while fisheries conducted in the nearshore and ocean waters are more likely to capture migrating juveniles and adults.
SEA TURTLES
As is the case for all ESA-listed species, each sea turtle has a recovery plan including a description of site-specific management actions necessary to conserve the species or populations; objective, measurable criteria which, when met, will allow the species or populations to be removed from the ESA list; and estimates of the time and funding required to achieve the plan’s goals.
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/green-turtle)
North Atlantic ESA status: Threatened
A primary threat to sea turtles is their unintended capture in fishing gear which can drown turtles due to forced submergence or cause injuries that lead to death or debilitation Today, all green turtle populations are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The primary threats facing green turtles are bycatch in commercial and recreational fishing gear, direct killing of turtles and harvest of eggs, vessel strikes, loss and alteration of nesting habitat, degradation and loss of foraging habitat, and entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris. Researching, developing, and implementing fishing gear modifications (e.g., turtle exclusion devices for trawls) to reduce bycatch, proposing changes to fishing practices, and closing certain areas to fishing when necessary.
Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/leatherback-turtle
ESA status: Endangered Throughout Its Range
The primary threat to sea turtles is their unintended capture in fishing gear which can result in drowning or cause injuries that lead to death or debilitation. The primary types of gear that result in bycatch include gillnets, trawls, longlines, and buoy lines attached to pot/traps. Researching, developing, and implementing changes to fishing gear practices and /or fishing gear modifications (e.g., turtle excluder devices (TEDs) for trawls).
Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/loggerhead-turtle
Northeast Atlantic ESA: Endangered
Loggerhead populations in the United States declined due to bycatch in fishing gear such as trawls. Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls, gillnet bans, and other gear modification have reduced sea turtle bycatch in some fisheries, but bycatch in fishing gear remains the biggest threat facing loggerheads. Researching, developing, and implementing changes to fishing gear practices and/or fishing gear modifications (e.g., turtle excluder devices (TEDs) for trawls). For loggerhead turtles, the initial recovery plan was approved by NMFS in 1984, and it has been revised twice, with the most recent revision published in 2008 (NMFS 2008). This recovery plan identified four “recovery units” based on nesting geography, with the Northern Recovery Unit originating from nesting beaches from the Florida- Georgia border through southern Virginia—the northern extent of the nesting range. At the time the second revision to the recovery plan was published in 2008, there was strong statistical evidence to suggest the northern recovery unit had been experiencing a long-term decline, with year-over-year declines in nesting from daily beach surveys of roughly 1.3-1.9% since 1980. In July 2019, NMFS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reconvened the NW Atlantic loggerhead recovery team to review progress toward recovery for this population of loggerhead turtles (Bolten, et. al. 2019). For the northern recovery unit, the 2019 progress report states there has been an annual rate of increase in number of nests of 1.3%, based on a log-linear regression model for 37 years of nesting data (1983-2019). This annual rate of increase is encouraging, but below the 2% criterion for achieving recovery. Overall, major threats to
57 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 loggerhead recovery continue to include beach armoring, shoreline stabilization structures, and other barriers to nesting, vessel strike mortalities, and marine debris ingestion and entanglement, as well as bycatch in commercial fisheries. The progress update acknowledges progress has been made to reduce loggerhead bycatch in some fisheries. However, the recovery team also acknowledges limited progress in other areas, such as developing and fully implementing a peer-reviewed strategy to minimize fishery interactions and mortality for each domestic commercial fishing gear type that has loggerhead bycatch. Other areas where progress has been limited is in developing, implementing and enforcing specific and comprehensive federal legislation to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their terrestrial and marine habitats. There has been progress at the state and local level on this front, including laws protecting nesting turtles, hatchlings and nesting habitat, however fishery bycatch reduction requirements are generally rooted in federal legislation.
Important Note: The species discussed above are known to occur in the area of the northeast multispecies bottom trawl fishery. At the time of ACDR publication, data were not available pertaining to actual interactions with this fishery, thus in subsequent versions of this report, the composition of ETP and non-ETP bird species may change.
7.3.3 Overview of Habitats and Ecosystems Habitats
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 to, or the rarity of the habitat type are categorized as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs).
The EFH mandate has provisions in place which require each FMP to describe and identify EFH and the adverse effects on EFH. Based on these management councils can set habitat protections (such as gear restrictions, area closures and effort reductions) on individual FMPs or across all FMPs. The NEFMC has used year-round area closures as a tool to minimize adverse effects from fishing on habitat. Current regulations in place to minimize the adverse effect of bottom trawls and dredges on EFH include (NEFMC 2011): • gear restrictions, including the inshore Gulf of Maine roller gear restriction; • establishment of habitat closed areas in the multispecies and scallop FMPs; • establishment of groundfish mortality closed areas (with associated gear restrictions), which are assumed to provide incidental benefits to EFH; and • reductions in area swept over time (via reductions in effort and/or increased use of rotational management that provides for the same or greater harvest with less area swept).
In 2018 NOAA implemented the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) via Final Rule, revising EFH and HAPC designations, revising or creating habitat management areas, including gear restrictions, to protect vulnerable habitat from fishing gear impacts, establishing dedicated habitat research areas, and implementing several administrative measures related to reviewing these measures as well as other regulatory adjustments to implement these measures (50 CFR Part 648). Prior to this amendment efforts to minimize adverse effects of NEFMC fisheries had been developed and implemented mostly for each FMP individually. The amendment was developed to fulfil the essential fish habitat requirements of the MSFCMA and integrate habitat management measures across all NEFMC- managed fisheries. The principal objectives of the EFH Amendment are to review and revision of the EFH designations (Purpose A), identify habitats where adverse impacts should be minimized (Purpose B) and “identify other actions to encourage conservation and enhancement of such habitat” (Purpose C). The amendment also includes two purposes specific to groundfish management: “to improve protection for juvenile groundfish and their habitats” (Purpose D) and “to identify seasonal closed areas in the Northeast Multispecies FMP that would reduce impacts on spawning groundfish and on the spawning activity of key groundfish species” (Purpose E) (NEFMC 2016). Recognizing that “both temporary and year-round fishing area closures result in effort displacement if they are not accompanied by commensurate catch or effort controls (Rijnsdorp et al. 2001, Dinmore et al. 2003)” (NEFMC 2011).
58 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Between fall 2007 and spring 2010 the NEFMC Habitat Plan Development Team (PDT) developed the Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) to support the development of the Omnibus EFH Amendment 2. The SASI approach is used to estimate the magnitude, location, and duration of adverse effects across gears types and FMPs in order to evaluate the cumulative impacts of alternatives to minimize adverse effects. The SASI approach consists of five components: (1) Vulnerability Assessment, (2) SASI Model, (3) Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) Analysis, (4) Cost- efficiency Analysis, and (5) Area Closure Analysis.
Habitat types for this region are defined by substrate type, geomorphology, and biota (see Table 16 below), which is helpful because that’s how MSC requires habitats to be classified.
Table 17. Habitat classifications from NEFMC 2011.
59 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The vulnerability assessment reviewed relevant habitat impacts literature to Northeast U.S. to organize seabed features (e.g. sponges, biogenic burrows, bed forms, etc.) according to susceptibility (initial effect by single pass of fishing gear) and recovery 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. According to the 2011 SASI report (NEFMC 2011), these vulnerable habitats represent ~20% of the distribution of areas assumed to be fishable by generic trawl gear. The summary of vulnerability assessment results pertaining to demersal otter trawl, is excerpted from the SASI document below, together with the recovery and susceptibility score key.
The following series of figures show the average percent reduction in functional value of features and average recovery time in years. The results are summarized by gear type, feature class (geological or biological), substrate, and energy. Longlines and gillnets are grouped together due to equality of S/R scores. In all cases, the S and R scores are converted to percentages and years, respectively, and then the percentages and years for individual features are averaged, with all features weighted equally. Because the SASI model selects percentages and years randomly from the range of possible values according to the S or R score, the figures below are based on random values, as follows
R=0, years = 1 R=1, years = 1 to 2 R=2, years = 2 to 5 R=3, years = 5 to 10
S=0, % = 0 to 10 S=1, % = 10 to 25 S=2, % = 25 to 50 S=3, % = 50 to 100
The table below each figure summarizes the mean susceptibility and recovery scores according to substrate, energy, and feature class. Note that scales vary between gear types depending on the range of values in the data. Slight differences in figures between gear types where average S and R scores are the same reflect the random assignment of years and percentages within each R or S category.
Table 18 Summary of susceptibility and recovery scores for trawl gear. Source: NEFMC 2011
The SASI model substrate data are assembled from two primary sources, the USSEABED dataset from the U.S. Geological Survey, and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) video survey. Information on effort and fishing effects is obtained from Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data and observer data.
60 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The NEFMC PDT conducted a literature review looking at 97 studies on the impacts of fishing gear on habitats relevant to Northwest Atlantic fishing gears and substrate features. The PDT notes in the SASI report that only about half of the studies provided experimental before/after impact studies that could be used to assign susceptibility and recovery scores. The majority (>70) of the studies focused on generic trawls. However, one of the limitations of the available information is the lack of details on specific gear types. The NEFMC PDT noted that “Efforts to assess the vulnerability of fish habitats to impacts from fishing remain challenged by (1) a limited amount of information regarding the locations and types of bottom substrates and (2) a lack of clear understanding of specifically how fishing activities affect these substrates” (NEFMC 2011).
The SASI approach is “a method for assessing the trade-off between recovery in areas closed to fishing and additional adverse effects resulting from fishing in the open areas” and “the potential change in aggregate adverse effects from opening currently closed areas” (NEFMC 2011). Their findings are summarized below:
We find that for nearly all area and gear type combinations, opening existing closed areas to fishing is predicted to decrease aggregate adverse effects. For mobile bottom tending gears, which comprise nearly 99% of all adverse effects in our region, allowing fishing in almost any portion of the area closures on Georges Bank is estimated to substantially decrease total adverse effects from fishing. Closures in the Gulf of Maine appear to also decrease aggregate adverse effects, but the magnitude of these reductions is substantially smaller.
Using a complex model combining susceptibility, recovery, areas fished, habitat types, and others (the details of which can be found in the SASI document), “adverse effects” of different gear types over the entire modelled area were determined. The resulting simulated outputs for bottom trawl is given in Figure 6.
For Bottom Trawl
61 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 12. Simulated adverse effects of fishing for bottom trawl, excerpted from NEFMC 2011, resulting from the SASI model.
The “realized” adverse effects based on actual area swept in the 2009 fishery for trawl gear can be seen in Figure 7. This can be compared with the simulated results in Figure 6.
Figure 13. The “realized” adverse effects based on actual area swept in the 2009 fishery for trawl gear, excerpted from NEFMC 2011.
DeAlteris et al 2020 contains a comprehensive analysis of the definition of VME habitat in the MSC Standard in relation to habitat definitions such as EFH and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC) in the US managed fisheries parlance (in an SCS MSC assessment report). They determined that neither EFH nor HAPCs qualify as VME as defined by MSC, but deep-sea corals do. We concur with the analysis of the SCS team and thus have assigned deep sea corals as the only VME habitat relevant to the present fishery assessment. Deep sea coral protections exist where
62 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 fishing by the trawl UoA, along with most types of bottom tending gear, is prohibited. In the 2017 update to the “State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States Report” (Hourigan et. al. 2017) it is stated 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.” Data as viewed through the Northeast Ocean Data GIS mapping tool (https://www.northeastoceandata.org/) on the multispecies groundfish fishery distribution and intensity of activity, and deep-sea coral habitat suitability also provides evidence that the multispecies bottom trawl fishery generally would not take place over habitat areas suitable to deep sea corals, as it is primarily concentrated on slope and shelf areas around the 60-meter depth contour.
Figure 14. Multispecies groundfish fishery activity (intensity indicated by shade, with red being the most intense and blue the least intense), and habitat suitability for deep-sea corals overlaid. Deep-sea coral habitat suitability is indicated along the south and eastern margin of the fished area from darkest blue (most suitable) to lightest blue (least suitable). This figure shows very little overlap between the multispecies groundfish fishery footprint and potential deep sea coral habitat distribution. (Source: Northeast Ocean Data explorer, accessed on 22 March 2021).
Lastly, an omnibus deep-sea coral amendment is currently in proposed rule stage within the NEFMC process. If the rule becomes law, the following deep-sea coral protection area will prohibit bottom fishing for all fisheries in the region
63 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
“The Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment would establish deep-sea coral protection areas on the outer continental shelf in New England water deeper than 600 meters. It would complement the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area established by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in Amendment 16 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (81 FR 90246; December 14, 2016) as described in § 648.372. The area would run along the outer continental shelf in waters no shallower than 600 meters and extend to the outer limit of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary to the east and north, and south to the intercouncil boundary as described in § 600.105(a). The Council proposed this coral protection area to prevent the expansion of fishing effort into deep- water coral areas, while limiting impacts on current fishing operations (https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2019- 28424.pd)”
Ecosystems
The following description of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME is taken from SCS (2018):
The UoAs reside within 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 tropically 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)
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 food web is certainly related to fisheries, though whether dynamics are bottom-up or top down can vary by system. For instance, McCowan 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. Tropically 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.
NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program 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). 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.
Primary and Secondary Productivity: There is no long-term trend in the abundance of phytoplankton, while there is evidence of a shift of the composition of the zooplankton community: “small copepods increased in abundance in the 1990s, but shifted to larger bodied copepod species around 2000 (Figure 4.3). There is evidence of a more recent shift, with smaller zooplankton becoming more abundant again over the last several years.”
Fish Communities: 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 7). 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 levelling in the 1990s.
64 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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 8). 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.
Figure 15. 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
65 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 16. 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/synthesis.html.
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 northeasterly movement across the coast as a whole. In addition to 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 9). 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 notes that data also indicates decadal ecosystem changes in the LME, that together with management interventions strongly affect fishery performance.
66 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 17. 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.
According to the NEFSC Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch website, 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.
The MAFMC articulated objectives for the living marine resources under its management authority in its Strategic Plan in 2011. 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 (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 future (MAFMC 2016),as a “new approach that involves all species and fisheries in a specific area, recognizes the energetic limits of the system, takes into account the trophic relationships among species, allows for greater adaptability to variability and change, and addresses multifaceted goals and objectives.” The NEFMC has taken as a first goal of EBFM the development of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Georges Bank, which will serve as an example for development of future plans and management measures. More information on the progress of these initiatives may be found in the NEFMC Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Committee webpage.
67 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Table 19 Scoring Elements
Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient
e.g. P1, Primary, e.g. species or stock (SA Secondary, ETP, Habitats, Main or Minor 3.1.1.1) Ecosystems Please see Tables 13 and 14 for Primary, Secondary
and ETP species and their designations Sandy bottom with biological and geomorphological Habitat characteristics described in Commonly encountered Not the habitats section above (including table excerpted from NEFMC 2011). Muddy bottom with biological and geomorphological Habitat characteristics described in Commonly encountered Not the habitats section above (including table excerpted from NEFMC 2011). Granule-pebble bottom with biological and geomorphological Habitat characteristics described in Commonly encountered Not the habitats section above (including table excerpted from NEFMC 2011).
Habitat Deep sea corals VME Not
Northeast US Continental Ecosystem Shelf Large Marine Only Not Ecosystem
68 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
7.3.4 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment PI 2.1.1 would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Main primary species stock status
Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above certainty that main primary the PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around OR a level consistent with If the species is below the MSY. PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the Guide in place that are expected PRI, there is either a post to ensure that the UoA evidence of recovery or a does not hinder recovery demonstrably effective and 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? Yes No No
Rationale The status of these stocks has been evaluated in relation to performance against this scoring issue using the most recent stock assessments available for White Hake. This information is summarized in Table 14. Main primary species is assessed slightly below PRI but data shows evidence for recovery, thus it is not clear that the SG80 is acheived. SG100 is not met due to uncertainty expressed in the respective stock assessments as well as the outdated age of the reports. Minor primary species stock status Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI.
OR Guide
b post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species.
Met? No
Rationale At the ACDR stage, the minor primary species have not yet all been evaluated. Species have not been assessed in detail by the assessment team, hence the SG100 is not met.
69 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
References
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2017) Operational Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated through 2016 accessible at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications
NOAA 2021b. Species directory: White hake. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/white-hake
NEFSC 2017. Operational Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated through 2016).
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/new-england-mid-atlantic#fisheries
The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly available documents.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
70 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place
There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing necessary, that are necessary, that is expected main and minor primary Guide expected to maintain or to to maintain or to not hinder species.
a post not hinder rebuilding of the rebuilding of the main main primary species at/to primary species at/to levels levels which are likely to be which are highly likely to be above the PRI. above the PRI.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale The main primary species is managed under the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan and are referred to as the Northeast multispecies complex. The plan lays out a cohesive set of management strategies to ensure catches do not exceed allowable levels designed to maintain stocks at healthy levels. The Northeast multispecies fishery is managed by the NEFMC using a variety of management tools, including days-at-sea, special management programs, and sectors. Implementing regulations are found at 50 CFR Part 648 Subpart F. SG 80 is met for all UoAs. However, since we have not evaluated the management strategy for minor primary species in detail, the SG100 is not met for any UoAs.
Management strategy evaluation
The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, Guide argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information b post 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? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Main primary species is managed under the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan and are referred to as the Northeast multispecies complex. The Northeast multispecies fishery is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council. There is high confidence that management strategies are working to maintain stocks at acceptable levels, and it is preventing overfishing from occurring. But the data is outdated, therefore SG100 is not met due to a lack of certainty about the current status of the stock.
Management strategy implementation
There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial c Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being post implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its
71 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).
Met? Yes No
Rationale Main primary species is managed under the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan and is referred to as the Northeast multispecies complex. The stock has been maintained at acceptable levels and are not subjected to overfishing. There is some uncertainty in stock status and reference points for this specie due to old data. SG 100 is not met due to a lack of current clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objectives relative to maintaining stocks status.
Shark finning
It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of Guide d is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning post is not taking place.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place in this fishery. A federal law (the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000) prohibits shark finning, where the fins are removed, and the carcass is discarded. The law prohibits any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in the finning of sharks, possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act also requires NOAA Fisheries to provide Congress with an annual report describing efforts to implement the law. In addition, on January 4, 2011, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 was signed into law, amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the MSRA. The Shark Conservation Act requires that all sharks in the United States, with one exception (commercial fisheries for smooth dogfish), be brought to shore with their fins naturally attached. Moreover, several states have shark fin laws that prohibit the possession and/or retention of shark fins (even if they are legally landed under the requirements of the Shark Conservation Act).
In addition, including pelagic shark species in the Highly Migratory Species FMP enables catches to be monitored and managed. The FMP also designates great white, megamouth, and basking sharks as prohibited species, meaning if these species are caught, they may not be retained. This discourages intentional catch and, in cases where the shark survives the interaction, reduces fishing mortality. There is no evidence in observer reports of the three prohibited species mentioned above occurring in the catch of this fishery and an acceptable level of observer coverage monitoring of catches and discards and a high level of dockside monitoring comprise comprehensive external validation that shark finning is not taking place within this fleet. SG100 is met.
Review of alternative measures
There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness of the potential practicality of alternative and practicality of effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to practicality of alternative e Guide related mortality of minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- post unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of primary species. of main primary species unwanted catch of all and they are implemented primary species, and they as appropriate. are implemented, as appropriate.
72 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The US National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024 (NOAA Fisheries 2020) is the latest operationalization of the National Bycatch Reduction strategy (NOAA Fisheries 2016), finalized by NOAA Fisheries in 2016. The goal of the 2016 National Bycatch Reduction Strategy is to guide and coordinate NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in support of sustainably managing fisheries and recovering and conserving protected species. The implementation of the strategy occurs at regional, national, and international levels, and includes several short-, medium- and long-term actions designed to achieve the objectives of the strategy. There are also a number of continuous actions within the strategy, that reflect ongoing efforts such as the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP). The SG80 is met. The SG100 is not met because within this strategy, the UoA fisheries are not likely to be reviewed biennially.
References
Benaka, L.R., D. Bullock, A.L. Hoover, and N.A. Olsen (editors) (2019) U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 3. 2019. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-190, 95 p.
United States of America (2000, 2011), NMFS (2019, 2016, 2014, 2011) (National Bycatch Report)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
73 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine PI 2.1.3 the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species
Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the to assess with a high main primary species with impact of the UoA on the degree of certainty the respect to status. main primary species with impact of the UoA on main respect to status. primary species with OR respect to status. Guide OR a post 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: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
There is some quantitative information available, which meets the SG 80, but there is uncertainty in the stock assessment due to lack of current data, therefore White Hake does not meet the SG 100.
Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Some quantitative information is adequate to Guide estimate the impact of the b post UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.
Met? No
Rationale
All species are managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Minor primary species have not been assessed, hence the SG100 is not met.
74 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main primary manage all primary c Guide species. species. species, and evaluate with post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
All species are managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. SG100 is not met because minor primary species have not been assessed.
References
NEFSC 2017
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies-groundfish
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range >80
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
75 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Main secondary species stock status
Main secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of are likely to be above are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits. above biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to ensure limits, there is either that the UoA does not evidence of recovery or a hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and Guide rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are , there is a considerable either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Greater shearwater-Yes Northern fulmar-Yes Common loon-Yes Thin-billed loon-Yes Common eider-No Met? All seabirds-Yes All seabirds-Yes Manx shearwater-No Herring gull-No Sooty shearwater-No White-winged scoter-No Black scoter-No Thin-billed murre-Yes Rationale Eleven seabird species have preliminarily been classified as secondary main based on occurring in the proximity of the fishery. However, this list may change when the team receives actual encounter data (before the site visit). For those with a decreasing population trend, the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
76 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The greater shearwater’s (Puffinus gravis) population is estimated as stable at around 15 million individuals and is classified as “least concern” on the IUCN red list because of its extremely large range, and stable and large population size. Thus, there is a high degree of certainty that this population is above biologically based limits. SG80 and SG100 is met for this species.
The population sizes of northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), common loon (Gavia immer) and thin-billed (common) murre (Uria aalge) are either stable or improving, and all are “least concern” on the IUCN red list. With large, stable or increasing populations and least-concern classification by the IUCN, there is a high degree of certainty that they are above biologically based limits. Thus, SG 80 and SG100 are also met for these species.
Population trends for common eider (Somateria mollissima), and Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus) are unknown. Common eider has a population size of 3.1-3.8 million globally and is near threatened on the IUCN red list, although this is due to decreases in population in Europe (overfishing is listed as one of the threats), thought to be compensated for at least partly by increases elsewhere in the world. Incidental catches are highly unlikely to be hindering recovery and the SG80 is met. Manx shearwater has an extremely large range and a population size of between 680,000 and 790,000 individuals globally. It is evaluated as least-concern on the IUCN red list due to its large range and population size. Although the population trend is unknown, it is not thought to be declining at a rate necessary to consider reclassification as near threatened. The SG80 is met on the basis that these UoAs are highly unlikely to be impacting the population size.
