Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Bank Arctic Surf Clam Fishery

September 2017

Prepared For: F-ACO-0018 Prepared By: Acoura Marine Ltd Authors: Paul Knapman, Julian Addison, Rob Blyth-Skyrme

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Contents Glossary...... 3 1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 6 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 6 2.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 7 2.1.2 RBF Training ...... 7 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 8 3.1 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 8 3.2 UoAs and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 9 3.3 Final UoC(s) ...... 9 3.3.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 10 3.4 Overview of the fishery ...... 10 3.4.1 History of the fishery ...... 14 3.5 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 17 3.5.1 Life history of Arctic surf clam ...... 17 3.5.2 Management Unit ...... 18 3.5.3 Harvest strategy ...... 19 3.5.4 Stock assessment ...... 20 3.5.5 Management advice...... 24 3.5.6 Reference points ...... 25 3.5.7 Harvest Control Rules ...... 26 3.5.8 Current Stock status ...... 32 3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 40 3.6.1 Banquereau Bank ...... 40 3.6.2 Grand Bank ...... 41 3.6.3 Retained and bycatch species ...... 43 3.6.4 Endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species...... 47 3.6.5 Habitats ...... 48 3.6.6 Ecosystem ...... 48 3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 49 3.7.1 Area of operation of the UoAs ...... 49 3.7.2 Jurisdiction ...... 49 3.8 Legal and policy framework ...... 50 3.8.1 Dispute resolution ...... 51 3.8.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 52 3.8.3 Long term and fishery specific objectives ...... 53 3.8.4 The decision-making process ...... 54

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 1

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

3.8.5 Incentives for sustainable fishing ...... 54 3.8.6 Monitoring, control and surveillance ...... 54 3.8.7 Management evaluation ...... 55 3.8.8 Research ...... 55 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 57 4.1 Harmonised fishery assessment ...... 57 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 58 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 61 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 61 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 61 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 62 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 62 5 Traceability ...... 63 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 63 5.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 63 5.3 Eligibility to enter further Chains of Custody ...... 65 6 Evaluation Results ...... 66 6.1 Principle level scores ...... 66 6.2 Summary of PI scores ...... 66 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 67 6.4 Recommendations ...... 67 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 67 References ...... 68 Appendices ...... 73 Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 73 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 76 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 150 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports...... 154 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 169 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 172 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 173

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 2

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Glossary

CHEA Canadian Hokkigai Export Association CSLP Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans EA Enterprise Allocation EAC Ecology Action Centre EBSA Ecologically and biologically significant area ESSIM Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (Initiative/Project) ETP Endangered, threatened or protected (species) IFMP Integrated fisheries management plan JPA Joint project agreement LOMA Large ocean management area LRP Limit reference point MCY Maximum constant yield MPA Marine protected area MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum sustainable yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization OCAC Offshore Clam Advisory Committee OCMB Offshore Clam Management Board PPT Parts per thousand RAP Regional advisory process RDG Regional Director General (DFO) SSB Spawning stock biomass TAC Total allowable catch TRP Target reference point VME Vulnerable marine ecosystem WWF World Wildlife Fund

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 3

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

1 Executive Summary

This report provides details of the MSC re-assessment of the Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic Surf Clam Fishery. The fishery was previously certified against the MSC standard on 17th July 2012, and so this is the second assessment of the fishery. The re-assessment process began on the 8th September 2016 and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). This re-assessment was conducted using the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) version 1.3 (MSC 2013) default assessment tree with no changes made to the text of any default Performance Indicator (PI). The assessment followed CR version 2.0 process (MSC 2014). The report has been presented using the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template version 2.0 (noting that the scoring section is from v1.3). The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was not used in this re-assessment. A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this re- assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. A rigorous re-assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. The assessment team for this fishery comprised of Paul Knapman, who was the Lead Assesor and primary Principle 3 (P3) specialist; Julian Addison who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 (P1) and Rob Blyth-Skyrme who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle P2 (P2). Paul MacIntyre was available as the traceability advisor.