Populations of sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), white-winged scoter (Melanitta deglandi), black scoter (Melanitta nigra), Cory’s shearwater (Puffinus Diomedea), and herring gull (Larus argentatus) are all thought to be decreasing across their ranges. Herring gull has a global population of 1.37-1.62 million individuals and IUCN Red List “least concern”. Although the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is currently thought to be part of a longer-term fluctuation following previous increases. Its range is throughout northern Europe, so interaction with a fishery in the western Atlantic seems unusual. It is extremely unlikely that this fishery would be hindering any recovery or that recovery is necessary for this species. The SG80 is met. Sooty shearwater has a global population of roughly 20 million individuals. This species is classified as Near Threatened on the IUCN red list because it is thought to have undergone a moderately rapid decline owing to the impact of fisheries, the harvesting of its young for traditional purposes in New Zealand (trapping and killing an estimated 250 thousand birds per year) and possibly climate change. It is highly unlikely that these fisheries are hindering the recovery of this species and the SG80 is met. The population size of white-winged scoter is unknown. Although it is thought to be declining, the rate of decline is not sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for vulnerable under the IUCN population trend criterion. The distribution of this species extends along both the Pacific and Atlantic US and Canadian coasts of North America and they breed in north-western Canada and Alaska, where there is subsistence harvest and sport take of birds from breeding colonies (also for black scoters). According to Koneff et. al (2017) white-winged scoters are at moderate risk of overharvest (direct take for subsistence or sport) and estimated an “allowable harvest” level of 13,068 birds. The take of these birds in this fishery is highly unlikely to hinder any recovery or rebuilding that may be necessary for the population at these low levels of mortality. The SG80 is met. Koneff et. al. (2017) also included eastern and western black scoter in their analysis of harvest and information needs for North American sea ducks. This species is listed as near threatened on the IUCN red list and has a global population of 530,000-830,000 individuals. Black scoters are subject to a combination of threats and ongoing impacts. These include contaminants in the food chain, subsistence harvest, sport harvest, and habitat disturbance and fragmentation, including large-scale habitat disturbance from resource-extraction industries in the Bering Sea of Alaska and in north-central Canada, and hydrologic projects in northern Quebec (Sea Duck Joint Venture 2016). Hunting accounts for roughly 15,000 black scoter mortalities annually. The fishery is highly unlikely to hinder any recovery or rebuilding that may be necessary for the population at these low levels of mortality. The SG80 is met.
77 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.
OR Guide b post If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species
Met? No
Rationale
Minor secondary species have not been assessed, hence the SG100 is not met.
References
Koneff, Mark D., Zimmerman, Guthrie S., Dwyer, Chris P., Fleming, Kathleen K., Padding, Paul I., Devers, Patrick K., Johnson, Fred A., Runge, Michael C., and Roberts, Anthony J. (2017). Evaluation of harvest and information needs for North American sea ducks. PLOS ONE April 18, 2017
Sea Duck Joint Venture (2016) Black Scoter (melanitta americana). Sea Duck Information Series. Info sheet #2 of 15. July 2016. Seaduckjv.org http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/sooty-shearwater-ardenna-grisea http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/white-winged-scoter-melanitta-deglandi http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/black-scoter-melanitta-americana http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-eider-somateria-mollissima http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-murre-uria-aalge http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/scopolis-shearwater-calonectris-diomedea/details http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22698226 http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/european-herring-gull-larus-argentatus
Report produced for Northeast skate by the Seabird Information for Fisheries Assessment Tool. American Bird Conservancy. www.fisheryandseabird.info Produced on September 25, 2020
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
78 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Management strategy in place
There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place place, if necessary, which in place, if necessary, for for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or the UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder species. main secondary species rebuilding of main Guide at/to levels which are highly secondary species at/to
a post likely to be above levels which are highly biologically based limits or likely to be above to ensure that the UoA biologically based limits or does not hinder their to ensure that the UoA recovery. does not hinder their recovery.
Met? All seabirds -Yes All seabirds -Yes All seabirds -No
Rationale Through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act), the United States implements its obligations for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats under migratory bird conventions. Executive Order 13186 (2012) directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Act. Relevant to NOAA and NOAA fisheries, this executive order includes the following directions:
…identify where unintentional take reasonably attributable to agency actions is having, or is likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. With respect to those actions so identified, the agency shall develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen the amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the Service. These principles, standards, and practices shall be regularly evaluated and revised to ensure that they are effective in lessening the detrimental effect of agency actions on migratory bird populations. The agency also shall inventory and monitor bird habitat and populations within the agency’s capabilities and authorities to the extent feasible to facilitate decisions about the need for, and effectiveness of, conservation efforts;
To this end, the National Seabird Program has been developed within NOAA fisheries. Under this program there are several national and regional initiatives designed to mitigate the impacts of fisheries on seabird populations arising from direct mortality and habitat destruction/disruption. While the initiatives under this program are certainly cohesive enough as a whole to comprise a full strategy for managing impacts on seabird species, in the northeast region the current focus is on longline fisheries because they pose a greater risk of adversely impacting seabird populations. Their interactions with seabirds are one or more orders of magnitude higher than those of sink gillnets or bottom trawls (the gears used in the UoAs).
According to MSC: A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.
79 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The MSC’s guidance on this scoring issue clarifies that the measures/partial strategies/strategies relate to the management undertaken by the UoA. In this case, the UoA management system for little and winter skate covers all gear types and fisheries in the New England region, and in this sense, the strategy described above does relate to the management undertaken by the UoA though it does not have a strong focus on trawl fisheries currently.
Moreover, as described under 2.2.1, interactions with all main seabird species are sufficiently limited for bottom trawl to allow confidence that the populations are maintaining or the UoAs are not hindering their rebuilding simply by continuing their current fishing practices with these gear types. This combination of evidence is sufficient to determine that there is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for the UoA that is expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.
Therefore, the SG80 is met for this PI, but not the SG100, given the current lack of focus within the strategy on seabird mitigation in trawl fisheries, specifically.
Management strategy evaluation
The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, Guide argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information b post 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? All seabirds-Yes All seabirds-Yes All seabirds-No
Rationale
There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy as described in the National Seabird Program for ensuring US fisheries work toward minimization of adverse impacts to seabirds is working. This is evidenced through operationalization of regional implementation plans and progress reports. For some trawl, there has been an overall stable and relatively low level of seabird bycatch over the past 5 years, and no species with recent recorded interactions are endangered or threatened. Thus, there is some information directly about the UoA and species involved to support this objective basis for confidence and the SG80 is met. There is insufficient evidence of testing to support high confidence of the above, thus the SG100 is not met.
Management strategy implementation
There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being Guide c implemented implemented successfully post successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).
Met? All seabirds- Yes All seabirds- No
Rationale Some evidence exists to demonstrate the successful implementation of the National Seabird Program, and National Bycatch Reduction Strategy with respect to seabird bycatch in US fisheries. However, actions within the current implementation plan for the NBRS includes greater attention on seabird bycatch reduction in gears other than longline (including trawls). The SG80 is met, however the SG100 is not met due to the lack of clear focus within the seabird bycatch reduction strategy.
d Shark finning
80 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of Guide is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning post is not taking place.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place in this fishery. A federal law (the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000) prohibits shark finning, where the fins are removed, and the carcass is discarded. The law prohibits any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in the finning of sharks, possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act (SFPA 2000) also requires NOAA Fisheries to provide Congress with an annual report describing efforts to implement the law. In addition, on January 4, 2011, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 was signed into law, amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the MSRA (NOAA 2010). The Shark Conservation Act requires that all sharks in the United States, with one exception (commercial fisheries for smooth dogfish), be brought to shore with their fins naturally attached. Moreover, several states have shark fin laws that prohibit the possession and/or retention of shark fins (even if they are legally landed under the requirements of the Shark Conservation Act). In addition, including pelagic shark species in the Highly Migratory Species FMP enables catches to be monitored and managed. The FMP also designates great white, megamouth, and basking sharks as prohibited species, meaning if these species are caught, they may not be retained. This discourages intentional catch and, in cases where the shark survives the interaction, reduces fishing mortality. There is no evidence in observer reports of the three prohibited species mentioned above occurring in the catch of this fishery and the high level of observer coverage and a high level of dockside monitoring comprise comprehensive external validation that shark finning is not taking place within the UOAs. SG100 is met for all UoAs.
Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch
There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness of the potential practicality of alternative and practicality of effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to practicality of alternative Guide related mortality of minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- e post unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted related mortality of secondary species. catch of main secondary unwanted catch of all species and they are secondary species, and implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The US National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024 (NOAA Fisheries 2020) is the latest operationalization of the National Bycatch Reduction strategy (NOAA Fisheries 2016), finalized by NOAA Fisheries in 2016. The goal of the 2016 National Bycatch Reduction Strategy is to guide and coordinate NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in support of sustainably managing fisheries and recovering and conserving protected species. The implementation of the strategy occurs at regional, national, and international levels, and includes a number of short-, medium- and long-term actions designed to achieve the objectives of the strategy. There are also a number of continuous actions within the strategy that reflect ongoing efforts such as the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP).
Pertaining specifically to seabirds in the Northeast region, ongoing actions include evaluating models for estimating post-release and cryptic mortality of protected species including seabirds and including such estimates in stock assessment reports; and updating the NPOA Seabirds to include fishing gear other than longline in its scope, including trawl.
The objective of the BREP is to support the development of technological solutions and changes in fishing practices designed to minimize bycatch of fish and protected species (including seabirds).
81 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
There is clearly an ongoing program in which regular review of effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to reduce bycatch of secondary species, including seabirds, as evidenced through the BREP and National Bycatch Reduction Strategy and its most recent implementation plan. The SG80 is met. However, the SG100 is not met because these operational plans and strategies do not comprise a biennial review.
The CAB shall insert sufficient rationale to support the team's conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring issue need not be scored if no Secondary species are sharks.
References Ballance, L. T., Benaka,L. R., Ellgen, S. U., Fitzgerald, S. M., Henry, A. E., Kim, M. A., Nathanson, S. L., and Joyce, T. W. 2019. National Seabird Program Five-Year Strategic Plan: 2020-2024. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO- 202,190p.
NOAA (2010). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/shark-conservation-act
NOAA Fisheries (2016a). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAh VMo54KHdoYCJMQFjACegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Finternational%2Fbycatch%2 Fnational-bycatch-reduction-strategy&usg=AOvVaw2y1K9kFHnU-IejyI75soBN
NOAA Fisheries (2016b) Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program FY 2015 & 2016 Report to Congress. Accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/88172694
NOAA Fisheries (2020). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024. 24 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAhVMo54KHdoYCJ MQFjABegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Fwebdam%2Fdownload%2F107045645&usg= AOvVaw1A0rNtBzHRLb2PAObEdnDh
SFPA (2000) https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ557/PLAW-106publ557.pdf
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
82 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species
Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is 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 main secondary species impact of the UoA on main of certainty the impact of with respect to status. secondary species with the UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR Guide If RBF is used to score PI post 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to a susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Greater shearwater-Yes Northern fulmar-Yes Common loon-Yes Thin-billed (common) murre-Yes Common eider-No Met? All seabirds-Yes All seabirds-Yes Manx shearwater-No Sooty shearwater-Yes White-winged scoter-Yes Black scoter-Yes Herring gull-Yes
Rationale Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the northeast bottom trawl, on most seabirds, with respect to status. This information consists of estimates of seabird population sizes and trends, indications of major threats and their magnitudes, and the estimated mortalities from fisheries. Only the population sizes and trends for common eider and Manx shearwater are unknown, and although the numbers of mortalities from fisheries are quite small, it is still not possible to say with a high degree of certainty the impact of these UoAs, thus the SG100 is not met for these two species, but it is met for all others.
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species
Some quantitative information is adequate to b Guide estimate the impact of the post UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.
83 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Met? No
Rationale Minor secondary species have not been assessed, hence the SG100 is not met
Information adequacy for management strategy
Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main secondary manage all secondary Guide species. species. species, and evaluate with c post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.
Met? All seabirds- Yes All seabirds- Yes All seabirds- No
Rationale Information is adequate to support the strategy/partial strategy to manage impacts to main secondary species (seabirds). The partial strategy and its objectives and implementation have been described in the Rationale for scoring under PI2.2.2. The information needed to support this strategy consists of population trend and status information for impacted seabirds, which exists to a sufficient degree for all of the populations in question here, as well as information about mortalities from the UoA fisheries. The latter information exists from observer reports. The SG80 is met for all species and both UoAs, however the SG100 is not met, because minor species have not been evaluated.
References Koneff, Mark D., Zimmerman, Guthrie S., Dwyer, Chris P., Fleming, Kathleen K., Padding, Paul I., Devers, Patrick K., Johnson, Fred A., Runge, Michael C., and Roberts, Anthony J. (2017). Evaluation of harvest and information needs for North American sea ducks. PLOS ONE April 18, 2017
NOAA Fisheries (2016a). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAh VMo54KHdoYCJMQFjACegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Finternational%2Fbycatch%2 Fnational-bycatch-reduction-strategy&usg=AOvVaw2y1K9kFHnU-IejyI75soBN
NOAA Fisheries (2016b) Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program FY 2015 & 2016 Report to Congress. Accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/88172694
NOAA Fisheries (2020). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024. 24 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAhVMo54KHdoYCJ MQFjABegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Fwebdam%2Fdownload%2F107045645&usg= AOvVaw1A0rNtBzHRLb2PAObEdnDh
Sea Duck Joint Venture (2016) Black Scoter (melanitta americana). Sea Duck Information Series. Info sheet #2 of 15. July 2016. Seaduckjv.org http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/sooty-shearwater-ardenna-grisea http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/white-winged-scoter-melanitta-deglandi http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/black-scoter-melanitta-americana http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-eider-somateria-mollissima http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-murre-uria-aalge http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/scopolis-shearwater-calonectris-diomedea/details http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22698226 http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/european-herring-gull-larus-argentatus
Report produced for Northeast skate by the Seabird Information for Fisheries Assessment Tool. American Bird Conservancy. www.fisheryandseabird.info Produced on September 25, 2020
84 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
More information sought
Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
85 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable
Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, Guide the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of post the population/ stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population /stock are known combined effects of the within these limits. and highly likely to be MSC UoAs are within these within these limits. limits.
a Harp seals-Yes White-sided dolphin-Yes Gray seals-No Harbor seals-No Harbor porpoises-No Common dolphins-No All mammals-Yes All mammals-Yes Met? All turtles (3)- N/A All turtles (3) -N/A All turtles (3) -N/A Bottlenose Dolphin- Needs more data Long-finned pilot whale- Needs more data Risso’s Dolphin- Needs more data Rationale The list of ETP species know to interact with the fishery and gear types is given in Table (x). We regard those species with Potential Biological Removals specified as having “national or international limits”.
For marine mammals, this includes gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals, harbor porpoises and common dolphins. For these species, both the effects of the UoA fisheries and other MSC UoAs are known, and the combined mortalities in all cases are reported as below the PBR levels with high likelihood, hence the SG80 is met. However, due to the uncertainties in mortality estimates in some cases (due to cryptic mortalities, or unidentified sources of mortality), there is not a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of MSC UoAs are within these limits in all cases. This is the case for gray seals, harbor seals, harbor porpoises and common dolphins. The SG100 is not met for these species. However, the combined mortalities for harp seals and white-sided dolphins are less than 10% of PBR, therefore the SG100 is met for these species. Please see section 7.4.2 for further details.
For sea turtles, this list includes green loggerhead and leatherback species, none of which have limits as defined by MSC, thus they are not scored against this scoring issue..
Direct effects
Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree of UoA are likely to not hinder are highly likely to not confidence that there are b Guide recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP no significant detrimental post species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species.
86 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Harp seals-Yes White-sided dolphin-Yes Gray seals-No Harbor seals-No Harbor porpoises-No Common dolphins-No All mammals-Yes All mammals-Yes Met? Turtles (3)-No All turtles-Yes All turtles-Yes Bottlenose Dolphin- Needs more data Long-finned pilot whale- Needs more data Risso’s Dolphin- Needs more data Rationale For all marine mammals encountered by this fishery, the direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder the recovery of the species. This conclusion is based on information in the stock assessment reports, which outline the status of each species, the PBR, and the estimated total mortalities and mortalities by fishery. In all cases, total mortalities are below PBR. The SG80 is met. For harp seals and white-sided dolphins, the SG100 is also met because, according to the stock assessment reports, total mortalities to these species are less than 10% of the assigned PBR, therefore there is a high degree of confidence that that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoAs on these species. (Statement does not include Bottlenose Dolphin, Long-finned pilot whale and Risso’s Dolphin since we have not looked at the data).
Green turtles are threatened, and leatherback and loggerhead are both endangered. The three species of sea turtles have species-specific recovery plans in place as required by the ESA.
The most recent population trend analysis for the Northern Recovery Unit of loggerhead turtles shows an increasing trend (measured in numbers of nests) of 1.3% since 1983 (Bolten, et. al. 2019). This annual rate of increase is encouraging, but below the 2% criterion for achieving recovery. The UoA fisheries are in the Northeast region only, where water temperatures are colder and sea turtles are less frequently sighted. The combination of population trend increases and relatively low contribution to fisheries mortality means that the direct effects of the UoA are highly unlikely to hinder the recovery of this species, and the SG80 is met. Evidence is not sufficient to provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects, hence SG 100 is not met.
Two criteria are necessary for downlisting from Endangered to Threatened status, one of which is met (recruitment of at least 300,000 hatchlings into the marine environment per season at the three primary nesting beaches), and one which is not met (at least 10,000 nesting females per season—currently there are fewer than half that many estimated). The criteria concerning protection of terrestrial nesting habitat, nesting females, and hatchlings are by- and-large successfully ongoing or have been met. Ongoing threats are thought to be in the marine environment, including from bycatch in fishing gear—particularly skimmer trawl gear for shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. There have been no recent records of any turtles being caught in the Northeast bottom trawl, most likely because they operate further north than the foraging range for this species (off Virginia and southward). The combination of success in the ESA recovery plan and low contribution of the UoA to fishery-related mortality confirms that direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of this species and the SG80 is met. However, there is not sufficient evidence to provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects, hence SG 100 is not met.
Because there is uncertainty related to the potential for the Northeast fisheries to interact with sea turtles having primarily a more southerly distribution as described above, it would be useful, particularly in light of potential climate change impacts on foraging distributions for these turtles, to gain a better understanding of trends in interactions from the fishing fleet in the Northeast.
c Indirect effects
87 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of considered for the UoA and confidence that there are Guide are thought to be highly no significant detrimental post likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species.
Met? Yes No
Rationale Indirect threats to both marine mammals and marine turtles are considered, along with direct threats, in their respective stock assessments and recovery plans. In none of these cases are indirect effects from marine fisheries considered a significant contributor to overall threat level. The SG80 is met, but not SG100 because achieving a high degree of confidence would require more positive evidence (references are provided below to stock assessment reports, recovery plans and progress reports for all relevant species).
References https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables
Bolton, Alan B., Crowder, Larry B., Dodd, Mark G., Lauritsen, Ann Marie, Musick, John A., Schroeder, Barbara A., and Witherington Blair, E. (2919) Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Second Revision (2008) Assessment of Progress Toward Recovery December 2019
NOAA Fisheries (2019) National Bycatch Report Update 3, 2019. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/national-bycatch-report
NOAA Fisheries ESA Threatened and Endangered Species. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species- directory/threatened- endangered?title=&species_category=any&species_status=any®ions=1000001111&items_per_page=25&sort=
NMFS (2008). Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead sea turtle (Carretta caretta). Second Revision Dec. 31 2008. IUCN Red List. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine- mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock#cetaceans---large-whales
COMMON BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus truncatus): Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock (2017)
COMMON DOLPHIN (Delphinus delphis delphis): Western North Atlantic Stock (2017)
ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN (Lagenorhynchus acutus): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
HARBOR PORPOISE (Phocoena phocoena phocoena): Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Stock (2018)
GRAY SEAL (Halichoerus grypus atlantica): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
HARBOR SEAL (Phoca vitulina vitulina): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
HARP SEAL (Pagophilus groenlandicus): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
88 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
More information sought (see highlighted text) Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
89 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2
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
Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)
There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive place that minimise the for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for UoA-related mortality of impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact ETP species, and are including measures to on ETP species, including Guide expected to be highly minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise a post likely to achieve national designed to be highly mortality, which is designed and international likely to achieve national to achieve above national requirements for the and international and international protection of ETP species. requirements for the requirements for the protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. All mammals-Yes All mammals-Yes All mammals-No Met? All turtles-Yes All turtles-Yes All turtles-No Rationale There is a strategy in place for all US federally managed fisheries for managing fishery impacts on ETP species, including measures to minimize mortality which is designed to be highly likely to achieve regulatory requirements for the protection of these species. This includes the UoA fishery under assessment as described in the skate FMP, as well as overarching requirements under the ESA and MMPA as implemented through ESA-listed species recovery plans. These strategies are in place and designed to be highly likely to achieve national requirements for protection and recovery, as they have explicit objectives and actions necessary to achieve this, together with measurable criteria, which, when met, will allow the species or population to be removed from the ESA list. While these recovery plans are designed to address all sources of threat to the species in question (not just threats from fisheries), where fisheries are considered to be a contributing threat, the recovery plans explicitly address this. Concerning marine mammals which are not also ESA listed, the MMPA provides a very specific framework under which incidental take within fisheries is permitted, and these fisheries are only authorized when it can be demonstrated through a Biological Opinion that their take will not exceed PBR or otherwise hinder their recovery. The SG80 is clearly met for all ETP species. The SG100 is not met because these strategies are not generally designed to achieve above national or international protection and recovery requirements.
Management strategy in place (alternative)
There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive place that are expected to that is expected to ensure strategy in place for Guide ensure the UoA does not the UoA does not hinder managing ETP species, to
b post hinder the recovery of ETP the recovery of ETP ensure the UoA does not species. species. hinder the recovery of ETP species.
Met? NA NA NA
Rationale The CAB shall insert sufficient rationale to support the team's conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring issue need not be scored if requirements for protection or rebuilding are provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. 90 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Management strategy evaluation
The measures are There is an objective The considered likely to work, basis for confidence that strategy/comprehensive based on plausible the measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on argument (e.g.,general work, based on information directly about Guide experience, theory or information directly about the fishery and/or species c post comparison with similar the fishery and/or the involved, and a fisheries/species). species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. All mammals-Yes All mammals-Yes Met? No All turtles-Yes All turtles-Yes Rationale For marine mammals, the maintenance of mortalities below the respective PBR levels is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for mitigating impacts to marine mammals as required under the MMPA is working. Annual stock assessments for all marine mammals are available and reported mortalities from fisheries and other causes are well monitored and quantified. The SG80 is met. However, since there are uncertainties in the data around both stock status and incidental take in marine fisheries, a high confidence is not indicated. The SG100 is not met.
For sea turtles, the information contained in the respective recovery plan progress reports show evidence that efforts under the strategy are working to improve the status of all populations or relevant subunits, albeit not always at the target rate (e.g. loggerheads). The progress against goals within the recovery strategies, and fishery interactions are both regularly monitored and reported. This is sufficient to meet SG80. However, the progress reports do not generally contain quantitative analyses necessary to support high confidence that the objectives are being met, in some cases, they very clearly point out deficiencies in implementing some aspects of the strategies. The SG100 is not met for any sea turtle species.
Management strategy implementation
There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy that the is being implemented strategy/comprehensive Guide successfully. strategy is being d post implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). All mammals-Yes All mammals-Yes Met? All turtles-Yes All turtles-No Rationale In general, for marine mammals and marine turtles, there is evidence that the recovery strategies mandated by the ESA are working to prevent extinction and promote recovery of ESA listed species (Valdivia et. al. 2019). SG80 is met.
For marine mammals, the maintenance of mortalities below the respective PBR levels clear evidence that the strategy for mitigating impacts to marine mammals as required under the MMPA is being implemented successfully and achieving the objectives set out in scoring issue a. Annual stock assessments for all marine mammals are available and reported mortalities from fisheries and other causes are well monitored and quantified. There are no cases where PBR is being exceeded, and all fisheries are operating as permitted under the MMPA with appropriate Incidental Take Statements and corresponding requirements for observer coverage. The SG100 is met.
91 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
For loggerhead sea turtles, there is some evidence in the 2019 progress report on the implementation of the national recovery plan that the recovery strategy is being implemented successfully and the rate of recovery as measured via the beach nesting surveys has been roughly 1.2% annually since 1986 for the northern nesting unit (Bolten et. al 2019). Progress against objectives has been reported to reduce loggerhead bycatch in some fisheries. However, the nesting recovery rate is less than the 2% recovery rate goal, and there is also acknowledgement in this progress report that there are parts of the strategy that are not being implemented successfully at present. Therefore, while SG80 is met, SG100 is not met.
Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species
There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness of the potential practicality of alternative and practicality of effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to practicality of alternative Guide related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- e post species. mortality of ETP species related mortality ETP and they are implemented species, and they are as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale The US National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024 (NOAA Fisheries 2020) is the latest operationalization of the National Bycatch Reduction strategy (NOAA Fisheries 2016), finalized by NOAA Fisheries in 2016. The goal of the 2016 National Bycatch Reduction Strategy is to guide and coordinate NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in support of sustainably managing fisheries and recovering and conserving protected species. The implementation of the strategy occurs at regional, national, and international levels, and includes a number of short-, medium- and long-term actions designed to achieve the objectives of the strategy. There are also a number of continuous actions within the strategy, that reflect ongoing efforts such as the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP).
The objective of the BREP is to support the development of technological solutions and changes in fishing practices designed to minimize bycatch of fish and protected species (including marine mammals and sea turtles). Current priorities in the Northeast region are aimed at reduction of whale entanglements in the pot/trap fisheries through investigation of ropeless gear and improving post-release mortality of shortfin mako sharks in all gears.
It is clear that regular review of the practicality and effectiveness of alternative measures to reduce ETP mortality is undertaken, through implementation of the National Bycatch Reduction Strategy, particularly within the BREP, therefore the SG80 is met. However, because the Strategy is wide ranging and the focus of the BREP projects are wide ranging, it cannot be said that there are biennial reviews of alternative measures specific to the fishery UoAs in this assessment. Thus, the SG100 is not met.
References
NOAA Fisheries (2020). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024. 24 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAhVMo54KHdoYCJ MQFjABegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Fwebdam%2Fdownload%2F107045645&usg= AOvVaw1A0rNtBzHRLb2PAObEdnDh
NOAA Fisheries (2016b) Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program FY 2015 & 2016 Report to Congress. Accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/88172694
Valdivia A, Wolf S, Suckling K (2019) Marine mammals and sea turtles listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are recovering. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210164
Bolten et. al 2019
92 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
93 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is adequate available to assess with a UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA high degree of certainty the ETP species. related mortality and magnitude of UoA-related impact and to determine impacts, mortalities and OR whether the UoA may be injuries and the a threat to protection and consequences for the If RBF is used to score PI recovery of the ETP status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. Guide Qualitative information is a post adequate to estimate OR productivity and susceptibility attributes for If RBF is used to score ETP species. PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.
Met? All ETP species-Yes All ETP species-Yes All ETP species-No
Rationale For all ETP marine mammals considered in this assessment, there is a stock assessment based on at least some quantitative information about population size, status, and trends, usually sufficient to determine a minimum population size, and corresponding PBR. In addition, there are quantitative estimates of fishery-related mortalities and injuries based on observer data, as well as estimates of other sources of mortality from strandings and other reports. This is sufficient to satisfy the SG80 requirement of some quantitative data 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 marine mammals.
For ETP sea turtles, mortalities are regularly monitored and reflected in the observer data. In addition, within each species’ recovery plan there is a set of metrics against which progress is updated at least every 5-years in the respective recovery plan progress reports. This is sufficient to satisfy the SG80 requirement of some quantitative data adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of ETP marine turtles.
However, the available information does not allow the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of these ETP species to be assessed with a high degree of certainty. There are uncertainties in mortality and interaction data arising from limited observer coverage and a potential for cryptic interactions. Thus, the SG100 is not met.
94 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to measure trends and support a comprehensive manage the impacts on support a strategy to strategy to manage ETP species. manage impacts on ETP impacts, minimise mortality Guide species. and injury of ETP species, b post and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
Met? All ETP species-Yes All ETP species-Yes All ETP species-No
Rationale Observer coverage and other monitoring available for fishery interactions with ETP species is available, as well as estimates of population size, status and trends for ETP species. This information does support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. For marine mammals, the LOF is updated annually to reflect changes in estimated mortalities from specific fisheries relative to PBR, and as a result, reassign priorities for observer coverage and other reporting and monitoring requirements under the MMPA, and re-initiation of Section 9 consultations under the ESA. This is sufficient to meet the SG80. The SG100 is not met because there is not a high degree of certainty that the strategy is meeting its objectives for all species.
For sea turtles progress against ESA-mandated recovery plans is reported at least every 5 years. Observer coverage and other monitoring available for sea turtle population viability studies and mortalities (fisheries and non-fisheries). This is all described in more detail in the above PIs as well as the background section on sea turtles. The SG80 is met. The SG100 is not met because there is not sufficient information to support a high degree of certainty that the strategy is meeting its objectives for all species (as measured in their respective recovery plans).
References See above under PI 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
More information sought Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
95 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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 covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to Guide of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function a habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
This fishery is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of commonly encountered habitats to a point of serious or irreversible harm. Otter trawls are the more likely of the two gears to impact bottom habitats. Of the commonly encountered habitats for this gear type, the impact of bottom trawls is dependent on variables such as fishing effort intensity, habitat type and recovery time. Commonly encountered habitats for this fishery include the geomorphologies bedforms, biogenic burrows, biogenic depressions, unfeatured surface sediments, and shell deposits on mud, sand and granule-pebble substrates. The dominant living organisms encountered in these habitats include hydroids and Modiolus modiolus horse mussels, both encountered in 10% of area swept by trawls according to NEFMC 2011. These are generally higher energy habitats with maximum recovery times of 5 years (most much less—on the order of days or weeks) (NEFMC 2011). MSC considers “serious or irreversible harm” to mean a 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 with 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely. Commonly encountered habitats in this fishery generally recover in fewer than 5 years, and there are also closed areas where these habitat types are entirely protected from bottom fishing. Although we have not identified within all potential commonly encountered habitats which ones are specifically impacted by the UoA activity and to what specific degree, Tables 17 and 18 provide the susceptibility and recovery risk scores for all habitats with which bottom trawl fisheries, present UoAs included, potentially interact. The EFH process results of these analysis, as summarized in these two tables, indicate that for all potential habitats impacted, there is at worst 25-50% area impacted with a recovery time of less than 5 years (for the structure of low-energy cobble habitat). Therefore, at least the SG80 is met. A detailed analysis of the specific interactions between these gears and all commonly encountered habitats, as well as their extent, has not been conducted sufficient to meet SG100.
VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
DeAlteris et al 2020 contains a comprehensive analysis of the definition of VME habitat in the MSC Standard in relation to habitat definitions such as EFH and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC) in the US managed fisheries parlance (in an SCS MSC assessment report). They determined that neither EFH nor HAPCs qualify as VME as defined by MSC, but deep-sea corals do. We concur with the analysis of the SCS team and thus have assigned deep 96 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 sea corals as the only VME habitat relevant to the present fishery assessment. Deep sea coral protections exist where fishing by the trawl UoA, along with most types of bottom tending gear, is prohibited. In the 2017 update to the “State of Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States Report” (Hourigan et. al. 2017) it is stated 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.” Data as viewed through the Northeast Ocean Data GIS mapping tool (https://www.northeastoceandata.org/) on the multispecies groundfish fishery distribution and intensity of activity, and deep-sea coral habitat suitability also provides evidence that the multispecies bottom trawl fishery generally would not take place over habitat areas suitable to deep sea corals, as it is primarily concentrated on slope and shelf areas around the 60-meter depth contour.
Therefore the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is therefore met. However, there is no specific evidence and SG100 is not met.
Minor habitat status There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to c Guide reduce structure and function post of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Met? No
Rationale
Minor habitats have not been assessed at the time of ACDR publication.
References
Hourigan TF, Etnoyer PJ, Cairns SD (2017). The State of Deep‐Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐OHC‐4. Silver Spring, MD. 467 p.
DeAlteris, Joseph, Brian Ahlers and Richard Allen. U.S. Northeastern coast Longfin Inshore Squid and Northern Shortfin Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery. MSC Fishery Assessment Report. SCS Global Services. March 29, 2020.
Proposed Rule for deep sea coral protection omnibus amendment https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2019- 28424.pdf
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator More detail on minor habitat types needed for scores approaching SG100
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
97 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for Guide place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all a expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
There is at least a partial strategy in place expected to achieve the habitat outcome (PI2.4.1) SG80 level of performance, or above. This comprises EFH requirements in the MSA and consequent habitat protection measures, most recently updated in the NEFMC Omnibus EFH amendment (number 2). Habitats and fishery effects on them are well studied in this region and information is used to inform management. Designation of HAPCs is one example of this, as is the Omnibus Amendment currently in process concerning deep sea coral habitat protections in the region. This combination of measures comprises at least a partial strategy, hence meeting SG80, however because it is not clear that there is a strategy in place to manage all fisheries impacts on habitats SG100 is not met.
Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial Guide based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, b (e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The SASI model outputs, and evidence of downward-trending bottom impact to habitats contained therein, in addition to good information on the northeast multispecies fishery overlap with different habitat types (indicating where UoA fishing is likely to occur in relation to these habitat types), gives some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work based on information directly about the UoA and habitats involved. The SG80 is met. More information and analysis will be needed to evaluate the SG100.
Management strategy implementation There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being post being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No
Rationale
98 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
There is some quantitative evidence of successful implementation of habitat protections including closed areas on the basis of VMS monitoring and enforcement records. The SASI model also provides an estimate of cumulative adverse impact of the UoA on habitat, but this is based on a model containing many assumptions, therefore it cannot be considered as “clear quantitative evidence” The SG80 but not SG100 is met.
Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative d evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its
Guide management requirements to management requirements management requirements and post protect VMEs. and with protection measures with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? Y Y Y
Rationale
Habitat protection measures applying to other MSC and non-MSC fisheries also apply to this fishery. The application of habitat protection measures set out in particular FMPs specify applicability to other FMPs and across Councils in most cases. The UoA fisheries comply with these requirements.SG100 is met.
References
NEFMC 2011. See also references under 2.4.1.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI It would be nice to know why the deep sea coral Information gap indicator omnibus amendment appears to be stalled in NEFMC process.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
99 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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 Information quality The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range, understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable OR relevant to the scale and habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
There is information on the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the 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 broadly, though the specific overlap with the northeast bottom trawl fishery targeting redfish, haddock and pollock has not been quantified specifically. Relative vulnerability of the habitat in the managed area has been modelled based on geological and biological features and modelled energy levels have been used to assign susceptibility and recovery scores under the SASI approach (see tables above, and in NEFMC 2011). 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. There have also been significant information gathering efforts undertaken to support the design of the Omnibus Amendment for deep sea coral protection, including surveys of coral and sponge distribution and workshops with stakeholders to obtain diverse perspectives on fishery impacts and effective and practicable management alternatives. The SG80 is met. The SG100 is not met because the distribution of all habitats is not known across their full ranges.
Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction b gear. and on the timing and Guide location of use of the fishing OR gear. post If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative information attributes of the main is available and is adequate habitats. to estimate the consequence 100 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The information available from observational and experimental studies of bottom trawls (see NEFMC 2011 and the Northeast Ocean Data Explorer) is sufficient to identify the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats with which it interacts. The spatial extent of interaction and timing and location of use of fishing gear is generally available from VMS and VTR data. 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 is met. 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.
Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Yes No
Rationale
Adequate information continues to be collected to 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, and the 5-year EFH cycle. Not all changes in habitats distributions (including minor ones) are measured over time, thus the SG100 is not met.
References
The CAB shall list any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI If more information is sought, include a Information gap indicator description of what the information gap is and what is information is sought
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
101 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to Guide underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements a structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The two ecological criteria considered to be key ecosystem elements that may be affected by fisheries are primary and secondary productivity and trophically linked populations. Winter and little skates are not considered to be key species for ecosystem functioning. 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 at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/, and key findings have been summarized in the background section of this report.
While there have been significant shifts in phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure in the NES LME, evidence does not indicate that base food web productivity is driven by top-down forces such as fishing pressure. 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 can be considered ‘reversible’. The UoA is therefore highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm and SG80 is met. However, there is no direct evidence of this and SG100 is not met. References
NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report (no date)- available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
102 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to Guide impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of a elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
As described in the background, there are several policies, ongoing research activities, and management practices that address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. 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.
The 10 National Standards, taken together as management objectives, provides a broad management framework available that covers ecosystem impacts of fishing as a whole. 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. 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. The New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) is also working in exploring Ecosystem- Based Fishery Management (EBFM) (the last action of the EBFM committee included an example fishery ecosystem plan for Georges Bank (https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/9_-Short-Draft-Example-Fishery-Ecosystem-Plan-for- Georges-Bank.pdf)
In addition to monitoring and evaluation systems to manage ecosystem components (e.g., stock assessments, SBRM reports, 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 EBFM is under development by the Councils, 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. Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial Guide based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, b (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly
post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The strategy takes into account available information from stock assessments, SBRM reports and EFH designations related to the UoAs. Because the ecosystem strategy operates at a federal level and influences all the FMPs that are 103 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 included in the UoAs, it is considered that this strategy is expected to mitigate impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, meeting SG80. There are also measures which are part of the strategy, that are already in place (i.e., catch limits for federally managed species, EFH designations, and on-board observer programs). However, because the plan for ecosystem management for the NEFMC is still under development it cannot be said that there is a plan based on a well-understood functional relationship between the fishery and the components and elements of the ecosystem, thus the SG100 is not met. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented Post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No
Rationale
Under the 10 National Standards, federal fisheries are managed to minimize impacts on components of the ecosystem, although the main focus of this management is on federally managed commercial species, rather than ecological communities. In this UoA, federally managed species comprise the majority of the catch, and all main species have a healthy stock status. Information on catch composition across all fleets is published annually. Habitat impacts have been modelled 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 provides evidence that measures are being successfully implemented. SG80 is met. 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. SG100 is not met. References
NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report (no date)- available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report https://www.nefmc.org/library/april-2019-ecosystem-based-fishery-management-ebfm-committee-report
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
104 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Information quality
Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to a identify the key elements of broadly understand the key post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.
Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
There is substantial information available on the key elements of the ecosystem, accessible through 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 PIs 2.1.3, 2.2.3, and 2.4.3. SG80 is met.
Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and not been investigated in some have been have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Main impacts of the UoA can be inferred, and some have been investigated in detail. The 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. SG80 is met. However, it cannot be said that all main interactions have been investigated in detail, hence SG100 is not met. Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species c Guide and ETP species and and Habitats are identified
post Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No
Rationale
All main species evaluated under Primary Species are federally managed, and are thus subject to their own FMPs, regular stock assessment, and EFH designations. For non-federally managed bycatch species catch/discard information is collected and monitored. ETP mammals also undergo stock assessments and fishery impacts are categorized annually via the MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF). ETP turtles are monitored in accordance with their recovery plans. 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. The main functions of these components in the ecosystem are known and SG80 is met. The SG100 is not met because there are gaps remining in understanding of the main functions of components in the ecosystem. 105 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of d Guide the UoA on these the UoA on the components post components to allow some of and elements to allow the the main consequences for main consequences for the the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes No
Rationale
All main species evaluated under Primary Species are federally managed, and are thus subject to their own FMPs, regular stock assessment, and EFH designations. For non-federally managed bycatch species catch/discard information is collected and monitored. ETP mammals also undergo stock assessments and fishery impacts are categorized annually via the LOF. ETP turtles are monitored in accordance with their recovery plans. 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. This provides adequate information on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred; SG80 is met. The SG100 is not met because of the gaps in information on some of the elements.
Monitoring Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to e Guide collected to detect any support the development of post increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
There is sufficient information available and continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level. 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 as described under 2.5.2. SG100 is met. References
NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report (no date)- available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
106 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Principle 3
7.3.5 Area of operation Throughout the Greater Atlantic region, groundfish are distributed from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the U.S./Canada border. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the U.S. is the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) which has been successively reauthorized in 2006 under the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA) and is implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC, or the Council) is one of eight regional councils established by the MSRA to manage fisheries in the U.S. EEZ off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The majority of the groundfish that are landed in the Greater Atlantic region are harvested on Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. Fishermen primarily use the bottom trawl, sink gillnet and hook gear types in this fishery. Historically, many of the vessels that fish for groundfish have originated from ports from Maine to New Jersey (NOAA 2019). The Council manages 29 species under nine Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), including sea scallops, Atlantic herring, groundfish, monkfish, whiting, red crab and skates.
The 5Zjm haddock stock (Georges Bank) is a shared stock between the U.S. and Canada. The Canadian haddock fishery operates in three areas around the Southern Scotian Shelf: The Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Georges Bank (GB). The principal legislature for the management of the Canadian stock is Canada’s Department of fisheries and Ocean (DFO). The Canadian haddock fishery is primarily conducted by vessels using otter trawls, bottom longlines, and a few handlines and gillnets.
7.3.6 Jurisdiction The management authority of the Council extends to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB) and southern New England, and overlaps with the Mid-Atlantic Council for some species in that region (NEFMC 2021). The groundfish complex, or the Northeast multispecies fishery, is managed by NOAA Fisheries and the NEFMC under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (NEMFMP). There are thirteen groundfish species managed under the plan and comprises 20 distinct stock, including the four UoAs in this assessment: • Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod • Georges Bank (GB) cod • GOM haddock (UoA 3) • GB haddock (UoA 4) • GB yellowtail flounder • Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder • Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder • American plaice • Witch flounder • GB winter flounder • GOM winter flounder • Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder • Acadian redfish (UoA 1) • White hake • Pollock (UoA 2) • Northern windowpane flounder • Southern windowpane flounder • Ocean pout • Atlantic halibut • Atlantic wolffish
Most of the stocks are managed solely by the NEFMC; however, the three transboundary GB stocks (cod, haddock and yellowtail founder) are jointly managed with Canadian authorities under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding (NOAA 2019). According to SA4.1.1, the UoAs fall into a single-jurisdiction category, with exception of haddock, which falls into a multi-jurisdictional management system and has a shared stock category. Therefore, both Canada and the U.S. management systems will be evaluated.
7.3.7 Recognized groups with interests in the fishery and details of the fleet The UoAs in this fishery are harvested by otter trawl gear. The fishing year for all groundfish runs from May 1 through April 30. There is both a recreational and commercial interest in the groundfish fishery, and both are regulated by permits, mesh size and possession limits. For recreational harvests, there is also a minimum fish size.
107 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The following table lists measures that apply to private recreational fishing vessels in the EEZ, federal charter/party permitted vessels and federal groundfish limited access permitted vessels not fishing under a groundfish day-at-sea (DAS) or on a sector trip, for the UoAs in this assessment. For recreational details on all the Northeast multispecies, please reference the following link: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies- groundfish#recreational.
Table 20 Federal minimum fish sizes and possession limits for recreational vessels; RMA = Regulated Mesh Area. Source: NOAA 2019b Species Possession Limit Minimum fish size Open Season (inches) Haddock Inside GOM RMA 15 fish per person 17 May 1 – February per day 28/29 and April 1- April 30 Outside GOM RMA Unlimited 18 All Year Pollock Unlimited 19 All Year Redfish (ocean perch) Unlimited 9 All Year
There are two separate MSC assessments of the haddock fishery and one other that include pollock and redfish: the Canada Scotia Fundy haddock fishery and the US Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish trawl. The Public Certification Reports and subsequent reports for these fisheries have been referenced to inform the following sections.
7.3.8 Legal and policy framework U.S. - Domestic The MSFCMA is the primary domestic legislation governing management of marine fisheries in the U.S. The Act was first enacted in 1976 and has been amended many times over the years. In 1996, the United States Congress reauthorized the MSFCMA under the MSRA to include a new emphasis on the precautionary approach in U.S. fishery management policy. The MSRA, contains ten National Standards with which all fishery management plans (FMPs) must conform and which guide fishery management (NEFMC 2021).
These National Standards are:
1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry; 2. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available; 3. To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination; 4. Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonable calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of privileges; 5. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose; 6. Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches; 7. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication; 8. Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities 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; 9. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch; and, 10. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.
The MSRA was most recently reauthorized in 2007. Two major recent sets of amendments to the law were the: The Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996) addresses many topics, among which includes Title V, Implementation of Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sustainable_fishereries_act.pdf). 108 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2007, which has the following key objectives (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act):
a. Prevent overfishing. b. Rebuild overfished stocks. c. Increase long-term economic and social benefits. d. Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood.
The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manage U.S. Federal fisheries from three to 200 miles that encompasses the Northeast region (federal waters from Maine to North Carolina. NOAA/NMFS is also responsible for carrying out the U.S. policies to manage and conserve marine protected resources.
Other applicable law that is directly relevant to the management of marine fisheries includes (NEFMC 2021:
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): requires environmental impact assessments of federal actions and compliance with other laws and executive orders. • Endangered Species Act (ESA): prohibits actions that are expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction or result in harmful effects on critical habitat. • Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): requires protection of marine mammals. NMFS is responsible for whales, dolphins, porpoise, seals, sea lions and fur seals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for walrus, sea otters, and the West Indian manatee. • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): a shared agreement between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia to protect migratory birds, prohibiting their taking, killing, or possession. The directed take of seabirds is prohibited. • Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): requires all federal activities that directly affect the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable • Administrative Procedures Act (APA): provides for public participation in the rulemaking process • Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): regulates the collection of information from the public • Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): requires assessment of the regulatory impact on small entities through a regulatory flexibility analysis. The analysis is combined with the regulatory impact review (RIR) and NEPA analyses. • EO 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): establishes guidelines for promulgating new regulations and reviewing existing regulations and requires agencies to assess the costs and benefits of all regulatory action alternatives. • EO 12898 (Environmental Justice): requires federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations in the United States” as part of an environmental impact analysis associated with an action. • EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments): requires regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications and the avoidance of unfunded mandates imposed on tribes. • EO 13132 (Federalism): requires federal agencies to consider the implications of policies that may limit the scope of or pre-empt states’ legal authority. Such actions require a consultation process with the states and may not create unfunded mandates for the states. • EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds): supplements the MBTA by requiring Federal agencies to work with the USFWS to develop memoranda of agreement to conserve migratory birds and to evaluate the effects of their actions on migratory birds in NEPA documents.
Under the MSRA, the Council is authorized to prepare and submit to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, disapproval or partial approval, an FMP and any necessary amendments, for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. The Council conducts public hearings to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and reviews and revises, as appropriate, the assessments and specifications with respect to the optimum yield from each fishery (NEFMC 2021c).
Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan The Northeast multispecies complex is managed by the NEMFMP, which was first implemented in 1986. Thirteen species are managed through plan amendments and framework adjustments to the original plan, while five additional stocks are managed under a separate small mesh multispecies program (NEFMC 2021b).