Client fishery strengths The fishery achieved high scores under all three MSC Principles. With respect to Principle 1: the stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing, limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock with the limit reference point being set at above a precautionary level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity; the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points; there are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place, and there is evidence that the tools used to implement the harvest control rules are effective at achieving the precautionary exploitation levels. With respect to Principle 2: the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained, bycatch or ETP species; habitat structure and function; and, key elements of the ecosystems structure and function. With respect to Principle 3: the fishery management system operates within an effective and binding legal framework which ensures it is capable of delivering management ourtcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2; clear long and short term management objectives have been adopted and include the precautionary approach; a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system operates within the fishery, and there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply and provide important information to support the effective management of the fishery.

Client fishery weaknesses For the Grand Bank fishery (UoC 2) stock abundance indicators are not monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 4

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

While research is undertaken and achieves objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 a clear plan of current and future research has not been articulated for the fishery. Determination On completion of the re-assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that ....

Conditions & Recommendations PIs 1.2.3 and 3.2.4 did not achieve an unconditional pass mark, and therefore binding conditions are placed on the fishery. A full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.3 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions relate to the infrequent stock surveys and assessments on Grand Bank, and the client providing a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. In addition, the assessment team made two recommendations. As these are not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, they are non-binding; however in the opinion of the assessment team, they would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery. Details of these recommendations are provided in Section 6.3.1 of this report. For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 5

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1 Assessment Team All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Assessment team leader and Principle 3 specialist: Paul Knapman Paul is based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada and has recently returned to Fisheries Consultancy. He was the General Manager of Intertek Fisheries Certification a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) that focused their work on Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) fisheries and chain of custody assessment / certification. He has extensive experience of MSC related work having been the Lead Assessor / Auditor and/or technical reviewer for 50+ client fisheries throughout the world. He was previously Head of an inshore fisheries management organization in the UK, a senior policy advisor to the UK government on fisheries and environmental issues, a British Fisheries Officer and a fisheries consultant to clients in Europe and Canada.

Paul undertook the technical overview of the original assessment of these fisheries and meets the MSC qualifications as a P3 specialist and team leader.

Assessment team member and Principle 1 specialist: Julian Addison Dr Julian Addison is an independent fisheries consultant with 30 years’ experience of stock assessment and provision of management advice on shellfish fisheries, and a background of scientific research on shellfish biology and population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Until December 2010 he worked at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in Lowestoft, England where he was Senior Shellfish Advisor to Government policy makers, which involved working closely with marine managers, legislators and stakeholders, Government Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and environmental NGOs. He has experienced shellfish management approaches in North America as a visiting scientist at DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia and at NMFS in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. For four years he was a member of the Scientific Committee and the UK delegation to the International Whaling Commission providing scientific advice to the UK Commissioner. He has worked extensively with ICES and was Chair of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs, a member of the Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History and a member of the Steering Group on Ecosystems Function. He has recently completed or is currently undertaking MSC full assessments for the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab fishery, the Ireland and Northern Ireland bottom grown mussel fisheries, both the Estonia and Faroe Islands Barents Sea cold water prawn fisheries, the Nephrops fishery in the Skagerrak and Kattegat, the Swedish shrimp fishery in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep and the Eastern Canada offshore lobster fishery. He has also undertaken various MSC pre-assessments and surveillance audits and has carried out peer reviews of MSC assessments in both Europe and North America of lobster, cold water prawn, razorfish, cockle and scallop fisheries. Other recent work includes a review of the stock assessment model for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, USA, and an assessment of three Alaskan crab fisheries under the FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management scheme.

Julian was not part of the original assessment team for this fishery. Acoura Marine selected Julian for this assessment owing to his background in shellfish stock assessment work and his qualification as an MSC team member and team leader.

Assessment team member and Principle 2 specialist: Rob Blyth-Skyrme Dr Rob Blyth Skyrme started his career in commercial aquaculture, but subsequently shifted focus to the sustainable management of wild fisheries. After his PhD he went to the Eastern

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 6

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, one of the largest inshore fisheries management bodies in England, where he became the Deputy Chief Fishery Officer. He then moved to Natural England, the statutory adviser to UK Government on nature conservation in English waters, to lead the team dealing with fisheries policy, science and nationally significant fisheries and environmental casework. Rob now runs Ichthys Marine Ecological Consulting Ltd., a marine fisheries and environmental consultancy. As well as carrying out general consultancy, he has undertaken all facets of MSC work as a lead assessor, expert team member and peer reviewer across a wide range of fisheries, including those targeting shellfish species. Rob is a member of the MSC’s Peer Review College, and has completed the MSC v1.3 and v2.0 training modules.