Originally, the only stocks that were managed in accordance with the MSFCMA were cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder beginning with the first Groundfish Plan in 1977, which were managed by single-stock quota and proved to be 109 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 unsuccessful (SAI Global 2017; NEFMC 1985). The Council acknowledged the incompatibility of single stock management measures without considering the economic, biological and functional relationships that exist among the resource. The Council also realized the importance of regulatory measures for stocks within one or more fisheries must be established with full recognition of their impacts on the utilization and harvesting of all stocks in that fishery or other associated fisheries (NEFMC 1985). Having identified the inappropriateness of single-stock management methods for the multispecies fishery, the Council temporarily paused on development of the multispecies FMP in favour of creating an interim management plan that promoted conservation of the stocks by encouraging data collection on the resource and the industry, which also provided an opportunity for the Council to detail goals and objectives of fishery management. The Interim Groundfish FMP became effective in April 1982 and the Council sought to achieve agreement on a policy that set forth management intentions. The policy, which is a statement of intent, regarding the management of the region’s multispecies fisheries developed with two basic goals for management: 1) allow the multispecies fishery to operate with minimum regulatory intervention, and 2) to adopt initial measures to prevent stocks from reaching minimum abundance levels, defined as those levels which there is a high risk of recruitment failure The actual policy statement was adopted in August 1983 and subsequently concurred with the Mid-Atlantic Council in April 1984 (NEFMC 1985).
Canada – Domestic The following information has been adapted from the Canada Scotia Fundy haddock Announcement Comment Draft Report 2021 (Global Trust 2021; DFO 2019).
The following summary lists the primary policies and legislation that work to regulate and manage Canada’s domestic fisheries: • The Fisheries Act (1985) – Provides absolute discretion to the Minister for the management of fisheries and for the establishment of licenses, regulation, reporting requirements, protection of fish habitat and pollution prevention • The Atlantic Fishery Regulations (1985) – sets conditions for the operation of the fishery including seasons, closures, management and conservation measures. • The Fishery (General) Regulations (1993) – Provides for licences and the authority to specify conditions in a fishing licence, e.g., allocations, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), observer coverage, dockside monitoring, etc. • Species at Risk Act (SARA 2002) – Authorizes actions focused at managing species of special concern, prevents overfishing or extinction of endangered marine species or promoting their recovery • The Oceans Act 1996 – Recommends the Canadian oceans management strategy, including sustainable development, the precautionary approach, the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the implementation of integrated management of marine activities • The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (DFO 1992) – Seeks to provide management and regulation of fishing by Aboriginal groups through the negotiation of fisheries agreements between DFO and Aboriginal groups. • Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review – Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast (DFO 2004) – Presents objectives to guide decision-making in Atlantic fisheries. • Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) (DFO 2009) – focuses on the need to incorporate ecosystem and precautionary approaches to fishery management • Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (DFO 2009) – Focuses on approaches that Canada will take in protecting benthic ecosystems in fishing areas • Policy on Managing Bycatch (DFO 2013) – Addresses total catch, including retained and non-retained species bycatch in all FMPs
International legislation Internationally, the U.S. and Canada are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as the subsequent United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFA). Canada has adopted the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and assisted the domestic development of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing operations. Both the U.S. and Canada supported the International Plans of Action (IPOA) in respect of seabirds, sharks, fishing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing that emerged from the FAO code. The U.S. and Canada are also a members of several Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) around the world, including (but not limited to) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).
7.3.9 Resolution of Disputes
110 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
U.S. Legal disputes are handled under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies (e.g., NOAA/NMFS) develop and issue regulations. Opportunities are provided for the public to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/apa.pdf). NOAA has an extensive Dispute Resolution Process, defined by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 320. The Council resolves disputes by majority vote as required in section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Any disputes remaining following adoption of regulations/rules may be resolved through the federal court system.
The Council conducts its ongoing decision-making processes in a manner designed to avoid legal disputes. The Council relies on a consensus approach among advisory bodies with room for minority reports should these groups fail to reach consensus. The Council resolves disputes (after weighing staff reports, advisory body reports, NMFS legal counsel advice, and public testimony) by majority vote held in public session as required in Section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Legal action may also be used by those individuals or groups dissatisfied with the decisions made by the Council and NMFS through the federal court system. In addition, the wide dissemination of information to promote transparency ensures that the probability of stakeholders being caught off-guard is minimal. If legal action is required, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice, service and counsel for all matters that may arise in the conduct of NOAA’s missions. The OGC is appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President (NEFMC 2020b).
Canada The Federal Courts Act of 1985 provides a mechanism for parties to challenge decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals. Unresolved disputes within the Canadian fisheries management system can be taken to the Canadian judicial system for a final decision.
The Canada-US TRSC is a forum that is available to the parties for resolving disagreements that may arise in relation to various aspects of the fisheries management system for the area. The parties have consistently demonstrated a commitment to arriving at a negotiated solution to their differences in the interest of safeguarding their shared goals and objectives, rather than relying upon the legal system or some third-party process. Once decisions are taken, the dispute resolution mechanisms are available to Canadian industry groups (Global Trust 2021).
7.3.10 Respect of Rights The ten National Standards of the MSRA guide the development of fishery 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 (SCS 2018). 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” (NOAA 2018).
The MSRA 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;” 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.
111 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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(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.
Canada The Constitution Act 1982 (Government of Canada 1982) recognizes and confirms aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the legal rights to fish for food and livelihood. This section of the Act has been litigated and confirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions and constitutes a formal commitment to the rights of aboriginal peoples.
In 1990, the Supreme court of Canada released a decision in R. v. Sparrow. In this decision, The Court stated that Aboriginal rights to fish for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes have priority over all other uses of the fishery. Disputes regarding aboriginal fishing rights have been fairly resolved and have led to current policy initiatives that ensures the protection of aboriginal rights, specifically the “Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy” (DFO 1992) which is aimed at ensuring that aboriginal entitlements are respected in the development of fisheries management regimes for aboriginal peoples.
7.3.11 Consultation, roles, and responsibilities U.S. Accountability and transparency of the management system is required by multiple laws 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” (NOAA 2018).
The Council’s mandate is to manage and conserve fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation by relying on scientific information and data, as well as the participation of fishing communities and the public. In accordance with the MSRA, the Council has functions and responsibilities that are outlined in the Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPP). These functions and roles are summarized below (NEFMC 2015): A. Prepare and submit to the Secretary of Commerce a fishery management plan with respect to each fishery requiring conservation and management within the Council’s geographic area or authority and amendments to such plan as necessary. B. Review and comment on applications for foreign fishings transmitted to the Council under a governing international fishery agreement. C. Prepare comments on any FMP or amendments prepared by the Secretary which are transmitted to the Council under Section 304 (c)(4) of the MSRA. D. Conduct public hearings in the Council’s membership area, to allow interested persons the opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and Amendments with respect to the administration and implementation of the MSRA. E. Submit to the Secretary such as periodic reports as the Council deems appropriate. F. Review and revise (as appropriate) the specifications and assessments in each FMP for each fishery within its geographical area with regard to: 1. The present and probable condition of the fishery. 2. The MSY from the fishery 3. The optimum yield from the fishery 4. The capacity and extent to which fishing vessels of the U.S. will harvest the optimum yield on an annual basis an 5. The portion of such optimum yield on an annual basis which will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the U.S and can be made available for foreign fishing. 112 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
G. Develop annual catch limits and accountability measures for each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the recommendations established by the MSRA H. Conduct any other activities which are required by or provided for in the MSRA.
The Council is involved in a public process and therefore makes efforts to keep all affected parties informed about Council activities (NEFMC 2021c). Whenever possible, the Council will use community input in conjunction with scientific information in the development of its FMPs.
For Council Meetings, the Executive Director in consultation with the Council Chairman drafts the agenda for each meeting. The Executive Committee will review the draft agenda before it is released to the public. Timely notice of each regular meeting and emergency meeting of the Council, including time, place and agenda, shall be provided by any means that will result in wide publicity in the major fishing ports of the region (and in any other fishing ports with a direct interest in the affected fishery), noting that email notifications and website postings alone are not sufficient (NEFMC 2015). Notice of each regular meeting shall also be published in the Federal Register (FR).
The FR serves as the Council’s notice of record. Meeting notices must be published for the Oversight Committee, Advisory Panel and Council meetings at least 14 days prior to the meeting date. The Council meeting agenda is also sent to the Council’s mailing list (NEFMC 2021c). The Council will not take action, except in emergency situations, if that action is not listed on the published agenda. The Council may hold public hearings in order to provide the opportunity for all interested individuals to be heard with respect to the development of fishery management plans or amendments, and with respect to the administration and implementation of other relevant features of the Act. Notice of each hearing must be received by NMFS for publication in the FR at least 23 calendar days prior to the proposed hearing. The Council will also issue notices to announce the time, location, and agenda for each hearing in a manner sufficient to assure all interested parties are aware of the opportunity to make their views known. If it is determined a hearing is appropriate, the Council Chair will designate at least one voting member of the Council to officiate. An accurate record of the participants and their views will be made available to the Council at the appropriate Council meeting and maintained as part of the Council’s administrative record.
The Council’s Executive Committee is responsible for developing Council meeting agendas. To ensure that issues or recommendations discussed at committee meetings will in turn be addressed at the next scheduled Council meeting, oversight committee chairmen should schedule committee meetings appropriately. Public comments are allowed at Council meetings on all agenda items requiring final action and on all agenda items at Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel meetings. Both oral and written comments may be submitted (NEFMC 2021c). In addition, the Council website has newsletters, articles, publications, meeting agendas and calendars of upcoming events and highlights current issues.
Canada The DFO has a list of consultations on Canada’s fisheries where interested parties can take part in consultations or review decisions made on national policy or legislative issues based on stakeholder feedback. The DFO lists ‘public engagement principles’, which ensures that information is transparent, inclusive, relevant, accountable and adaptable (DFO 2019b). There are also News releases, Media advisories and other opportunities on the website.
The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) coordinates the scientific peer review and science advice for the DFO. The CSAS publishes departmental scientific advice and information and coordinates the publication of the peer review meeting products with the Science Advisory Schedule, an online calendar which contains information on past and upcoming peer reviews. More information of this peer review process can be referenced at the following link: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm.
U.S.- Canada transboundary NMFS and the DFO each appoint on TRAC co-chair. The co-chairs administer the TRAC review process, schedule TRAC review meetings and oversee the publication of product documents. The TMGC, in consultation with the TRAC co-chairs, drafts the TRAC remit that indicates the timeline and the required product of the TRAC (Global Trust 2021). Peer review of benchmark assessment framework requires participation of local technical experts, including those solicited from the international community, as well as stakeholders, to bring knowledge and various insights into the process. The benchmark assessment framework will not be re-evaluated until progress on the science warrants, generally several years of information are required before another benchmark reviewed is justified. The TMGC would consult with the TRAC co-chairs to establish the schedule for review. NOAA Fisheries and the DFO commit to supporting participation at each benchmark assessment review with at least two scientists that are not employed in the U.S. Northeast Region or the Canadian Maritimes Region (Global Trust 2021).
The TRAC co-chairs are responsible for presenting the TRAC results to the TMGC, and also may be called upon by the TMGC to make presentations at public consultations. With the exception of the Transboundary Committee
113 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020 deliberations, meeting minutes from the regional and local groundfish advisory committees are not posted on the DRO website but distributed by email to participants. Regarding regional and local committees, the public may attend, however media representatives are not allowed to video/photograph or record the proceedings (DFO 2020; Global Trust 2021). 7.3.12 Decision making process U.S. The Council has established its process, outlined in Section 302 of the MSRA, to accomplish the work of developing rules that apply to the managed fisheries that operate in its areas of responsibility in the U.S. EEZ. There are 18 voting members and are organized as follows: • The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region/NOAA Fisheries, or a designee (no term limit); • Five principal state officials with marine fishery management responsibility (or a designee) for Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut (no term limit). • Twelve members nominated by the governors of the New England coastal states and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms (three consecutive terms to serve is allowable). • In addition, four non-voting members represent the United States Coast Guard (USCG), USFWS, U.S. Department of State, and the ASMFC (NEFMC 2021). The Council relies on its Oversight Committees, Advisory Panels, Plan Development Teams and Scientific and Statistical Committee to develop management actions.
Oversight Committees (OCs) Each Council member serves on one or more oversight committee. Committees are related to a specific fishery or management issue, such as ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). OCs allow the Council to more efficiently develop alternatives and management measures for consideration and inclusion in an FMP. Committee members develop specific measures that will form the basis of the plan, amendments or framework adjustments to an FMP. OCs make recommendations, which are forwarded to the full Council for approval before they are included in any draft of final FMP.
Advisory Panels (APs) APs consist of members from the fishing industry (both recreational and commercial sectors), scientists, environmental advocates and others with experience and knowledge related to fisheries issues. They meet separately or jointly with the relevant OC and aid in developing management plan measures. Advisors are appointed every three years following a solicitation for candidates. The OC recommends new or returning advisors. The Council’s Executive Committee provides final approval of AP members.
Plan Development Teams (PDTs) PDTs provide additional expertise for the purpose of conducting analyses and providing technical information to the Council. The PDTs help ensure the Council FMPs, amendments and framework adjustments meet legal and scientific requirements for review and approval. They provide technical analyses concerning species-related information, and develop issue papers, alternatives, and other documents as appropriate.
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) The SSC provides the Council with scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, achieving rebuilding targets, and considerations related to the economic and social impacts of management measures (NEFMC 2021c).
Canada Within Canada’s EEZ, the federal government is responsible for the management of the fisheries. The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and is then delegated through the organisational structure of the DFO. For the purpose of the re-assessment, the haddock fishery (5Zjm) is managed by DFO’s Martimes Region, Resource Management Branch, headquartered in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (Global Trust 2021).
Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Advisory Committee (SFGAC) The SFGAC is the main consultative committee for the provision of advice to the DFO on the management of the groundfish fishery resource in the Scotia-Fundy Sector (NAFO Divisions 4vWX, 5yb and 5Zjm). Representatives include various sectors of DFO, provincial governments, fish and seafood processors, fish harvester associations and aboriginal communities (Global Trust 2021).
Community Management Boards Community Management Boards enable industry associations within communities to create solutions to problems in fish management and to develop conservation harvest plans (CHPs) that address seasonal fishing patterns. They develop management approaches that apply mainly to halibut, but also to cod, haddock and pollock in the NAFO
114 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
4X5Y area. Some boards establish industry monitored trip limits and seasonal quotas, in addition to monitoring bycatch. The allocation of the TA among community groups is determined on catch history and is treated as set shares. Limited temporary transfer of quota between Management Boars is permitted (Global Trust 2021).
Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee (GOMAC) The GOMAC provides an opportunity for government and fishing industry representatives to jointly develop and provide advice to DFO on GOM fisheries issues. The GOMAC advises on technical, operational, and scientific analyses needed to support formal discussions with the U.S. and is the main advisory body to the DFO on issues related to TACs for the transboundary groundfish stock and other fisheries management measures in NAFO Division 5Z (Global Trust 2021).
Integrated Fishery Management Plans (IFMPs) are used to guide the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources; support the management of sustainable fisheries and combine science and Indigenous traditional knowledge on fish species with industry data to determine best practices for harvest. IFMPs identify goals related to management, conservation, enforcement and science for individual fisheries; and they describe access and allocations among various fish harvesters and fleet areas. They also include a requirement to conduct a regular review of the fishery against the plan’s objectives (Global Trust 2021; DFO 2018)
U.S. – Canada Transboundary Management System In October 1984, the International Court of Justice established the official boundary between the United States and Canada in the GOM, known as the “Hague Line” (Figure #). Due to the importance of GB to the fisheries, both nations have worked closely to manage shared resource, collaborate on stock assessments, and coordinate their research and enforcement efforts (Global Trust 2021; NOAA 2020).
Figure 18 Transboundary "Hague line" between the U.S. and Canada, Source: NOAA 2020
Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) Since 1998, The Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) has reviewed stock assessments and projections necessary to support management activities for shared resources across the U.S.-Canada boundary in the GOM and GB region. The TRAC is the scientific arm of the U.S-Canada Transboundary Resources Steering Committee (TRSC). The TRAC assesses Eastern GB haddock, Eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder. It meets annually to update and peer review assessments (NOAA 2020).
Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) The TMGC is a government – industry committee comprised of representatives from the United States and Canada. It is comprised of Council members, NOAA Fisheries representatives and Canadian officials who negotiate allocations annually based on the historic proportions of fishery landings caught by U.S and Canadian fishermen and resource distribution. The Committee’s purpose is to develop guidance in the form of management processes, harvest strategies and resource sharing for the transboundary groundfish resources on GB for the U.S. and Canada (DFO 2020).
115 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The TMGC meets as required, incorporates information received from fishermen, considers the scientific advice contained in Transboundary Status Reports, reaches agreement by consensus and produces a common guidance document for the management of transboundary resources that is communicated to national fisheries management authorities. The Committee’s annual guidance documents are a summary of its guidance to both countries for the forthcoming fishing year (defined as the calendar year for Canada; and from May 1 to April 30 of the following year for the U.S.). Relevant reference documents and consultations used in the TMGC deliberations are included in the reports (Global Trust 2021).
7.3.13 Objectives for the Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock fishery U.S. To ensure the Council has effective conservation and management programs in place and adheres to sound management practices as it considers and includes ecosystem-based principles in its FMPs, the Council has adopted the following policy: • The Council recognizes that allocation is an integral part of its management responsibilities and that measures which have allocative effects should be open and transparent. • The Council will develop conservation measures and controls that have a high level of certainty that ensures they will prevent overfishing, end overfishing and rebuild stocks. • The Council recognizes that management measures affect fishermen, and that allocation measures and controls must have a high level of certainty that ensures our conservation requirements are met in a fair and equitable manner (NEFMC 2021c).
The fishery specific objectives for the Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock fishery are outlined in the NEMFMP and summarized below.
The objective of the NEMFMP is to control fishing mortality on juveniles (primarily) and on adults (secondarily) of selected finfish stocks within the management unit in order to maintain sufficient spawning potential on a long term average basis; and to similarly reduce fishing mortality for the purpose of rebuilding those stocks where the spawning average basis; and to reduce fishing mortality for the purpose of rebuilding those stocks where the spawning potential has proved to be insufficient to maintain a viable fishery resource; and promote the collection of data about the multispecies fishery and on the effectiveness of the management program (NEFMC 1986, SAI Global 2017).
Amendment 13 established additional goals and objectives, which were expanded into Amendment 18 in relation to the fishing fleet and businesses. The goals and objectives of this Amendment are as follows: Goals: • Goal 1: Consistent with the National Standards and other required provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law, manage the northeast multispecies complex at sustainable levels. • Goal 2: Create a management system so that fleet capacity will be commensurate with resource status so as to achieve goals of economic efficiency and biological conservation and that encourages diversity within the fishery. • Goal 3: Maintain a directed commercial and recreational fishery for northeast multispecies. • Goal 4: Minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on fishing communities and shoreside infrastructure. • Goal 5: Provide reasonable and regulated access to the groundfish species covered in this plan to all members of the public of the United States for seafood consumption and recreational purposes during the stock rebuilding period without compromising the Amendment 13 objectives or timetable. • Goal 6: To promote stewardship of the fishery Objectives: Objective 1: Achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield (OY) for the US fishing industry. Objective 2: Clarify the status determination criteria (biological reference points and control rules) for groundfish stocks so they are consistent with the National Standard guidelines and applicable law. Objective 3: Adopt fishery management measures that constrain fishing mortality to levels that are compliant with the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Objective 4: Implement rebuilding schedules for overfished stocks and prevent overfishing Objective 5: Adopt measures as appropriate to support international transboundary management of resources. Objective 6: Promote research and improve the collection of information to better understand groundfish population dynamics, biology and ecology, and to improve assessment procedures in cooperation with the industry. Objective 7: To the extent possible, maintain a diverse groundfish fishery, including different gear types, vessel sizes, geographic locations, and levels of participation. Objective 8: Develop biological, economic and social measures of success for the groundfish fishery and resource that ensure accountability in achieving fishery management objectives. 116 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Objective 9: Adopt measures consistent with the habitat provisions of the MSRA, including identification of EFH and minimizing impacts on habitat to the extent practicable. Objective 10: Identify and minimize bycatch, which include regulatory discards, to the extent practicable, and to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch (Acoura 2018).
Canada The DFO has a “Mandate and role” that present ways of safeguarding its waters by: • Sustainably managing fisheries and aquaculture • Working with fishers, coastal and Indigenous communities to enable their continues prosperity from fish and seafood • Ensuring that Canada’s oceans and other aquatic ecosystems are protected from negative impacts. • Ensuring commercial vessels and recreational boaters can safely navigate our waters • Being there to save lives and protect our environment when emergencies arise (DFO 2021)
Departmental priorities and mandate commitments are also available on the DFO website. These priorities include protecting Canada’s 3 oceans and waterways, ensuring they remain healthy for future generations and providing economic opportunities to Canadians and coastal communities (DFO 2021). More details can be found on the DFO website.
The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review – A policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast gives direction for the management of fisheries on the Atlantic coast. The framework identifies four objectives that the DFO will work to achieve in collaboration with resource users and those who have an interest in the Atlantic Fisheries. The two core objectives are: • Conservation and Sustainable Use – Conservation of marine resources and habitat, and rebuilding of resources and restoration of habitat where necessary, will remain the highest priority for the management of all fisheries. Within the limits of available knowledge, all fishing activities will be conducted in a manner that leads to sustainable levels of resource use. • Self-reliance – Self-reliant fisheries and collaboration among all orders of government will contribute to the well-being of coastal communities. To be more self-reliant, resource users will have more flexibility to make decisions about their own economic and social objectives. The two supporting objectives are: • Shared Stewardship – Participants will be effectively involved in fisheries management decision-making processes at appropriate levels; they will contribute specialized knowledge and experience and share in accountability for outcomes. • A Stable and Transparent Access and Allocation Approach – The access and allocation of fisheries resources will be more stable and predictable, and decisions will be made and conflicts resolved through fair, transparent and rules-based processes. (Global Trust 2021; DFO 2008).
The IFMP for groundfish outlines both long and short-term objectives for the groundfish fishery in the Maritimes Regions. There are five overarching objectives that guide fisheries management, which are directed by the principle that the fishery is a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians. These objectives are: • Conservation objectives 1. Productivity: Do not cause unacceptable reduction in productivity so that components can play their role in the functioning of the ecosystem. 2. Biodiversity: Do not cause unacceptable reduction in biodiversity in order to preserve the structure and natural resilience of the ecosystem. 3. Habitat: Do not cause unacceptable modification to habitat in order to safeguard both physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem. • Social, cultural and economic objectives 4. Culture and sustenance: Respect Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish. 5. Prosperity: Create the circumstances for economically prosperous fisheries (DFO 2018).
7.3.14 Regulatory framework and measures to meet objectives The Northeast multispecies or groundfish are managed by a variety of regulations including possession limits, minimum fish sizes, days-at-sea restrictions, and quotas. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Chapter VI, Part 648, Subpart F states the management measures and regulations for the NE Multispecies fisheries. The contents of these regulations include:
§648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing. 117 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
§648.81 NE multispecies year-round and seasonal closed areas. §648.82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access vessels. §648.83 Multispecies minimum fish sizes §648.84 Gear-marking requirements and gear restrictions §648.85 Special management programs. §648.86 NE Multispecies possession restrictions. §648.87 Sector allocation. §648.88 Multispecies open access permit restrictions. §648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions. §648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.
Details of these regulations can be found at the following link: Management measures for the NE Multispecies fisheries.
The NEFMC, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), implemented the NEMFMP in 1986. A summary of the plan amendments, frameworks and specifications since the last reassessment can be found below (NEFMC 2021b). For the Frameworks and Amendments that occurred before the reassessment in 2016 (Framework 1 – 53; Amendments 1 – 17), please refer to SAI Global 2017, or the complete list can be accessed on the NEFMC website at https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies.
Plan Amendments: Amendment 18 (July 1, 2014) This Amendment was developed to promote fleet diversity in the groundfish fishery, enhance sector management and prevent the possession of excessive shares of permits.
Amendment 19 (May 6, 2013) Amendment 19 was developed to modify management measures that govern the small-mesh multispecies fishery, including the year-round possession limits, total allowable landings process and the accountability measures.
Amendment 20 (June 30, 2015) This action establishes standards of precision for bycatch estimation for all Northeast Region fisheries.
Amendment 21 (February 7, 2020) This Amendment is part of the Omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment and Environmental Assessment.
Amendment 22 (November 9, 2015) Withdrawn
Amendment 23 (February 7, 2017) Under Development This action proposes adjustments to the groundfish monitoring program to improve the accountability of catch reporting in the commercial groundfish fishery to ensure there is accurate representation of catch (landings and discards).
Amendment 24 (January 15, 2019) Under Development This action is part of the Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment.
Framework Adjustments/Specifications: Framework 54 (February 26, 2016) This Amendment is to better achieve the goals and objectives of the management plan and achieve optimum yield. It is intended to increase monkfish landings by enhancing the operational and economic efficacy of existing management measures.
Framework 55 (May 2, 2016) This action sets 2016-2018 catch limits for all 20 groundfish stocks, adopts several sector measures and adjusts the groundfish at-sea monitoring program.
Framework 56 (March 16, 2017) This Framework sets catch limits for 4 of the 20 groundfish stocks, adjusts several allocations and accountability measures for groundfish catch in groundfish and non-groundfish fisheries and makes administrative changes to management measures.
Framework 57 (January 22, 2018)
118 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Like Framework 56, this action sets 2018-2020 catch limits for 20 groundfish stocks; adjusts allocations for several fisheries, revises accountability measures and makes other minor changes to groundfish management measures. This is necessary to respond to updated scientific information and achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP.
Framework 58 (July 19, 2019) This action sets 2019-2020 catch limits for 7 of the 20 multispecies stocks, implements new or revised rebuilding plans for 5 stocks and revises management measures.
Framework 59 (July 30, 2020) This action sets 2020 TACs for U.S./Canada stocks on Georges Bank, implements 2020-2022 specifications for 15 groundfish stocks, adjusts commercial/recreational allocations based on new data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), and revises the Georges Bank cod incidental catch TAC to remove the allocation to the Closed Are I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program.
Framework 60 (May 19, 2020) Omnibus Clam Dredge Framework would allow surfclam and mussel dredging under restrictive conditions in the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area.
Framework 61 (October 30, 2020) Under Development This action proposes: 1) 2021 TAC for U.S./Canada stocks on GB; 2) 2021-2023 specifications for about half of the groundfish stocks; 3) white hake rebuilding measures; and potentially, 4) a universal sector exemption to allow fishing for redfish, pollock and haddock.
Commercial Fishing Regulations for the Northeast Multispecies
Sector Management (NEFMC 2021d) In 2010, Amendment 16 to the NEMFMP implemented a system of catch share management called the sector program. Under this program, limited access groundfish permit holders have the option to join a sector or fish in common pool during each fishing year. These sectors are self-governing groups of permit holders that operate similarly to a harvest cooperative.
Each sector receives annual allocations, or annual catch entitlement, for 15 groundfish stocks. Atlantic halibut, wolffish, ocean pout and windowpane flounder are not allocated to sectors, thus they do not receive an annual catch entitlement for these stocks. The annual catch entitlement is based on the sector contribution of its participating vessels, which is calculated by each vessels’ fishing history. Because a sector’s effort is restricted by its annual catch entitlement, there are no trip limits for sector vessels, except for Atlantic halibut (1 fish per trip). All groundfish catch, including landings and discards, by a sector vessel counts against a sector’s annual catch entitlement for that stock. Sector vessels are not allowed to discard any legal-sized allocated stock, unless otherwise exempted. Discards are estimated using a specific discard rate based upon observer data from the previous fishing year. Once NOAA Fisheries deems that there are sufficient at-sea monitor or observer data available in season, a sector-specific in- season discard rate is applied to all trips taken by a sector’s vessels for the remainder of the fishing year. If a trip is observed, the discard rate recorded by the observer will be used to document discards for that specific trip rather than using the in-season discard rate. Sectors are permitted to roll over up to a maximum of 10 percent of their unused annual catch entitlement from one fishing year to the next for most allocated stocks. The carryover amount may be reduced as necessary to comply with regulations and prevent overfishing.
Sectors are required to submit an operations plan that includes membership information, planed fishing activity and sector rules and enforcement to NOAA Fisheries prior to the fishing year in which it intends to operate. These plans may be for either a 1 or 2-year period.
Under the sector system, there is joint liability for violations, even if other sector members were responsible for the violation. Accountability measures are triggered when a quota is exceeded, and the following measures apply to sectors: • If a sector exceeds its quota for any Northeast multispecies stock, the sector will be prohibited from fishing for that stock until it has acquired additional quota form another sector. • Any overages at the end of the fishing year will be deducted form that sector’s quota of each stock for the following fishing year. • If a sector disbands at the end of a fishing year following an overage but does not have sufficient quota to cover the overage, an appropriate penalty, days-at-sea (DAS) or fishing prohibition will apply to each permit during the following fishing year. • A sector may also be subject to accountability measures for non-allocated stocks if necessary.
119 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
All sector vessels are exempt from the following federal fishing regulations: • Trip limits on Northeast multispecies stocks for which a sector receives a quota (not including Atlantic halibut, ocean pout, windowpane flounder, or Atlantic wolffish) • Gulf of Maine Cod Protection Closures IV (October and V (March) • Northeast multispecies DAS restrictions other than those required to comply with effort controls in other fisheries (dogfish, monkfish and skate) • Minimum codend mesh size restrictions for trawl gear when using a haddock separator or Ruhle trawl within the GB regulated Mesh area, provided sector vessels use a codend with 6-inch minimum mesh. Sectors cannot request exemptions for closed areas to EFH, permitting or gear restrictions or reporting requirements (NEFMC 2021d).
Common Pool Regulations (NOAA 2021b) For those permit holders that do not join a sector, they remain in a common pool. Input controls such as days-at-sea restrictions, trip limits, and gear restrictions primarily regulate the fishing effort in the common pool. The common pool may collectively harvest an amount of a particular stock equal to the common pool sub-Annual Catch Limit, which is a portion of the commercial groundfish quota for that stock. The fishing year for the common pool is split into 4-month trimesters, which run from May through August (Trimester 1); September through December (Trimester 2), and January through April (Trimester 3). The sub-Annual Catch Limits for each groundfish stock is divided to each trimester according to seasonal fishing effort. These trimester quotas or Trimester Total Allowable Catch limits (TTACL) are listed below for the UoAs in this assessment. For a full list of TTACL for all the Groundfish stocks, please see 2020 Common Pool TTACL.
Table 21 Fishing Year 2020 Common Pool TTACL for Acadian redfish, pollock, GOM and GB Haddock (mt) Stock Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 Acadian redfish 14.5 18.0 25.5 Pollock 69.5 86.8 91.8 GOM Haddock 21.2 20.4 36.8 GB Haddock 286.8 350.5 424.9
When the projected 90 Percent of a TTACL for a stock is caught, the area will close to common pool vessels fishing with gears capable of catching that stock. The area will remain closed until the end of that trimester and will re-open at the start of the next trimester if enough quota is available. There are currently no active TTAC Area Closures for the common pool. The table below shows the area that will potentially close for each stock, and the gears that the closure will apply to, if the 90% of the TTACL is caught.
Table 22 Common Pool Trimester TAC Area Closures Stock Statistical Area Gear Acadian redfish 513, 514, 515, 521, 522 Trawl Pollock 513, 514, 515, 521, 522 Gillnet, trawl, longline/hook GOM Haddock 513, 514, 515 Gillnet, trawl, longline/hook GB Haddock 521, 522, 525, 561, 562 Gillnet, trawl, longline/hook
Vessels are still permitted to catch that stock outside the closed area or with other gear types, as long as they do not exceed the possession limit for the stock. On the other hand, however, vessels are not permitted to fish in a closed area with the prohibited gear, even if they do not catch the stock in question.
Days-at-Sea (DAS) The Northeast multispecies DAS allocation fall into three different possible categories and are summarized below. • Category A DAS – may be used for any regulated NE multispecies, defined as 27.5 percent of the used DAS allocation • Category B DAS or Reserved DAS – Category B Regular DAS may only be used in approved Special Access Programs (SAPs) and defined at 36.25 percent of the DAS allocation • Category C DAS – reserved and may not be fished. The groundfish management unit is divided into four regulated mesh areas: GOM, GB, Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic. The following figure shows the different management areas that are used for the TAC Area Closures and the different colors reference the regulated mesh areas.
120 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Figure 19 Northeast Multispecies Regulated Mesh Areas, NOAA 2021 The gear requirements vary depending on which regulated mesh area a vessel is fishing in. For further details, please reference Management measures for the NE Multispecies fisheries.
7.3.15 Monitoring, control and surveillance U.S. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is carried out at-sea and shore-side for the federal fisheries by the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). NOAA’s OLE protects marine wildlife and habitat by enforcing domestic laws and international treaty requirements designed to ensure these global resources are available for future generations (NOAA 2019). OLE special agents and enforcement officers ensure compliance with the nation’s marine resource laws and take enforcement action when these laws are violated. All OLE work supports the core mission mandates of NOAA Fisheries—maximizing productivity of sustainable fisheries and fishing communities and protection, recovery, and conservation of protected species.
The USCG is the primary agency for at-sea fisheries enforcement. The USCG objectives are to prevent encroachment into the US EEZ, ensure compliance with domestic fisheries regulations, ensure compliance with international agreements and high seas fishing regulations. The USCG use a software package (FishTactic) to assess risk of infringements and use this enforcement tool to assist the deployment of vessels and aircraft and target fisheries enforcement effort. If the USCG detect a fisheries infringement they gather evidence and hand over the investigation to the OLE.
OLE agents/officers have the option to provide a written warning for minor offences however, these are taken into account for repeat offenders. More serious offences can be dealt with by a summary settlement, i.e. a violation which is not contested and results in a ticket which may include a discounted fine, thus allowing the violator to quickly resolve the case without incurring legal expenses. Thereafter, an offence is referred to NOAA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) for Enforcement and Litigation which can impose a sanction on the vessels permit or further refer the case to the US Attorney’s Office for criminal proceedings. Penalties may range from severe monetary fines, forfeiture of catch, boat seizure and/or imprisonment. The MSA has an enforcement policy section (50 CFR 600.740) that details these “remedies for violations” (MSRA 2007).
The Council follows the same enforcement procedures outlined by NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. There is a strong enforcement program to deter fisheries violations through successful prosecution and deterrent penalties. NOAA has authority and responsibility under more than 30 federal statutes to manage sustainable fisheries, and to protect living marine resources, including marine areas and species (NOAA Policy for Assessment of Penalties and 121 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Permit Sanctions – March 16, 2011, 56pp). Officers and agents in the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the US Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State officers authorized under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, monitor compliance and investigate potential violations of the statutes and regulations enforced by NOAA. Monitoring, control and surveillance are carried out across the fishing sectors to ensure observance of regulatory and statute requirements. Monitoring, control and surveillance actions include: • Fishing permit requirements • Fishing permit and fishing vessel registers • Vessel and gear marking requirements • Fishing gear and method restrictions • Reporting requirements for catch, effort, and catch disposition • Vessel inspections • Record keeping requirements • Auditing of licensed fish buyers • Control of transshipment • Monitored unloads of fish • Information management and intelligence analysis • Analysis of catch and effort reporting and comparison with landing and trade data to confirm accuracy • Boarding and inspection by fishery officers at sea • Aerial and surface surveillance
The Cooperative Enforcement Program is a partnership with the federal and state agencies that increases the enforcement activities and promotes compliance with federal laws and regulations. The program uses two main tools: 1. Cooperative Enforcement Agreements – authorize state and US territorial marine conservation law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws and regulations. 2. Joint Enforcement Agreement – include formal operations plan that transfers funds to state and US territorial law enforcement agencies to perform law enforcement services in support of federal regulations (NOAA 2021d).
The Code of Federal Regulations list the sanctions to deal with non-compliance. Penalties for fisheries related violations include fines; permit cancellations or suspensions, permanent prohibitions on participation in the fishery, forfeiture of fish, vessels, other property and quota; and imprisonment. With respect to permit sanctions, where applicable, the statutes that NOAA enforces generally provide broad authority to suspend or revoke permits.
Vessel monitoring systems and trip reporting Operators/owners of vessels holding a federal groundfish permit are required to submit weekly vessel reports. If a trip begins in one week and offloads in the next, the trip must be reported during the week that the catch was offloaded. The reporting week runs from Sunday through Saturday (NOAA 2021).
The following vessels are required to have an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit installed onboard: • Limited access groundfish vessels that fish under a Northeast multispecies Category A or B DAS. • Limited access multispecies vessels that catch regulated species or ocean pout while on a sector trip • Common pool limited access Small Vessel Category (Category C) or Handgear A (Category HA) vessels fishing in multiple stock areas on the same trip.
In some situations, a vessel with a federal groundfish permit is required to report via the interactive voice response system (VRS) instead of through a VMS. These situations include • Common pool vessels with a Category HA permit that fish in a single broad stock area on a trip; • Common pool vessels holding a Category C permit that intend to fish in a single broad stock area on a trip; • Sector vessels with a Category HA permit, enrolled in a sector with an approved VMS exemption; • Vessels that fish exclusively inside of the VMS demarcation line during a trip; • Vessels that fish inside and outside of the VMS line during a trip and have declared out of the fishery via VMS; • Vessels without a VMS requirement that are fishing under an Exempted Fishing Permit; • Common pool vessels that are reporting a block of time out of the fishery All vessels reporting via the interactive VRS must report their start trip time 24 hours prior to departing the dock, in addition to reporting their end time also within 24 hours of returning (NOAA 2021).
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and At-Sea Monitoring
122 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center maintains, collects and distributes data from fishing trips that carry electronic monitoring equipment or at-sea monitors. FSB manages two separate but related monitoring programs, the Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) and the At-Sea Monitoring (ASM) Program. The FSB relies on scientific priorities related to stock assessments, national priorities (ETP), and fishery management priorities determined by the NEFMC and MAFMC to determine priorities for the NEFOP observer program (GARFO 2021).
All federally permitted vessels are required to carry a NEFOP observer if selected randomly for coverage by NOAA Fisheries. Sector vessels are also required to carry an observer or at-sea monitor, in addition to pay for their costs for any portion of the coverage not funded by the agency. Owners/operators of vessels are required to notify NEFOP prior to each trip (NOAA 2021c).
Canada Compliance in the groundfish fishery is achieved through the application of the Fisheries Act, The Fishery (General) Regulations, the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations and the Species at Risk Act by Fishery Officers (DFO 2018).
The management of Canadian fisheries requires an integrated approach to monitoring, control and surveillance that involves the deployment of fishery officers to air, sea and land patrols, observer coverage on fishing vessels, Dockside Monitoring Programs (DMP) and VMS.
According to the IFMP, the Conservation and Protection (C&P) program has maintained a cadre of 130-140 Fishery Officers in Maritimes Region who in recent years have averaged 22% of their annual enforcement effort on groundfish. The majority of Fishery Officers are posted to land-based units. These officers conduct dockside checks to assess catch reporting integrity as well as follow up investigative work in their offices. A portion of their time is also aimed at detecting illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) activity. Fishery Officers depend on information from within the industry and an increasing reliance on intelligence to position themselves in the right places to prevent and deter illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activity.
Offshore officers use patrol vessels as a platform from which to conduct vessel inspections. During these inspections, the officers inspect fishing gear as well as logbooks and vessel holds to ensure the catch has been correctly reported. Aerial surveillance is C&P’s primary means of ensuring compliance with fishery closures.
C&P is responsible for designation of dockside and sea going observers and ensures that service providers meet policy and regulatory standards. Misreporting is stated as the most common problem in the groundfish fishery (DFO 2018).
Certified at-sea Observers (ASO) are deployed to perform duties best described as “Observe, Record and Report.” Observer duties are related to monitoring of fishing activities, examination and measurement of fishing gear, collection of biological samples, recording of scientific data, monitoring the landing of fish, and verification of the weight and species of fish caught and retained (Seawatch, 2018). ASO are not enforcement personnel but, the scientific data they gather related to catch and effort and any biological sampling is used by C&P to monitor compliance with respect to incidental catch. IFMP states that the Georges Bank haddock fishery has higher observer coverage (25-100%) than most areas in the Maritimes Region.
All vessels engaged in the groundfish fishery are required to carry a DFO approved satellite tracking device, i.e. VMS, that transmits at least 1 signal per hour. This data enables C&P to monitor fleet activity particularly in and around closed areas and international boundaries as well as help and inform the deployment of surveillance resources.
Sanctions An administrative and court-based sanction framework is outlined in the Fisheries Act and regulations with court- based prosecution for serious offences through the Canadian Criminal Code (1985). Upon conviction maximum penalties of $500,000 and up to two years in jail may be imposed along with forfeiture of catch and equipment at the discretion of the court (Global Trust 2021, DFO 2018).
7.3.16 Management evaluation U.S. The Council provides a range of opportunities for stakeholder education and input into management required by federal statute and implemented through its standard operating procedures (NEFMC 2020). Descriptions of stakeholder consultation procedures available on the Council website identify several elements of Council procedures that enable the distribution of information to stakeholders and the provision of public comment to management.
123 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The Council meets five times a year and has mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the management system. The annual management process is detailed in Council Operating Procedure (NEFMC 2021c). Under the annual cycle, eligible management measures are put into place and adjusted through routine in-season evaluation and actions. The comprehensive amendments to the fishery management plan, averaging about two per year since the implementation of the council system, demonstrate the wide range of management topics evaluated by the Council. Congress aims to review the MSRA every five years and amends it as necessary, however such review has not been documented since 2006.
As part NOAA’s ongoing improvement efforts, a systematic peer review process began in 2013 at all six of the regional science centers and at the headquarters Office of Science and Technology. Experts from within and outside the agency carefully examine science programs on a 5-year peer review cycle to improve integration, identify best practices, and share successes and challenges. The review process includes opportunities for public involvement, which will be part of our broader dialog with fishery management councils, fishing industry, and other stakeholders (NOAA 2018c).
All Council recommendations are reviewed by NMFS, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce, and NOAA. OGC reviews proposed actions to assure compliance with the MSRA. The Center for Independent Experts periodically reviews the skate management and stock assessments. The 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 MSRA. Further external review occurs through occasional legal challenges, which refine understanding of requirements under laws and regulations.
For fishery specific review, the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) catch share review was completed in April 2020. The review was primarily focused on the sector program of the Northeast multispecies fishery; however, some of the analyses combine both sector program and common pool program data. The review addresses the key goals and objectives of the catch share program as specified for the NEMFMP in Amendments 13 and 16 (NEFMC 2020). Canada C&P achieves education and stewardship through emphasis on communication with other DFO sectors, the industry and community at large including: • engagement in internal DFO consultation with Resource Management and other DFO branches through post season analysis and other committees to assess the effectiveness of enforcement activities and to develop recommendations for the upcoming season; • participation in advisory meetings with industry to determine expectations in relation to monitoring, control and surveillance activities; and • through informal interaction with all parties involved in the fishery on the wharf, during patrols or in the community to promote conservation.
The IFMP states that, through the RAP or TRAC process, an evaluation of many of the strategies can be conducted to determine whether they are appropriate to meet our overall objectives related to productivity, biodiversity and habitat. Through consultations with the SFGAC or GOMAC, as well as other advisory committees, it is evaluated whether the catch monitoring tools (e.g., dockside and at-sea monitoring) are sufficient to provide information to achieve objectives related to biodiversity, habitat and prosperity and whether the tools are being used satisfactorily. Information gathered through other evaluation processes like the department's Sustainability Survey for Fisheries is used to help identify areas for improvement in the management of these fisheries. Through consultation with stakeholders and rights holders, potential improvements are explored, and priorities established (DFO 2018; Global Trust 2021).
7.3.17 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
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); 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
124 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other a necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Management of the NE multispecies or groundfish fisheries is carried out under the authority of the federal MSFCMA, first passed in 1976 and most recently reauthorized as the MRSA in 2007. The MSRA is the principal law governing the harvest of fishery resources within the federal portion of the U.S. 200-mile zone. The MSA, or MSRA, contains ten National Standards with which all fishery management plans (FMPs) must conform and which guide fishery management. Under the MSRA, the NEFMC recommends management actions to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval. In addition to the MSRA, the Council adheres to a suite of “other applicable laws:” NEPA, ESA, MMPA, MBTA; APA, PRA; RFA; CZMA; and other relevant U.S. laws, Executive Orders and regulations. Because there are instances in which federal regulations also apply in state waters, the Council coordinates with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to manage some species, in addition to working directly with each state represented on the Council (NEFMC 2021c).
Within the US EEZ, NMFS is responsible for the management, conservation, and protection of living marine resources within the US EEZ. NMFS is charged with carrying out the federal mandates of the U.S. Department of Commerce with regard to commercial fisheries such as approving and implementing FMPs and FMP amendments recommended by the eight regional fisheries management councils. The councils are responsible for the fisheries that require conservation and management in their region.
The following summary lists the primary policies and legislation that work to regulate and manage Canada’s domestic fisheries: • The Fisheries Act (1985) – Provides absolute discretion to the Minister for the management of fisheries and for the establishment of licenses, regulation, reporting requirements, protection of fish habitat and pollution prevention • The Atlantic Fishery Regulations (1985) – sets conditions for the operation of the fishery including seasons, closures, management and conservation measures. • The Fishery (General) Regulations (1993) – Provides for licences and the authority to specify conditions in a fishing licence, e.g., allocations, vessel monitoring systems (VMS), observer coverage, dockside monitoring, etc. • Species at Risk Act (SARA 2002) – Authorizes actions focused at managing species of special concern, prevents overfishing or extinction of endangered marine species or promoting their recovery • The Oceans Act 1996 – Recommends the Canadian oceans management strategy, including sustainable development, the precautionary approach, the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the implementation of integrated management of marine activities • The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (DFO 1992) – Seeks to provide management and regulation of fishing by Aboriginal groups through the negotiation of fisheries agreements between DFO and Aboriginal groups. • Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review – Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast (DFO 2004) – Presents objectives to guide decision-making in Atlantic fisheries. • Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) (DFO 2009) – focuses on the need to incorporate ecosystem and precautionary approaches to fishery management • Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (DFO 2009) – Focuses on approaches that Canada will take in protecting benthic ecosystems in fishing areas • Policy on Managing Bycatch (DFO 2013) – Addresses total catch, including retained and non-retained species bycatch in all FMPs
Internationally, the U.S. and Canada are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as the subsequent United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFA). Canada has adopted the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and assisted the domestic development of the Canadian Code of 125 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Conduct for Responsible Fishing operations. Both the U.S. and Canada supported the International Plans of Action (IPOA) in respect of seabirds, sharks, fishing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing that emerged from the FAO code. The U.S. and Canada are also a members of several Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) around the world, including (but not limited to) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).