Rob was a team member in the original assessment team for these fisheries.

2.1.1 Peer Reviewers As this is a reduced re-assessment, only one peer reviewer is required (FCR v2.0 section 7.24.8b). however, in order to ensure peer review comments are not attributable one of two nominated peer reviewers were appointed. The two peer reviewer nominees were, Terry Holt and Andy Brand. A summary CV for each is available in the ‘assessment downloads’ section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.

Terry Holt has over 30 years experience in seabed ecology, including shellfish ecology, marine aquaculture (both research and commercial), seabed surveys including trawl, dredge, grab, pots, camera and acoustic, and benthic fish and invertebrate surveys including scallops and other commercial shellfish, and a variety of environmental impact assessments. He has provided expert advice on molluscan fisheries at planning enquiries, and has published on trawl damage to seabed communities and on sensitivities of biogenic reef habitats. Terry has been involved in MSC pre-assessments, full assessments, annual audits and peer reviews for queen scallops, mussels, cockles, clams and oysters in Europe, Canada and South east Asia since 2001.

Andy Brand worked for the University of Liverpool for 40 years on the academic staff of the Port Erin Marine Laboratory, Isle of Man, retiring in 2006 as Director of the Laboratory. During this time he developed large research programmes on the biology, ecology, aquaculture and fisheries of bivalve molluscs, especially scallops, and on the environmental impact of scallop dredging. Andy has had extensive fishery management and environmental assessment consultancy experience, including contracts with government departments and industry, and has been a member of ICES Working Groups on herring, scallops and ecosystem effects of fishing. He is now an Honorary Senior Fellow of the University of Liverpool and works as an independent shellfisheries consultant. He has been an Assessor, Auditor and Peer Reviewer for MSC certifications for multiple bi-valve shellfish fisheries, including the Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic Surf Clam Fishery.

2.1.2 RBF Training The Risk Based Framework (RBF) was not used for this assessment.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 7

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

3 Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought The UoA is defined by MSC as, “The target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators or other eligible fishers that are included in an MSC fishery assessment. In some fisheries, the UoA and UoC may be further defined based on the specific fishing seasons and/or areas that are included.”

The UoC is defined by MSC as, “Target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators that are covered by an MSC fishery certificate. Note that other eligible fishers may also be included in some UoAs but not initially certified (until covered by a certificate sharing arrangement).

Acoura Marine Ltd confirm that the Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fisheries are within scope of the MSC certification sought as defined by the UoAs below.

Table 1. The UoAs

UoA 1 Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) AKA Stimpson’s surf clam Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Banquereau and Grand Banks Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam UoA 2 Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) AKA Stimpson’s surf clam Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Banquereau and Grand Banks Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam

This UoAs were chosen as they are compliant with client wishes for re-assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 8

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

3.2 Proposed Units of Certification (UoC) The proposed UoCs for this fishery are:

Table 2. UoC 1

Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) AKA Stimpson’s surf clam Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Banquereau Bank Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible fishers covered Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership (CSLP) by the certification vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam. Other Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam

Table 3. UoC 2

Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) AKA Stimpson’s surf clam Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Grand Bank Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible fishers covered Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership vessels by the certification licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam Other Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam

3.3 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The final UoCs for this fishery are likely to be as defined below, but this will be confirmed at the PCR stage.

UoC 1

Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Banquereau Bank Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible fishers covered Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership vessels

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 9

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

by the certification licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam Other Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam

UoC 2

Species Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) Geographical area FAO Area 21, Northwest Atlantic Ocean Method of capture Hydraulic clam dredge Stock Grand Bank Management System Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Eligible fishers covered Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership vessels by the certification licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam Other Eligible Fishers Canadian vessels licenced to fish for Arctic surf clam

3.3.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Table 4. TAC and catch data for the Banquereau Bank UoC

TAC Banquerau Year 2015 Amount 24,000 mt UoA share of TAC Year 2015 Amount 24,000 mt UoC share of TAC Year 2015 Amount 24,000 mt Total green weight catch by Year (most recent) 2015 Amount 21,951 mt UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2014 Amount 23,657 mt