Therefore, it is concluded that there is an effective legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2, thereby meeting the SG 60, 80 and 100.
Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system 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 Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution b arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. Legal disputes are handled under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies (e.g., NOAA/NMFS) develop and issue regulations. Opportunities are provided for the public to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/apa.pdf). NOAA has an extensive Dispute Resolution Process, defined by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 320. The Council resolves disputes by majority vote as required in section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Any disputes remaining following adoption of regulations/rules may be resolved through the federal court system.
The Council conducts its ongoing decision-making processes in a manner designed to avoid legal disputes. The Council relies on a consensus approach among advisory bodies with room for minority reports should these groups fail to reach consensus. The Council resolves disputes (after weighing staff reports, advisory body reports, NMFS legal counsel advice, and public testimony) by majority vote held in public session as required in Section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Legal action may also be used by those individuals or groups dissatisfied with the decisions made by the Council and NMFS through the federal court system. In addition, the wide dissemination of information to promote transparency ensures that the probability of stakeholders being caught off-guard is minimal. If legal action is required, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice, service and counsel for all matters that may arise in the conduct of NOAA’s missions. The OGC is appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President (NEFMC 2020b).
Canada The Federal Courts Act of 1985 provides a mechanism for parties to challenge decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals. Unresolved disputes within the Canadian fisheries management system can be taken to the Canadian judicial system for a final decision.
The Canada-US TRSC is a forum that is available to the parties for resolving disagreements that may arise in relation to various aspects of the fisheries management system for the area. The parties have consistently demonstrated a commitment to arriving at a negotiated solution to their differences in the interest of safeguarding their shared goals and objectives, rather than relying upon the legal system or some third-party process. Once decisions are taken, the dispute resolution mechanisms are available to Canadian industry groups (Global Trust 2021).
c Respect for rights
126 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. The ten National Standards of the MSRA guide the development of fishery 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 (NOAA 2018). 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” (NOAA 2018).
The MSRA 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;…” 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(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.
Canada The Constitution Act 1982 (Government of Canada 1982) recognizes and confirms aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the legal rights to fish for food and livelihood. This section of the Act has been litigated and confirmed by the Supreme Court on several occasions and constitutes a formal commitment to the rights of aboriginal peoples.
127 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
In 1990, the Supreme court of Canada released a decision in R.v. Sparrow. In this decision, The Court stated that Aboriginal rights to fish for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes have priority over all other uses of the fishery. Disputes regarding aboriginal fishing rights have been fairly resolved and have led to current policy initiatives that ensures the protection of aboriginal rights, specifically the “Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy” (DFO 1992) which is aimed at ensuring that aboriginal entitlements are respected in the development of fisheries management regimes for aboriginal peoples.
Therefore, it is concluded that the management systems have formally committed 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, thereby meeting the SG 60, 80 and 100.
References
NOAA 2018, DFO 1992, Global Trust 2021, MSRA 2007, MRAG 2021 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
128 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale U.S The MSRA and amendments to the MSRA, in addition to other relevant Acts, mandate that the functions, roles and responsibilities are well understood and explicitly defined for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Under the MSRA, the Council recommends management actions to NMFS for approval. Ultimate decision authority is placed with the Secretary of Commerce. Such measures are implemented by NMFS and enforced by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC or Council) is one of eight regional councils established by the MSRA to manage fisheries between the 3 -200-mile limit off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut (NEFMC 2021). The management authority of the Council extends to the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, and southern New England, and overlaps with the Mid-Atlantic Council for some species in that region (NEFMC 2020).
The Council has established its process, outlined in Section 302 of the MSRA, to accomplish the work of developing rules that apply to the managed fisheries that operate in its areas of responsibility in the U.S. EEZ. There are 18 voting members and are organized as follows: • The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region/NOAA Fisheries, or a designee (no term limit); • Five principal state officials with marine fishery management responsibility (or a designee) for Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut (no term limit). • Twelve members nominated by the governors of the New England coastal states and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms (three consecutive terms to serve is allowable). • In addition, four non-voting members represent the United States Coast Guard (USCG), USFWS, U.S. Department of State, and the ASMFC (NEFMC 2021c).
The Council’s mandate is to manage and conserve fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation by relying on scientific information and data, as well as the participation of fishing communities and the public. In accordance with the MSRA, the Council has functions and responsibilities that are outlined in the Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPP). These functions and roles are summarized below (NEFMC 2015): I. Prepare and submit to the Secretary of Commerce a fishery management plan with respect to each fishery requiring conservation and management within the Council’s geographic area or authority and amendments to such plan as necessary. J. Review and comment on applications for foreign fishing transmitted to the Council under a governing international fishery agreement. K. Prepare comments on any FMP or amendments prepared by the Secretary which are transmitted to the Council under Section 304 (c)(4) of the MSRA. L. Conduct public hearings in the Council’s membership area, to allow interested persons the opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and Amendments with respect to the administration and implementation of the MSRA.
129 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
M. Submit to the Secretary such as periodic reports as the Council deems appropriate. N. Review and revise (as appropriate) the specifications and assessments in each FMP for each fishery within its geographical area with regard to: 6. The present and probable condition of the fishery. 7. The MSY from the fishery 8. The optimum yield from the fishery 9. The capacity and extent to which fishing vessels of the U.S. will harvest the optimum yield on an annual basis an 10. The portion of such optimum yield on an annual basis which will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the U.S and can be made available for foreign fishing. O. Develop annual catch limits and accountability measures for each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the recommendations established by the MSRA P. Conduct any other activities which are required by or provided for in the MSRA.
The Council relies on its Oversight Committees (OCs), Advisory Panels (APS), Plan Development Teams (PDTs) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to develop management actions. The SSC is required by the MSRA to provide scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, achieving rebuilding targets, and considerations related to the economic and social impacts of management measures (NEFMC 2021c).
Canada Within Canada’s EEZ, the federal government is responsible for the management of the fisheries. The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and is then delegated through the organisational structure of the DFO. For the purpose of the re-assessment, the haddock fishery (5Zjm) is managed by DFO’s Martimes Region, Resource Management Branch, headquartered in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (Global Trust 2021).
Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Advisory Committee (SFGAC) The SFGAC is the main consultative committee for the provision of advice to the DFO on the management of the groundfish fishery resource in the Scotia-Fundy Sector (NAFO Divisions 4vWX, 5yb and 5Zjm). Representatives include various sectors of DFO, provincial governments, fish and seafood processors, fish harvester associations and aboriginal communities (Global Trust 2021).
Community Management Boards Community Management Boards enable industry associations within communities to create solutions to problems in fish management and to develop conservation harvest plans (CHPs) that address seasonal fishing patterns. They develop management approaches that apply mainly to halibut, but also to cod, haddock and pollock in the NAFO 4X5Y area. Some boards establish industry monitored trip limits and seasonal quotas, in addition to monitoring bycatch. The allocation of the TA among community groups is determined on catch history and is treated as set shares. Limited temporary transfer of quota between Management Boars is permitted (Global Trust 2021).
Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee (GOMAC) The GOMAC provides an opportunity for government and fishing industry representatives to jointly develop and provide advice to DFO on GOM fisheries issues. The GOMAC advises on technical, operational, and scientific analyses needed to support formal discussions with the U.S. and is the main advisory body to the DFO on issues related to TACs for the transboundary groundfish stock and other fisheries management measures in NAFO Division 5Z (Global Trust 2021).
Integrated Fishery Management Plans (IFMPs) are used to guide the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources; support the management of sustainable fisheries and combine science and Indigenous traditional knowledge on fish species with industry data to determine best practices for harvest. IFMPs identify goals related to management, conservation, enforcement and science for individual fisheries; and they describe access and allocations among various fish harvesters and fleet areas. They also include a requirement to conduct a regular review of the fishery against the plan’s objectives (Global Trust 2021; DFO 2018)
The IFMP for groundfish describes: • The “Framework Process” - The mechanism whereby DFO science assesses the assumptions and data inputs underlying the management of the fishery. • The “Regional Assessment Process” (RAP) – The development and provision of scientific advice for consideration by the industry and DFO. • The Advisory Process – The SFGAC facilitates collaboration between the industry and the DFO on the management of the groundfish fishery. • Compliance – The role and working practices of DFO’s Conservation and Protection (C&P) Division.
130 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
• The Canada/US transboundary process – The role and function of the various committees associated with the management of the transboundary stocks.
Therefore, it is concluded that organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction, meeting the SG 60, 80 and 100 for all UoAs.
Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system 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 b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. NOAA/NMFS has several processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. NOAA Fisheries partners with federal agencies and federally recognized tribes to advise and collaborate on activities that might impact endangered and threatened species, marine mammals, and important marine habitats. NMFS has also developed a Public Consultation Tracking System (PCTS), which is an information management system covering NMFS (NOAA Fisheries) consultations under the ESA and under the MSFCMA sections 305(b)(2) & 305(b)(4) EFH. Information is publicly available that explains how information and management decisions are made, consultations with the various agencies and inter-agency sectors, council representation, etc. The Council meets five times a year according to a pre-announced schedule. Notice of meetings is made through the Federal Register. Meeting agendas are widely distributed before each meeting and accessible on the Council’s website. Most Council meetings take eight days, with individual advisory body meetings occurring during the course of the week. All meetings are open to the public, except for a short-closed Council session in which the Council deals with personnel, administrative, or litigation issues. 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.
Canada The DFO has a list of consultations on Canada’s fisheries where interested parties can take part in consultations or review decisions made on national policy or legislative issues based on stakeholder feedback. The DFO lists ‘public engagement principles’, which ensures that information is transparent, inclusive, relevant, accountable and adaptable (DFO 2019b). There are also News releases, Media advisories and other opportunities on the website. DFO also demonstrates through their website the input and consideration of local knowledge and information obtained from consultations, e.g., information that was provided to DFO following the consultation on proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act (Global Trust 2021).
The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) coordinates the scientific peer review and science advice for the DFO. The CSAS publishes departmental scientific advice and information and coordinates the publication of the peer review meeting products with the Science Advisory Schedule, an online calendar which contains information on past and upcoming peer reviews. More information of this peer review process can be referenced at the following link: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm.
The SFGAC is the main consultative committee for the provision of advice to the DFO on the management of the groundfish fishery resource in the Scotia-Fundy Sector (NAFO Divisions 4vWX, 5yb and 5Zjm). Minutes of SFGAC meetings demonstrate consideration of the information and local knowledge obtained.
The SG60, 80 and 100 levels are met for all UoAs.
131 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and Guide interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S The Council maintains web sites that provide information to the public 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.
There are several other procedures that promote the engagement of stakeholders, including consultation among agencies, universities and stakeholders on needed research and scientific information, public review and comment of data and analysis, public attendance and comment periods at advisory body meetings, representation on advisory bodies and the Council, Council newsletter, blogpost, twitter feed, public review periods for regulations and FMP amendments, agency responses to review comments, and opportunity for legal challenges to Council actions.
Canada The DFO has a list of consultations on Canada’s fisheries where interested parties can take part in consultations or review decisions made on national policy or legislative issues based on stakeholder feedback. The DFO lists ‘public engagement principles’, which ensures that information is transparent, inclusive, relevant, accountable and adaptable (DFO 2019b). There are also News releases, Media advisories and other opportunities on the website. Minutes of the SFGAC offer evidence that the fishery specific consultation process provides opportunity for all interested parties and facilitates their effective engagement.
The SG60, 80 and 100 levels are met for all UoAs.
References
NEFMC 2021; NEFMC 2021c; NEFMC 2015; MRAG 2021; Global Trust 2021
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
132 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post 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? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. The MSRA, National Standards and other legislation include explicit, well-defined short- and long-term objectives for sustainable fishing and conservation. NMFS incorporated precautionary concepts to ensure compliance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act 1996, which includes 10 National Standards for conservation and management of fisheries in the U.S. 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 MSRA 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 MSRA has required that all FMPs include catch limits and accountability measures that are intended to ensure that overfishing cannot reduce a stock below the level that will produce MSY on a continuing basis. 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.
The NEFMC’s, or the Council, mandate is to manage and conserve fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation by relying on scientific information and data, as well as the participation of fishing communities and the public. To ensure the council has effective conservation and management programs in place and adheres to sound management practices as it considers and includes ecosystem-based principles in its FMPs, the Council adopted the following policy: • The Council recognizes that allocation is an integral part of its management responsibilities and that measures which have allocative effects should be open and transparent. • The Council will develop conservation measures and controls that have a high level of certainty that ensures they will prevent overfishing, end overfishing and rebuild stocks. • The Council recognizes that management measures affect fishermen, and that allocation measures and controls must have a high level of certainty that ensures our conservation requirements are met in a fair and equitable manner (NEFMC 2021c).
Canada The DFO has a “Mandate and role” that present ways of safeguarding its waters by: • Sustainably managing fisheries and aquaculture • Working with fishers, coastal and Indigenous communities to enable their continues prosperity from fish and seafood • Ensuring that Canada’s oceans and other aquatic ecosystems are protected from negative impacts. • Ensuring commercial vessels and recreational boaters can safely navigate our waters • Being there to save lives and protect our environment when emergencies arise (DFO 2021)
133 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Departmental priorities and mandate commitments are also available on the DFO website. These priorities include protecting Canada’s 3 oceans and waterways, ensuring they remain healthy for future generations and providing economic opportunities to Canadians and coastal communities (DFO 2021). More details can be found on the DFO website.
The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review – A policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast gives direction for the management of fisheries on the Atlantic coast. The framework identifies four objectives that the DFO will work to achieve in collaboration with resource users and those who have an interest in the Atlantic Fisheries. The two core objectives are: • Conservation and Sustainable Use – Conservation of marine resources and habitat, and rebuilding of resources and restoration of habitat where necessary, will remain the highest priority for the management of all fisheries. Within the limits of available knowledge, all fishing activities will be conducted in a manner that leads to sustainable levels of resource use. • Self-reliance – Self-reliant fisheries and collaboration among all orders of government will contribute to the well-being of coastal communities. To be more self-reliant, resource users will have more flexibility to make decisions about their own economic and social objectives. The two supporting objectives are: • Shared Stewardship – Participants will be effectively involved in fisheries management decision-making processes at appropriate levels; they will contribute specialized knowledge and experience and share in accountability for outcomes. • A Stable and Transparent Access and Allocation Approach – The access and allocation of fisheries resources will be more stable and predictable, and decisions will be made and conflicts resolved through fair, transparent and rules-based processes. (Global Trust 2021; DFO 2008).
References
NEFMC 2021c; NOAA 2018; MRAG 2021; DFO 2021; DFO 2008; Global Trust 2021
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
134 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are Guide expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with a Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale U.S. To ensure the Council has effective conservation and management programs in place and adheres to sound management practices as it considers and includes ecosystem-based principles in its FMPs, the Council has adopted the following policy: • The Council recognizes that allocation is an integral part of its management responsibilities and that measures which have allocative effects should be open and transparent. • The Council will develop conservation measures and controls that have a high level of certainty that ensures they will prevent overfishing, end overfishing and rebuild stocks. • The Council recognizes that management measures affect fishermen, and that allocation measures and controls must have a high level of certainty that ensures our conservation requirements are met in a fair and equitable manner (NEFMC 2021c).
The fishery specific objectives for the Acadian redfish, haddock and pollock fishery are outlined in the NEMFMP and summarized below.
The objective of the NEMFMP is to control fishing mortality on juveniles (primarily) and on adults (secondarily) of selected finfish stocks within the management unit in order to maintain sufficient spawning potential on a long term average basis; and to similarly reduce fishing mortality for the purpose of rebuilding those stocks where the spawning average basis; and to reduce fishing mortality for the purpose of rebuilding those stocks where the spawning potential has proved to be insufficient to maintain a viable fishery resource; and promote the collection of data about the multispecies fishery and on the effectiveness of the management program (NEFMC 1986, SAI Global 2017).
Amendment 13 established additional goals and objectives, which were expanded into Amendment 18 in relation to the fishing fleet and businesses. The goals and objectives of this Amendment are as follows: • Goal 1: Consistent with the National Standards and other required provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law, manage the northeast multispecies complex at sustainable levels. • Goal 2: Create a management system so that fleet capacity will be commensurate with resource status so as to achieve goals of economic efficiency and biological conservation and that encourages diversity within the fishery. • Goal 3: Maintain a directed commercial and recreational fishery for northeast multispecies. • Goal 4: Minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on fishing communities and shoreside infrastructure. • Goal 5: Provide reasonable and regulated access to the groundfish species covered in this plan to all members of the public of the United States for seafood consumption and recreational purposes during the stock rebuilding period without compromising the Amendment 13 objectives or timetable. • Goal 6: To promote stewardship of the fishery Objective 1: Achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield (OY) for the US fishing industry.
135 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Objective 2: Clarify the status determination criteria (biological reference points and control rules) for groundfish stocks so they are consistent with the National Standard guidelines and applicable law. Objective 3: Adopt fishery management measures that constrain fishing mortality to levels that are compliant with the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Objective 4: Implement rebuilding schedules for overfished stocks and prevent overfishing. Objective 5: Adopt measures as appropriate to support international transboundary management of resources. Objective 6: Promote research and improve the collection of information to better understand groundfish population dynamics, biology and ecology, and to improve assessment procedures in cooperation with the industry. Objective 7: To the extent possible, maintain a diverse groundfish fishery, including different gear types, vessel sizes, geographic locations, and levels of participation. Objective 8: Develop biological, economic and social measures of success for the groundfish fishery and resource that ensure accountability in achieving fishery management objectives. Objective 9: Adopt measures consistent with the habitat provisions of the MSRA, including identification of EFH and minimizing impacts on habitat to the extent practicable. Objective 10: Identify and minimize bycatch, which include regulatory discards, to the extent practicable, and to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
Canada The IFMP for groundfish outlines both long and short-term objectives for the groundfish fishery in the Maritimes Regions. There are five overarching objectives that guide fisheries management, which are directed by the principle that the fishery is a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians. These objectives are: • Conservation objectives 1. Productivity: Do not cause unacceptable reduction in productivity so that components can play their role in the functioning of the ecosystem. 2. Biodiversity: Do not cause unacceptable reduction in biodiversity in order to preserve the structure and natural resilience of the ecosystem. 3. Habitat: Do not cause unacceptable modification to habitat in order to safeguard both physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem. • Social, cultural and economic objectives 4. Culture and sustenance: Respect Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish. 5. Prosperity: Create the circumstances for economically prosperous fisheries (DFO 2018).
The SG 60, 80 and 100 level are met for all UoAs. References
Acoura 2018; Global Trust 2021; DFO 2018; DFO 2008; NEFMC 2021c; MRAG 2021
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
136 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established Guide making processes in place decision-making processes a that result in measures and that result in measures and post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. Federal fisheries in the U.S. are managed under the MSA, which sets out the decision-making process to be used by regional fishery management councils in the development of FMPs. FMPs contain measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
Decisions about management of the groundfish fisheries are driven by two main processes: 1. annual decision-making processes that may result in measures to meet the short-term fishery objectives are driven by the control rules contained in the FMP; 2. longer-term decision-making processes, such as amendments or framework actions, that result in new measures and/or strategies to achieve the long-term fishery objectives (i.e. changes to the management system).
The Council has established its process, outlined in Section 302 of the MSRA, to accomplish the work of developing rules that apply to the managed fisheries that operate in its areas of responsibility in the U.S. EEZ. There are 18 voting members and are organized as follows: • The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region/NOAA Fisheries, or a designee (no term limit); • Five principal state officials with marine fishery management responsibility (or a designee) for Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut (no term limit). • Twelve members nominated by the governors of the New England coastal states and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms (three consecutive terms to serve is allowable). • In addition, four non-voting members represent the United States Coast Guard (USCG), USFWS, U.S. Department of State, and the ASMFC (NEFMC 2020).
The Council also relies on its Oversight Committees, Advisory Panels, Plan Development Teams and Scientific and Statistical Committee to develop management actions.
Canada Within Canada’s EEZ, the federal government is responsible for the management of the fisheries. The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and is then delegated through the organisational structure of the DFO. For this re-assessment, the haddock fishery (5Zjm) is managed by DFO’s Martimes Region, Resource Management Branch, headquartered in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (Global Trust 2021).
The Framework Process is the way the DFO science assesses the assumptions and data inputs underlying the management of the fishery. The RAP is the process established in Canada on which science advice to government is founded. Based on principles of impartiality and transparency and, within which, science input is drawn from a wide range of sources, including local/traditional ecological knowledge.
U.S. – Canada Transboundary Management System The TRAC is the scientific arm of the U.S-Canada Transboundary Resources Steering Committee (TRSC). The TRAC assesses Eastern GB haddock, Eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder. It meets annually to update and peer review assessments (NOAA 2020).
137 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
The TMGC is a government – industry committee comprised of representatives from the United States and Canada. It is comprised of Council members, NOAA Fisheries representatives and Canadian officials who negotiate allocations annually based on the historic proportions of fishery landings caught by U.S and Canadian fishermen and resource distribution. The Committee’s purpose is to develop guidance in the form of management processes, harvest strategies and resource sharing for the transboundary groundfish resources on GB for the U.S. and Canada (DFO 2020).
The TMGC meets as required, incorporates information received from fishermen, considers the scientific advice contained in Transboundary Status Reports, reaches agreement by consensus and produces a common guidance document for the management of transboundary resources that is communicated to national fisheries management authorities. The Committee’s annual guidance documents are a summary of its guidance to both countries for the forthcoming fishing year (defined as the calendar year for Canada; and from May 1 to April 30 of the following year for the U.S.). Relevant reference documents and consultations used in the TMGC deliberations are included in the reports (Global Trust 2021).
The SG80 is met for all UoAs. Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes 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, b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, post 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? Yes Yes No
Rationale U.S. The NEFMC and NMFS have processes in place to respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. Framework adjustments, specifications and plan amendments are implemented based on these monitoring efforts and for both fisheries. The framework adjustments are used to incorporate strategies in response to the evaluations for rebuilding plans, fishery conditions and operations.
The Atlantic GB and GOM cod stocks, which are also managed under the NEMFMP, are overfished, with overfishing still occurring, according to the 2019 stock assessment (CITE). Neither stock is on track to rebuild consistent with the legal requirements of the MSRA. The TRAC data update for Eastern GB cod in 2019 states that the divergent trend between total and relative fishing mortality indicates that something other than fishing is driving the increase in total mortality (TRAC 2019). A petition was submitted by the Conservation Law Foundation in February 2020 requesting that NMFS “end overfishing of Atlantic cod in as short a time as possible, not to exceed 10 years”. According to the petition, this problem of overfishing has persisted for 14 years when Congress directed NMFS to immediately end overfishing of overfished stocks in order to rebuild all overfished fisheries (CLF 2020)
This problem with the Atlantic cod indicates that the management of the Northeast groundfish decision-making processes respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a timely manner, however not all issues have been addressed.
Canada DFO manages fisheries in accordance with the Fisheries Act, using science-based and effective practices. Fisheries decisions outline management measures for a specific fishing season, including FMPs, TACs, and opening and closing dates for the season. Education and shared stewardship are achieved in the groundfish fishery through emphasis on C&P communication with other DFO sectors, the industry and community at large including: • engagement in internal DFO consultation with Resource Management and other DFO branches through post season analysis and other committees to assess the effectiveness of enforcement activities and to develop recommendations for the upcoming season; • participation in advisory meetings with industry to determine expectations in relation to monitoring, control and surveillance activities; and
138 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
• through informal interaction with all parties involved in the fishery on the wharf, during patrols or in the community to promote conservation (DFO 2018). There are a number of scientific partnerships and networks in place through which organisations conduct a variety of studies to the various groundfish stocks, their habitat and ecosystem, including the transboundary stocks on GB.
While the decision-making processes which inform the management system have been shown to be generally effective, transparent and timely, it cannot be said with certainty that the decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation.
The SG 60 and 80 level are met, but the SG100 level is not met for all UoAs. Use of precautionary approach Decision-making processes c Guide use the precautionary post approach and are based on best available information.
Met? Yes
Rationale
U.S. The NEFMC operate under the MSFCMA and the National Standard Guidelines. National Standard 2 states 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 16 incorporates the precautionary approach into the NEMFMP. It states that it was developed “to adopt rebuilding programs for NE multispecies stocks newly classified as being overfished and subject to overfishing; and to revise management measures, including significant revisions to the sector management measures, necessary to end overfishing, rebuild overfished regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks, and mitigate the adverse economic impacts of increased effort controls…This final rule also implements new requirements under Amendment 16 for establishing acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for each stock managed under the FMP, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (NEFMC 2009).
Canada The Sustainable Fisheries Framework describes a decision-making framework for implementing a harvest strategy that incorporates a precautionary approach to fisheries management. Further, in 2001, the United Nations Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFA) commits Canada to use the precautionary approach in managing straddling stocks as well as domestic stocks (DFO 2009). Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all 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 d request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and Guide any actions or lack of action management actions and associated with findings and describes how the post relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
139 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. Accountability and transparency of the management system is required by multiple laws 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” (NOAA 2018, MRAG 2021).
The Council’s mandate is to manage and conserve fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation by relying on scientific information and data, as well as the participation of fishing communities and the public. The Council is involved in a public process and therefore makes efforts to keep all affected parties informed about Council activities (NEFMC 2021c). Whenever possible, the Council will use community input in conjunction with scientific information in the development of its FMPs. For Council Meetings, the Executive Director in consultation with the Council Chairman drafts the agenda for each meeting. The Executive Committee will review the draft agenda before it is released to the public. Timely notice of each regular meeting and emergency meeting of the Council, its SSC, AP, FIAC or other committee established under the MSRA, including time, place and agenda, shall be provided by any means that will result in wide publicity in the major fishing ports of the region (and in any other fishing ports with a direct interest in the affected fishery), noting that email notifications and website postings alone are not sufficient (NEFMC 2015). Notice of each regular meeting shall also be published in the Federal Register (FR).
The FR serves as the Council’s notice of record. Meeting notices must be published for the Oversight Committee, Advisory Panel and Council meetings at least 14 days prior to the meeting date. The Council meeting agenda is also sent to the Council’s mailing list (NEFMC 2021c). The Council will not take action, except in emergency situations, if that action is not listed on the published agenda. The Council may hold public hearings in order to provide the opportunity for all interested individuals to be heard with respect to the development of fishery management plans or amendments, and with respect to the administration and implementation of other relevant features of the Act. Notice of each hearing must be received by NMFS for publication in the FR at least 23 calendar days prior to the proposed hearing. The Council will also issue notices to announce the time, location, and agenda for each hearing in a manner sufficient to assure all interested parties are aware of the opportunity to make their views known. If it is determined a hearing is appropriate, the Council Chair will designate at least one voting member of the Council to officiate. An accurate record of the participants and their views will be made available to the Council at the appropriate Council meeting and maintained as part of the Council’s administrative record.
The Council’s Executive Committee is responsible for developing Council meeting agendas. To ensure that issues or recommendations discussed at committee meetings will in turn be addressed at the next scheduled Council meeting, oversight committee chairmen should schedule committee meetings appropriately. Public comments are allowed at Council meetings on all agenda items requiring final action and on all agenda items at Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel meetings. Both oral and written comments may be submitted (NEFMC 2021c). In addition, the Council website has newsletters, articles, publications, meeting agendas and calendars of upcoming events and highlights current issues.
There are also various consultation policies and practices required by the Council with its OC, APs, PDTs and SSC as noted in scoring issue 3.1.2.
Canada U.S.- Canada Transboundary Meetings are scheduled as required to provide the necessary advice to the TMGC for management of the transboundary shared resources across the Canada-U.S. boundary of the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank region. The TRAC co-chairs are responsible for presentation of the TRAC results, e.g., TSRs, highlights of proceedings, summaries of new analyses, etc., to the TMGC. TRAC co-chairs and stock co-experts may be called upon by the TMGC to make presentations at public consultations. TRAC meetings and proceedings are published in the TRAC
140 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Reference Document series or the TRAC Proceedings series. There are also electronic versions of meetings available in PDF format and working papers which are distributed to all meeting participants.
The SFGAC and GOMAC also provide comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
The SG60, 80 and 100 level are met for all UoAs.
Approach to disputes Although the management The management system or The management system or 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 rapidly Guide challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions e a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. post the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. Legal disputes are handled under the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the process by which federal agencies (e.g., NOAA/NMFS) develop and issue regulations. Opportunities are provided for the public to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/apa.pdf). NOAA has an extensive Dispute Resolution Process, defined by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-320, however this is unclear how this is applied to fisheries. The Council resolves disputes by majority vote as required in section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Any disputes remaining following adoption of regulations/rules may be resolved through the federal court system.
The Council conducts its ongoing decision-making processes in a manner designed to avoid legal disputes. The Council relies on a consensus approach among advisory bodies with room for minority reports should these groups fail to reach consensus. The Council resolves disputes (after weighing staff reports, advisory body reports, NMFS legal counsel advice, and public testimony) by majority vote held in public session as required in Section 302 of the MSRA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce. Legal action may also be used by those individuals or groups dissatisfied with the decisions made by the Council and NMFS through the federal court system. In addition, the wide dissemination of information to promote transparency ensures that the probability of stakeholders being caught off-guard is minimal. If legal action is required, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice, service and counsel for all matters that may arise in the conduct of NOAA’s missions. The OGC is appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President (NEFMC 2021c). The management system for the NE skate complex has not been subject to continuing court 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.
Canada The Federal Courts Act of 1985 provides a mechanism for parties to challenge decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals. Unresolved disputes within the Canadian fisheries management system can be taken to the Canadian judicial system for a final decision.
The Canada-US TRSC is a forum that is available to the parties for resolving disagreements that may arise in relation to various aspects of the fisheries management system for the area. The parties have demonstrated a commitment to arriving at a negotiated solution to their differences in the interest of safeguarding their shared goals and objectives, rather than relying upon the legal system or some third-party process. Once decisions are taken, the dispute resolution mechanisms are available to Canadian industry groups (Global Trust 2021).
The SG 60, 80 and 100 are met for all UoAs.
141 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
References
DFO 2020; DFO 2018; DFO 2009, Global Trust 2021; NEFMC 2021c; NEFMC 2015; MRAG 2021
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
142 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
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
MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been Guide the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery a reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is carried out at-sea and shore-side for the federal fisheries by the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). NOAA’s OLE protects marine wildlife and habitat by enforcing domestic laws and international treaty requirements designed to ensure these global resources are available for future generations (NOAA 2019). OLE special agents and enforcement officers ensure compliance with the nation’s marine resource laws and take enforcement action when these laws are violated. All OLE work supports the core mission mandates of NOAA Fisheries—maximizing productivity of sustainable fisheries and fishing communities and protection, recovery, and conservation of protected species.
The Council follows the same enforcement procedures outlined by NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. There is a strong enforcement program to deter fisheries violations through successful prosecution and deterrent penalties. NOAA has authority and responsibility under more than 30 federal statutes to manage sustainable fisheries, and to protect living marine resources, including marine areas and species (NOAA Policy for Assessment of Penalties and Permit Sanctions – March 16, 2011, 56pp). Officers and agents in the NOAA OLE, the US Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State officers authorized under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, monitor compliance and investigate potential violations of the statutes and regulations enforced by NOAA. Monitoring, control and surveillance are carried out across the fishing sectors to ensure observance of regulatory and statute requirements. Monitoring, control and surveillance actions include: • Fishing permit requirements • Fishing permit and fishing vessel registers • Vessel and gear marking requirements • Fishing gear and method restrictions • Reporting requirements for catch, effort, and catch disposition • Vessel inspections • Record keeping requirements • Auditing of licensed fish buyers • Control of transshipment • Monitored unloads of fish • Information management and intelligence analysis • Analysis of catch and effort reporting and comparison with landing and trade data to confirm accuracy • Boarding and inspection by fishery officers at sea • Aerial and surface surveillance
The Cooperative Enforcement Program is a partnership with the federal and state agencies that increases the enforcement activities and promotes compliance with federal laws and regulations. The program uses two main tools:
143 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
3. Cooperative Enforcement Agreements – authorize state and US territorial marine conservation law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws and regulations. 4. Joint Enforcement Agreement – include formal operations plan that transfers funds to state and US territorial law enforcement agencies to perform law enforcement services in support of federal regulations (NOAA 2018 OLE). Vessel monitoring systems and trip reporting Operators/owners of vessels holding a federal groundfish permit are required to submit weekly vessel reports. If a trip begins in one week and offloads in the next, the trip must be reported during the week that the catch was offloaded. The reporting week runs from Sunday through Saturday (NOAA 2021).
The following vessels are required to have an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit installed onboard: • Limited access groundfish vessels that fish under a Northeast multispecies Category A or B DAS. • Limited access multispecies vessels that catch regulated species or ocean pout while on a sector trip • Common pool limited access Small Vessel Category (Category C) or Handgear A (Category HA) vessels fishing in multiple stock areas on the same trip.
In some situations, a vessel with a federal groundfish permit is required to report via the interactive voice response system (VRS) instead of through a VMS. These situations include • Common pool vessels with a Category HA permit that fish in a single broad stock area on a trip; • Common pool vessels holding a Category C permit that intend to fish in a single broad stock area on a trip; • Sector vessels with a Category HA permit, enrolled in a sector with an approved VMS exemption; • Vessels that fish exclusively inside of the VMS demarcation line during a trip; • Vessels that fish inside and outside of the VMS line during a trip and have declared out of the fishery via VMS; • Vessels without a VMS requirement that are fishing under an Exempted Fishing Permit; • Common pool vessels that are reporting a block of time out of the fishery All vessels reporting via the interactive VRS must report their start trip time 24 hours prior to departing the dock, in addition to reporting their end time also within 24 hours of returning (NOAA 2021).
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and At-Sea Monitoring The Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center maintains, collects and distributes data from fishing trips that carry electronic monitoring equipment or at-sea monitors. FSB manages two separate but related monitoring programs, the Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) and the At-Sea Monitoring (ASM) Program. The FSB relies on scientific priorities related to stock assessments, national priorities (ETP), and fishery management priorities determined by the NEFMC and MAFMC to determine priorities for the NEFOP observer program (GARFO 2021).
All federally permitted vessels are required to carry a NEFOP observer if selected randomly for coverage by NOAA Fisheries. Sector vessels are also required to carry an observer or at-sea monitor, in addition to pay for their costs for any portion of the coverage not funded by the agency. Owners/operators of vessels are required to notify NEFOP prior to each trip (NOAA 2021c).
Canada The management of Canadian fisheries requires an integrated approach to monitoring, control and surveillance that involves the deployment of fishery officers to air, sea and land patrols, observer coverage on fishing vessels, Dockside Monitoring Programs (DMP) and VMS.
According to the IFMP, the Conservation and Protection (C&P) program has maintained a cadre of 130-140 Fishery Officers in Maritimes Region who in recent years have averaged 22% of their annual enforcement effort on groundfish. The majority of Fishery Officers are posted to land-based units. These officers conduct dockside checks to assess catch reporting integrity as well as follow up investigative work in their offices. A portion of their time is also aimed at detecting illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) activity. Fishery Officers depend on information from within the industry and an increasing reliance on intelligence to position themselves in the right places to prevent and deter illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activity.
Offshore officers use patrol vessels as a platform from which to conduct vessel inspections. During these inspections, the officers inspect fishing gear as well as logbooks and vessel holds to ensure the catch has been correctly reported. Aerial surveillance is C&P’s primary means of ensuring compliance with fishery closures.
C&P is responsible for designation of dockside and sea going observers and ensures that service providers meet policy and regulatory standards. Misreporting is stated as the most common problem in the groundfish fishery (DFO 2018).
144 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Certified at-sea Observers (ASO) are deployed to perform duties best described as “Observe, Record and Report.” Observer duties are related to monitoring of fishing activities, examination and measurement of fishing gear, collection of biological samples, recording of scientific data, monitoring the landing of fish, and verification of the weight and species of fish caught and retained (Global Trust 2021). ASO are not enforcement personnel but, the scientific data they gather related to catch and effort and any biological sampling is used by C&P to monitor compliance with respect to incidental catch. IFMP states that the Georges Bank haddock fishery has higher observer coverage (25-100%) than most areas in the Maritimes Region.
All vessels engaged in the groundfish fishery are required to carry a DFO approved satellite tracking device, i.e. VMS, that transmits at least 1 signal per hour. This data enables C&P to monitor fleet activity particularly in and around closed areas and international boundaries as well as help and inform the deployment of surveillance resources.
A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.
The SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met for all UoAs for this scoring issue. Sanctions Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Guide compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are b some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
U.S. The Code of Federal Regulations list the sanctions to deal with non-compliance. Penalties for fisheries related violations include fines; permit cancellations or suspensions, permanent prohibitions on participation in the fishery, forfeiture of fish, vessels, other property and quota; and imprisonment. With respect to permit sanctions, where applicable, the statutes that NOAA enforces generally provide broad authority to suspend or revoke permits.
The NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Division (NED) OLE report to the Council for June – August 2020 listed Individual Violations Associated with Summary Settlements. Only one of these settlements were specifically directed with the NE multispecies fisheries (NOAA 2020d). More information and recent enforcement reports are needed.
It was stated by staff at the OLE that aside from general information, a FOIA request is needed to provide specific enforcement information for a fishery. This will be completed at a later date and hopefully more information will be received at the site visit.
Canada The Fisheries Act outlines regulations and sanctions for Canadian fisheries. DFO Maritimes also publishes the fines for violations with regulations and policies (https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/charges-inculpations/mar-eng.htm). It is however, stated in the IFMP that “the probable reason for continued non-compliance is that penalties are still not severe enough to deter those who would fish illegally.” Although this statement is mostly applicable to halibut and cod, t is unclear whether this applies to the GB haddock stocks in this assessment
Further information is needed to understand if sanctions to deal with non-compliance are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence for the GB haddock stocks in this assessment. Compliance Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers c management system for the with the management system comply with the management Guide fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment, post including, when required, when required, providing including, providing providing information of information of importance to information of importance to importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery.
145 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale U.S. The 2020 Council Report for Quarters 2 and 3 only cited a few instances that the NE multispecies/groundfish fishery were implicated, so some evidence exists that demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment. However, more recent data and fishery specific information is needed to meet the SG100 level.
Canada The IFMP states that “Education and shared stewardship are achieved in the groundfish fishery through on C&P communication with other DFO sectors, the industry and community at large including: • engagement in internal DFO consultation with Resource Management and other DFO branches through post season analysis and other committees to assess the effectiveness of enforcement activities and to develop recommendations for the upcoming season; • participation in advisory meetings with industry to determine expectations in relation to monitoring, control and surveillance activities; and • through informal interaction with all parties involved in the fishery on the wharf, during patrols or in the community to promote conservation. This suggests that there is some evidence that exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.
The C&P list misreporting as the biggest compliance issue, however excess catch of halibut (mostly) as well as cod remain a compliance concern. More information is needed to say with a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment.
The SG 60 and 80 levels are met, but the SG100 level is not met for any UoAs.
Systematic non-compliance d Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance.
Met? Yes
Rationale
To the assessment team’s knowledge, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance for the NE multispecies fishery, or the transboundary stocks shared by Canada. The lack of sanctions issues or citations in the compliance and enforcement reports, in addition to the continued audits completed for the MSC assessments for this fishery, U.S. Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish trawl, and the Canada Scotia Fundy haddock fishery, confirm that the fishery is generally compliant.
References
Acoura 2018; Global Trust 2021; DFO 2018; NOAA 2021c; NOAA 2021d; NOAA 2020d; NOAA 2018; GARFO 2021; MRAG 2021
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator Recent data, enforcement reports and actions are needed to ensure sanctions are effective at ensuring compliance in the fishery.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage 146 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
147 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
U.S. The Council provides a range of opportunities for stakeholder education and input into management required by federal statute and implemented through its standard operating procedures (NEFMC 2020). Descriptions of consultation and evaluation procedures are available on the Council website and identify several elements of Council procedures that enable the distribution of information to stakeholders and the provision of public comment to management.
The NEFMC and NMFS have processes in place to respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. Framework adjustments, specifications and plan amendments are implemented based on these monitoring efforts and for both fisheries. The framework adjustments are used to incorporate strategies in response to the evaluations for rebuilding plans, fishery conditions and operations. The Council relies on its Oversight Committees, Advisory Panels, Plan Development Teams and Scientific and Statistical Committee to develop management actions.
U.S.- Canada transboundary NMFS and the DFO each appoint on TRAC co-chair. The co-chairs administer the TRAC review process, schedule TRAC review meetings and oversee the publication of product documents. The TMGC, in consultation with the TRAC co-chairs, drafts the TRAC remit that indicates the timeline and the required product of the TRAC (Global Trust 2021). Peer review of benchmark assessment framework requires participation of local technical experts, including those solicited from the international community, as well as stakeholders, to bring knowledge and various insights into the process. The benchmark assessment framework will not be re-evaluated until progress on the science warrants, generally several years of information are required before another benchmark reviewed is justified. The TMGC would consult with the TRAC co-chairs to establish the schedule for review. NOAA Fisheries and the DFO commit to supporting participation at each benchmark assessment review with at least two scientists that are not employed in the U.S. Northeast Region or the Canadian Maritimes Region (Global Trust 2021).
Canada The IFMP states that, through the RAP or TRAC process, an evaluation of many of the strategies can be conducted to determine whether they are appropriate to meet our overall objectives related to productivity, biodiversity and habitat. Through consultations with the SFGAC or GOMAC, as well as other advisory committees, it is evaluated whether the catch monitoring tools are sufficient to provide information to achieve objectives related to biodiversity, habitat and prosperity and whether the tools are being used satisfactorily. Information gathered through other evaluation processes like the department's Sustainability Survey for Fisheries is used to help identify areas for improvement in the management of these fisheries. Through consultation with stakeholders and rights holders, potential improvements are explored, and priorities established (DFO 2018; Global Trust 2021).
The SG100 level is met for all UoAs.
Internal and/or external review b Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is post subject to regular internal 148 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
subject to occasional and occasional external subject to regular internal internal review. review. and external review. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
U.S. All Council recommendations are reviewed by NMFS, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce, and NOAA. OGC reviews proposed actions to assure compliance with the MSRA. The Center for Independent Experts periodically reviews the skate management and stock assessments. The 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 MSRA. The TRAC reviews stock assessments and management measures for the straddling groundfish stocks. Further external review occurs through occasional legal challenges, which refine understanding of requirements under laws and regulations.
For fishery specific review, the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) catch share review was completed in April 2020. The review was primarily focused on the sector program of the Northeast multispecies fishery; however, some of the analyses combine both sector program and common pool program data. The review addresses the key goals and objectives of the catch share program as specified for the NEMFMP in Amendments 13 and 16 (NEFMC 2020).
Although some external review is conducted with NOAA and their regional science centers, it is unclear how often the fishery-specific management system is externally reviewed. More information is needed to score this fishery beyond the SG60 level.
Canada The DFO reviews and evaluated compliance and monitoring on a regular basis. According to the IFMP, periodic review of management measures through science processes such as framework assessments or special science responses are conducted. Internal review through DFO science processes, e.g., RAP meetings, and through advisory committee meetings also occurs periodically. Annual negotiations of Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy agreements also ensure that FSC licenses and conditions are evaluated and improved regularly (DFO 2018). However, regarding external review, it is unclear how the management system is reviewed or how often. More information is needed.
The SG 60 is met for this fishery, but the SG80 and the SG100 level are not met. References
NEFMC 2020; DFO 2020; DFO 2018; Global Trust 2021; MRAG 2021; Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought More information on how the fishery-specific Information gap indicator management system is externally reviewed is needed to further score this fishery.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
149 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
8 References Principle 1: Brodziak. J.T.2005. Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NMFS NEFSC Tech. Memo.196. 74p. Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2012. Fish Stocks. Volume 3, p.477-487 In Simon Levin (ed.). Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic Press, 5504 p., ISBN-978-0-12-384719-5 DOC G. Klein-MacPhee and Collette, B.B. and (eds.), 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder's fishes of the Gulf of Maine, third ed. Caldwell, N.J.: Blackburn Press, 577 p.: Klein-MacPhee, G. 2002. Haddock/ Melanogrammus aeglefinus Linnaeus 1758. In: Collette, B.B., Klein-MacPhee, G., editors. Bigelow and Schroeder’s fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 3rd Edition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 235-242. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Accessed June 2017 at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/index.html Maguire, J.J, Merrick, R., Sullivan, P., O’Keefe, C. 2020. Management Track Peer Review Panel Report NOAA Fisheries Service, 3Cornell University, 4Fishery Applications Consulting Team, LLC Mayo, R.K., J.M. McGlade, and S.H. Clark. 1989. Patterns of exploitation and biological status of pollock (Pollachius virens L.) in the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank, and Gulf of Maine area. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 9: 13-36. NEFM, 2010. New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2010. Final Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan. NEFMC. Newburyport, MA. NEFSC 2017. New England Fishery Management Council. 2017. Framework Adjustment 56 To the Northeast Multispecies FMP, dated May 2017. http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/170413_Groundfish_FW56_EA.pdf NEFSC 2020. Operational Stock Assessment Report. The report is “in preparation” for publication by the NEFSC. Operational Assessment of 14 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated Through 2018 by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center O’Boyle, R. N. 1981. An assessment of the 4X haddock stock for the 1962-1980 period. CAFSAC Res. Doc. 81/24. O’Brien, L., J. Burnett, and R.K. Mayo. 1993. Maturation of nineteen species of finfish off the northeast coast of the United States, 1985-1990. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 113. 66 p Pentilla, J. A., Nelson, G., Burnett, J.M. 1989. Guidelines for estimating lengths at age for 18 Northwest Atlantic finfish and shellfish species. May 1989. Report number: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-66Affiliation: National Marine Fisheries Service. 125 pp Smith, W.G. and Morse, W.W. 1985. Retention of larval haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus in the Georges Bank region, a gyreinfluenced spawning area. Vol. 21: 1-13, 1885 1 MARINE ECOLOGY - PROGRESS SERIES. Valentin, A., Penin, X., Power, D., Chanut, J.-P., and Sévigny, J.-M. (2014). Combining microsatellites and geometric morphometrics for the study of redfish (Sebastes spp.) population structure in the northwest Atlantic. Fisheries Research 154, 102–119. Principle 2: Ballance, L. T., Benaka,L. R., Ellgen, S. U., Fitzgerald, S. M., Henry, A. E., Kim, M. A., Nathanson, S. L., and Joyce, T. W. 2019. National Seabird Program Five-Year Strategic Plan: 2020-2024. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO- 202,190p.
Benaka, L.R., D. Bullock, A.L. Hoover, and N.A. Olsen (editors) (2019) U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 3. 2019. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-190, 95 p.
Bird Life International. http://www.birdlife.org species fact sheets (2021) http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/sooty-shearwater-ardenna-grisea http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/white-winged-scoter-melanitta-deglandi http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/black-scoter-melanitta-americana http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-eider-somateria-mollissima http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-murre-uria-aalge http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/scopolis-shearwater-calonectris-diomedea/details http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/22698226 http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/european-herring-gull-larus-argentatus
150 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Bolton, Alan B., Crowder, Larry B., Dodd, Mark G., Lauritsen, Ann Marie, Musick, John A., Schroeder, Barbara A., and Witherington Blair, E. (2919) Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Second Revision (2008) Assessment of Progress Toward Recovery December 2019
DeAlteris, Joseph, Brian Ahlers and Richard Allen. U.S. Northeastern coast Longfin Inshore Squid and Northern Shortfin Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery. MSC Fishery Assessment Report. SCS Global Services. March 29, 2020.
Hourigan TF, Etnoyer PJ, Cairns SD (2017). The State of Deep‐Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐OHC‐4. Silver Spring, MD. 467 p.
Koneff, Mark D., Zimmerman, Guthrie S., Dwyer, Chris P., Fleming, Kathleen K., Padding, Paul I., Devers, Patrick K., Johnson, Fred A., Runge, Michael C., and Roberts, Anthony J. (2017). Evaluation of harvest and information needs for North American sea ducks. PLOS ONE April 18, 2017 NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report (no date)- available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report
NEFSC 2017. Operational Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks, Updated through 2016 by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report (no date)- available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report https://www.nefmc.org/library/april-2019-ecosystem-based-fishery-management-ebfm-committee-report
NMFS (2008). Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead sea turtle (Carretta caretta). Second Revision Dec. 31 2008. IUCN Red List. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
NOAA Fisheries 2021. Northeast Bottom Trawl Fishery - Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) List of Fisheries.
NOAA 2021b. Species directory: White hake. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/white-hake
NOAA Fisheries (2020). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan 2020-2024. 24 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiw4unSgJfsAhVMo54KHdoYCJ MQFjABegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov%2Fwebdam%2Fdownload%2F107045645&usg= AOvVaw1A0rNtBzHRLb2PAObEdnDh
NOAA Fisheries (2016a). National Bycatch Reduction Strategy. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 pp. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwiw4unSgJfsAhVMo54KHdoYCJMQFjACegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheries.noaa. gov%2Finternational%2Fbycatch%2Fnational-bycatch-reduction- strategy&usg=AOvVaw2y1K9kFHnU- IejyI75soBN
NOAA Fisheries (2016b) Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program FY 2015 & 2016 Report to Congress. Accessed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/88172694
NOAA (2010). Shark Conservation Act. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/shark- conservation-act
NOAA Fisheries ESA Threatened and Endangered Species. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species- directory/threatened- endangered?title=&species_category=any&species_status=any®ions=1000001111&items_per_page=25&sort=
NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine- mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock#cetaceans---large-whales
COMMON BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus truncatus): Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock (2017)
COMMON DOLPHIN (Delphinus delphis delphis): Western North Atlantic Stock (2017)
ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN (Lagenorhynchus acutus): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
151 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
HARBOR PORPOISE (Phocoena phocoena phocoena): Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Stock (2018)
GRAY SEAL (Halichoerus grypus atlantica): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
HARBOR SEAL (Phoca vitulina vitulina): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
HARP SEAL (Pagophilus groenlandicus): Western North Atlantic Stock (2018)
Report produced for Northeast skate by the Seabird Information for Fisheries Assessment Tool. American Bird Conservancy. www.fisheryandseabird.info Produced on September 25, 2020
Sea Duck Joint Venture (2016) Black Scoter (melanitta americana). Sea Duck Information Series. Info sheet #2 of 15. July 2016. Seaduckjv.org
Shark Finning Prohibition Act (SFPA) (2000). Public Law 106 -557. H.R. 5461. 106th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ557/PLAW-106publ557.pdf
United States of America (2020). Proposed Rule for deep sea coral protection omnibus amendment https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2019-28424.pdf
Valdivia A, Wolf S, Suckling K (2019) Marine mammals and sea turtles listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are recovering. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210164 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/new-england-mid-atlantic#fisheries https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=9f5bb83d0dd1bf6af01d7baf383b29c0&r=SUBPART&n=50y12.0.1.1.5.6
Principle 3: Acoura Marine 2018. US Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank Haddock, Pollock and Redfish Trawl Public Certification Report. May 2018.
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States, 50 C.F.R. § 648, Chapter VI (1997). https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-648
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) 2020. Petition for Rulemaking to End Overfishing and Rebuild the Atlantic Cod. Before the National Marine Fisheries Service. February 13, 2020.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2021. Mandate and role. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre- sujet/mandate-mandat-eng.htm
DFO 2020. Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC). https://www.bio.gc.ca/info/intercol/tmgc- cogst/index-en.php
DFO 2019. Fisheries policies and frameworks. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/policies-politiques- eng.htm
DFO 2019b. Principles and Guidelines. https://open.canada.ca/en/content/principles-and-guidelines
DFO 2018. Integrated fisheries management plans: 4VWX5 groundfish – Maritimes Region. https://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/ifmp-gmp/groundfish-poisson-fond/groundfish-poisson-fond-4vwx5-eng.html#toc6
DFO 2009. Sustainable Fisheries Framework: A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the precautionary approach. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm
DFO 2008. Atlantic fisheries policy review – A policy framework for the management of fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic Coast. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/afpr-rppa/framework-cadre-eng.htm#toc1.
DFO 1992. Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/aboriginal-autochtones/afs- srapa-eng.html
152 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
GARFO 2021. FY 2021 Multispecies Sector ASM Requirements Summary. https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports//Sectors/ASM/FY2021_Multispecies_Sector_ASM_Requir ements_Summary.pdf
Global Trust 2021. Canada Scotia-Fundy haddock Announcement Comment Draft Report. January 29, 2021.
MRAG 2021. U.S. Southern New England Winter and Little Skate Public Certification Report. February 19, 2021.
MSRA (2007). NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. 178pp http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/index.html.
Northeast Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) 1985. Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery. New England Fishery Management Council and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. August 1985.
NEFMC 2021. About the NEFMC. https://www.nefmc.org/about.
NEFMC 2021b. Northeast Multispecies Plan Overview. https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast- multispecies
NEMFC 2021c. Council Operations Handbook. Practices and Policies, revised February 2021. https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/UPDATED_fin02.2021_Operations_Handbook.pdf
NEFMC 2021d. Commercial Fishing Regulations for the Northeast Multispecies. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies-groundfish#commercial
NEFMC 2020. Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Catch Share Review. April 2020.
NEFMC 2015. Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (SOPP) 2015.https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/SOPP-2015-FINAL.pdf
NOAA 2021. Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Commercial Fishing Regulations. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies-groundfish#commercial
NOAA 2021b. Northeast Multispecies Common Pool Fishery. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new- england-mid- atlantic/commercial-fishing/northeast-multispecies-common-pool-fishery
NOAA 2021c. Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid- atlantic/fisheries-observers/northeast-fisheries-observer-program
NOAA 2021d. Cooperative Enforcement. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/enforcement#cooperative-enforcement
NOAA 2020. Population Dynamics: International Collaboration – TRAC. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england- mid-atlantic/international-affairs/population-dynamics-international-collaboration
NOAA 2020b. Northeast Division (NED) Office of Law Enforcement Council Report. August 2020.
NOAA 2019. Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies- groundfish#overview
NOAA 2019b. Northeast Multispecies Recreational Fishing Regulations. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northeast-multispecies-groundfish#recreational
NOAA 2018. National Standard Guidelines. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/national- standard-guidelines.
NOAA 2018b. Fishery Management Process. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and- policies/2018- training-overview-fishery-management-process
NOAA 2018c. Fisheries science program review. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/about- us/noaa-fisheries- science-program-review
153 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
SAI Global 2017. Public Certification Report for the U.S. Acadian Redfish, Pollock and Haddock Otter Trawl Fishery. SAI Global. March 30th, 2017.
154 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9 Appendices 9.1 Assessment information 9.1.1 Previous assessments – delete if not applicable The CAB shall include in the report:
- A brief summary of any previous full assessments of the client operations, noting that these are available on the MSC website.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2
Table 23 Summary of previous assessment conditions
Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification
Insert condition number and State year of closure, Insert PI summary if applicable. Condition1: The client must provide evidence that there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management Status is on target due to Year 3 audit 2.1.1 (retained measures in place such that being carried out more than 6 months species the fishery does not hinder after the initial planning. Score remains status) recovery and rebuilding of the 70. retained species, GOM/GB Atlantic Cod, GOM GB yellowtail flounder, GB Winter
flounder, and Witch flounder. Condition 2: The client must provide evidence that there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures Status is on target due to Year 3 audit 2.1.2 (retained in place such that the fishery being carried out more than 6 months species does not hinder recovery and after the initial planning. Score remains management) rebuilding of the retained species, 70. GOM/GB Atlantic Cod, GOM GB yellowtail flounder, GB Winter flounder, and Witch flounder.
155 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 9.2.1 Site visits The CAB shall include in the report:
- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16
9.2.2 Stakeholder participation The CAB shall include in the report:
- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16
9.2.3 Evaluation techniques At Announcement Comment Draft report stage, if the use of the RBF is triggered for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:
- The plan for RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit. - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - The full list of activities and components to be discussed or evaluated in the assessment.
At Client Draft Report stage, if the RBF was used for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report: - A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.
The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16, FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF2.1
9.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The CAB shall include in the report explicit responses of the team that include:
- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where Peer Reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14
156 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.
The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3
157 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.5 Conditions – 9.5.1 Open Conditions at reassessment announcement – delete if not applicable
Table 24 Open Condition 1
Performance Indicator 2.1.1 Retained Species Outcome
Score 70
During the full assessment audit, given the information of 2015 stock assessment update (September 2015) and the re-examination of strategies to reduce GOM and GB Cod retained catch, there was no clear evidence at the time, that the mitigation measures that act as a partial strategy were demonstrably effective in promoting recovery and rebuilding of GOM and potentially for GB Cod. Further the status for GOM yellowtail flounder, GB Winter flounder and witch flounder were stated as Justification overfished and overfishing was occurring. Status of GB yellowtail flounder was unknown due to changes in stock assessment methodologies. There were no existing reference points. Latest assessment showed the 2014 GB stock biomass as one of the lowest in the time series and their condition was categorized as poor. Thus, at the time partial strategy were not effective in stopping overfishing and promoting recovery for
these species and the condition were raised. The client must provide evidence that the current partial strategy that has been adopted for GOM and GB cod is demonstrably effective i.e. the fisheries for Acadian redfish, Condition haddock and pollock do not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of: GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder.
Condition start 2017
Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.
By Year 1: In the first year following grant of certification, the Client Group will work actively with NMFS, and NEFMC to monitor compliance and implementation of the adopted partial strategy, and other (new) measures as may be appropriate, with the aim of being able to demonstrate that this strategy is resulting in sufficiently low fishing mortality such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Evidence required for this purpose could include the following: - Examination of the status of GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder to its’ Limit Reference Point (LRP) proxy - For each gear type, fleet sector and management area, (i) data on GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder bycatch from the pre-assessment averages reported in the initial 2016 fishery assessment up to the data available at the time of surveillance audit, in regards to annual quantities caught/retained and discarded, Milestones and associated percentages of US Acadian redfish/Pollock and haddock catch, and (ii) US Acadian redfish/Pollock and haddock trip catch and effort; - Quantified estimates of discard mortality in relation to the RV biomass index for the pre- assessment period and recent years; and - Examination of observer reports relative to the management measures applicable to GOMGOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder i.e. handling, live release, move-away protocol etc.) (Score remains to 70)
By Year 2: The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that the current partial strategy to reduce GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder mortality by retained catch of US Acadian
158 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
redfish/pollock/haddock otter trawl fisheries has been reviewed and corrective adjustments (if any) have been proposed. (Score remains to 70)
By Year 3 + 6 months as per the MSC COVID-19 Derogation 27 March 2020 The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that any revised measures of the partial strategy have been implemented and monitoring activity in place to assess their implementation. (Score remains to 70)
By Year 4 + 6 months as per the MSC COVID-19 Derogation 27 March 2020 The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that the relative fishing mortality for GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder from the target fisheries has been maintained at levels that does not hinder their recovery.
The Assessment Team shall be provided with enough evidence that SG 80 is met at the end of the year 4. (Score reaches 80) SAI Global 2020: As part of the current surveillance, the Assessment Team was to be provided with up-dated evidence (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that any revised measures of the partial strategy have been implemented and Progress on Condition monitoring activity in place to assess their implementation. Accordingly, updated stock assessment reports for all the retained species subject of this condition have been published at the end of 2019. Please reference SAI Global 2020 for further detail.
Progress status On Target
Carrying over condition Not expected to carry over ☒ Closing the condition Condition expected to be closed at 4th surveillance of existing certificate during the reassessment
Table 25 Open Condition 2
Performance Indicator 2.1.1 Retained Species Management
Score 70
During the full assessment audit, given the information of 2015 stock assessment update (September 2015) and the re-examination of strategies to reduce GOM and GB Cod retained catch, there was no clear evidence at the time, that the mitigation measures that act as a partial strategy were demonstrably effective in promoting recovery and rebuilding of GOM and potentially for GB Cod. Further the status for GOM yellowtail flounder, GB Winter flounder and witch flounder were stated as Justification overfished and overfishing was occurring. Status of GB yellowtail flounder was unknown due to changes in stock assessment methodologies. There were no existing reference points. Latest assessment showed the 2014 GB stock biomass as one of the lowest in the time series and their condition was categorized as poor. Thus, at the time partial strategy were not effective in stopping overfishing and promoting recovery for
these species and the condition were raised. The client must provide evidence that the current partial strategy that has been adopted for GOM and GB cod is demonstrably effective i.e. the fisheries for Acadian redfish, Condition haddock and pollock do not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of: GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder.
Condition start 2017
159 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.
By Year 1: In the first year following grant of certification, the Client Group will work actively with NMFS, and NEFMC to monitor compliance and implementation of the adopted partial strategy, and other (new) measures as may be appropriate, with the aim of being able to demonstrate that this strategy is resulting in sufficiently low fishing mortality such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Evidence required for this purpose could include the following: - Examination of the status of GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder to its’ Limit Reference Point (LRP) proxy - For each gear type, fleet sector and management area, (i) data on GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder bycatch from the pre-assessment averages reported in the initial 2016 fishery assessment up to the data available at the time of surveillance audit, in regards to annual quantities caught/retained and discarded, and associated percentages of US Acadian redfish/Pollock and haddock catch, and (ii) US Acadian redfish/Pollock and haddock trip catch and effort; - Quantified estimates of discard mortality in relation to the RV biomass index for the pre- assessment period and recent years; and - Examination of observer reports relative to the management measures applicable to GOMGOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder i.e. handling, live release, move-away protocol etc.) (Score remains to 70)
Milestones By Year 2: The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that the current partial strategy to reduce GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder mortality by retained catch of US Acadian redfish/pollock/haddock otter trawl fisheries has been reviewed and corrective adjustments (if any) have been proposed. (Score remains to 70)
By Year 3 + 6 months as per the MSC COVID-19 Derogation 27 March 2020 The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that any revised measures of the partial strategy have been implemented and monitoring activity in place to assess their implementation. (Score remains to 70)
By Year 4 + 6 months as per the MSC COVID-19 Derogation 27 March 2020 The Assessment Team shall be provided with up-dated evidence available at the time of surveillance audit (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that the relative fishing mortality for GOM/GB cod, GOM/GB yellowtail flounder, GB winter flounder, and witch flounder from the target fisheries has been maintained at levels that does not hinder their recovery.
The Assessment Team shall be provided with enough evidence that SG 80 is met at the end of the year 4. (Score reaches 80) SAI Global 2020: As part of the current surveillance, the Assessment Team was to be provided with up-dated evidence (as per the range of evidence described for year 1 above); that any revised measures of the partial strategy have been implemented and Progress on Condition monitoring activity in place to assess their implementation. Accordingly, updated stock assessment reports for all the retained species subject of this condition have been published at the end of 2019. Please reference SAI Global 2020 for further detail.
Progress status On Target
Carrying over condition Not expected to carry over ☒
160 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Closing the condition Conditions are due to be closed at 4th surveillance of existing certificate during the reassessment
9.5.2 Conditions – delete if not applicable To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6
Table X – Condition 1
Performance Indicator
Score State score for Performance Indicator.
Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification Justification text here.
Condition State condition.
Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.
Exceptional Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is longer than circumstances ☐ the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a justification. State milestones and resulting scores where applicable. **Spell out the measurable improvements and outcomes (using quantitative metrics) Milestones expected each year and/or the outcome and score that shall be achieved at any interim milestone (FCP 7.18.1.5) Verification with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 7.19.8. entities
Complete the following rows for reassessments.
Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a).
Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. Related condition ☐
Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP v2.2 Condition rewritten ☐ 7.30.5.3).
9.6 Client Action Plan To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19 161 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.7 Surveillance To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28
Table X – Fishery surveillance program
Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit & e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit re-certification site visit
Table X – Timing of surveillance audit
Proposed date of surveillance Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal to postpone e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 audit to include findings of scientific advice
Table X – Surveillance level justification
Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale
e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most e.g. 1 auditor on-site with e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit conditions will be closed out in year 3, remote support from 1 auditor the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.
162 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.8 Risk-Based Framework outputs – delete if not applicable To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
9.8.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) The CAB shall complete the Consequence Analysis (CA) table below for each data-deficient species under PI 1.1.1, including rationales for scoring each of the CA attributes.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF3
Table X – CA scoring template
Consequence Scoring element Consequence score subcomponents Population size Principle 1: Stock status outcome Reproductive capacity Age/size/sex structure Geographic range Rationale for most vulnerable subcomponent Rationale for consequence score
163 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.8.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) The CAB shall include in the report an MSC Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) worksheet for each Performance Indicator where the PSA is used and one PSA rationale table for each data-deficient species identified, subject to FCP v2.2 Section PF4. If species are grouped together, the CAB shall list all species and group them indicating which are most at-risk.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF4
Table X – PSA productivity and susceptibility attributes and scores
Performance Indicator
Productivity
Scoring element (species)
Attribute Rationale Score
Average age at maturity 1 / 2 / 3
Average maximum age 1 / 2 / 3
Fecundity 1 / 2 / 3
Average maximum size
Not scored for invertebrates 1 / 2 / 3 Average size at maturity 1 / 2 / 3 Not scored for invertebrates
Reproductive strategy 1 / 2 / 3
Trophic level 1 / 2 / 3
Density dependence 1 / 2 / 3 Invertebrates only
Susceptibility
Fishery Only where the scoring Insert list of fisheries impacting the given scoring element (FCP v2.2 Annex PF element is scored 7.4.10) cumulatively
Attribute Rationale Score
Insert attribute rationale. Note specific requirements in FCP v2.2 Areal Overlap Annex PF4.4.6.b, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA 1 / 2 / 3 are taken into account Insert attribute rationale. Note specific requirements in FCP v2.2 Encounterability Annex PF4.4.6.b, where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA 1 / 2 / 3 are taken into account
Selectivity of gear type 1 / 2 / 3
164 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
Post capture mortality 1 / 2 / 3
Catch (weight) Only where the scoring Insert weights or proportions of fisheries impacting the given scoring 1 / 2 / 3 element is scored element (FCP v2.2 Annex PF4.4.4) cumulatively
Table X – Species grouped by similar taxonomies (if FCP v2.2 Annex PF4.1.5 is used)
Species common name (if Most at-risk in Species scientific name Taxonomic grouping known) group? Indicate the group that this species e.g. Genus species belongs to, e.g. Scombridae, Yes / No subspecies Soleidae, Serranidae, Merluccius spp.
165 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.8.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) The CAB shall complete the Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) table below for PI 2.4.1, if used, including rationales for scoring each of the CSA attributes.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF7
Table X – CSA rationale table for PI 2.4.1 Habitats
Consequence Rationale Score
Regeneration of biota 1 / 2 / 3
Natural disturbance 1 / 2 / 3
Removability of biota 1 / 2 / 3
Removability of substratum 1 / 2 / 3
Substratum hardness 1 / 2 / 3
Substratum ruggedness 1 / 2 / 3
Seabed slope 1 / 2 / 3
Spatial Rationale Score
Gear footprint 1 / 2 / 3
Spatial overlap 1 / 2 / 3
Encounterability 1 / 2 / 3
166 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.8.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) The CAB shall complete the Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) table below for PI 2.5.1, if used, including rationales for scoring each of the SICA attributes.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF8
Table X – SICA scoring template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem
Spatial scale of Temporal scale Intensity of Relevant Consequence fishing activity of fishing activity fishing activity subcomponents Score Species
composition Performance Indicator Functional group PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem composition outcome Distribution of the
community Trophic
size/structure Rationale for spatial
scale of fishing activity Rationale for temporal
scale of fishing activity Rationale for intensity of
fishing activity Rationale for
consequence score
167 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.9 Harmonised fishery assessments – delete if not applicable
Harmonisation is required in cases where assessments overlap, or new assessments overlap with pre-existing fisheries.
If relevant, in accordance with FCP v2.2 Annex PB requirements, the CAB shall describe in the report the processes, activities and specific outcomes of efforts to harmonise fishery assessments. The report shall identify the fisheries and Performance Indicators subject to harmonisation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Annex PB
The FCP (v2.1 GPB1.2) confirms that harmonisation is not required if overlapping fisheries have used different versions of the assessment tree (MSC Fisheries Standards Annex SA Annex SB, Annex SC and Annex SD).
Table 26 Overlapping fisheries
Fishery name Certification status and date Performance Indicators to harmonise
US Atlantic Spiny Dogfish, winter and Certified August 30, 2012, recertified PI 3.1.1-3.1.3 little skate fishery on May 22, 2018 US Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank PI 1.1.1 – 1.2.4 Certified May 9th, 2017 haddock, pollock and redfish fishery PI 2.1.1a Canada Scotia-Fundy haddock Certified October 22, 2010, currently PI 1.1.1 – 1.2.4 for GB haddock; PI fishery in reassessment 2.1.1a Certified Dec. 19th, 2013; completed U.S. Atlantic Sea scallop fishery PI 3.1.1-3.1.3 reassessment October 2018.
Table X – Overlapping fisheries
Supporting information
- Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes.
Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? Yes / No
Date of harmonisation meeting DD / MM / YY
If applicable, describe the meeting outcome
- e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.
Table X – Scoring differences
Performance Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Indicators (PIs)
PI Score Score Score Score
PI Score Score Score Score
168 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
PI Score Score Score Score
Table X – Rationale for scoring differences
If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.6).
If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination.
169 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.2 October 2020
9.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable To be added at Public Certification Report stage The CAB shall include in the report all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.
Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure
170 MRAG Americas, Inc. US2749 US Acadian redfish, pollock and haddock fishery ACDR