Table 5. TAC and catch data for the Grand Bank UoC

TAC Grand Bank Year 2015 Amount 14,756 mt UoA share of TAC Year 2015 Amount 14,756 mt UoC share of TAC Year 2015 Amount 14,756 mt Total green weight catch by Year (most recent) 2015 Amount 0 mt UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2014 Amount 0 mt

3.4 Overview of the fishery Clearwater Seafood Partnership Limited (CSLP) is the sole licence holder for the fishery. Three licences – one to CSLP (Nova Scotia) that authorizes two vessels to fish, one to CSLP (Newfoundland) and one to Arctic Surf Co Inc. (Newfoundland), a wholly owned subsidiary of CSLP - are included in the Unit of Certification.

CSLP operate three factory freezer vessels – the Ocean Concord (Figure 1), Arctic Endurance (Figure 2) and Belle Carnell (Figure 3).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 10

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 1. The Ocean Concord

(http://www.clearwater.ca/en/home/ocean-to-plate/harvesting/default.aspx?mode=VesselDetails&vCode=OC)

Figure 2. The Arctic Endurance

(http://www.clearwater.ca/en/home/ocean-to-plate/harvesting/default.aspx?mode=VesselDetails&vCode=OC)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 11

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 3. The Belle Carnell

(http://www.clearwater.ca/en/home/ocean-to-plate/harvesting/default.aspx?mode=VesselDetails&vCode=OC)

CSLP have plans to replace the Ocean Concord with a new vessel in 2018 (CSLP pers. comm.)

The fishing operation is carried out by hydraulic dredges. The dredge is a large rectangular steel box or cage, on skids (Figure 4). In operation, seawater is pumped through a large diameter water hose from the vessel to a manifold on the front of the dredge where a series of nozzles direct the water backward at a 45° angle into the seabed. The nozzles shoot high- powered water jets at about 125 - 190 p.s.i. into the sediment; this fluidizes the sand in advance of the dredge and exposes and lifts the underlying clams. A cutting blade spanning most of the width of the dredge then scoops the clams up into the cage at the rear of the dredge. As the dredge moves forward the clams pass over a series of spacing bars that retain commercial-sized clams and allow smaller clams to drop through. The first portion of the cage is left open to allow debris to drop out immediately. The size of this opening can be adjusted with the insertion or removal of additional steel plates. Clams are retained in the dredge until recovered at the surface and offloaded on the vessel. Dredges are typically towed in pairs with the centres of the dredges about 30m (100 feet) apart. Two dredges are used whenever possible but during bad weather, or when dredge repairs are being carried out, a single dredge may be towed. A typical tow is carried out at about 2 knots, lasting for approximately 12 minutes.

Hydraulic clam dredges are used only to fish for clam species and are only effectively fished on sandy seabeds. The fleet uses RoxAnn & WASSP acoustic bottom imaging systems to identify suitable clam substrate.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 12

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 4. Arctic surf clam dredge sitting on a tipping ramp. Source: CSLP.

The following table (Table 6) provides the typical specifications of a dredge:

Table 6. Specifications of the Canadian hydraulic Arctic surf clam dredge (DFO 2010a).

Characteristic Value Dredge width 3.8 m (12.5 feet) Dredge height 1.2 m (4 feet) Dredge length 6 m (20 feet) Blade depth 18 cm (7 inches) Dredge weight (in air) 9.5 tonnes Tow speed About 2 knots Hose diameter 22.5 cm (10 inches) Bar spacing 2.5 – 3.2 cm (1– 1 ¼ inches) Nozzles on the manifold 32

The fishery is conducted offshore, on the Banquereau Bank which is on the eastern Scotian Shelf off of Nova Scotia, and on the Grand Bank off Newfoundland (Figure 5). The fishery may extend beyond the Canadian 200 mile limit as fishing can take place on the “nose and tail” of the Grand Bank. Banquereau Bank is dominated by Arctic surf clams, whereas, Grand Bank is a mixture of Arctic surf, propeller clams and Greenland cockles (CSLP pers. comm., and see Table 16 and Table 17 of this report). Over the last 10 years the Banquereau Bank has been the focus of the fishery. However, CSLP have recently started to operate their new clam fishing vessel, Belle Carnell (entering service in late 2015), on the Grand Bank, while the Ocean Concord and Arctic Enterprise continue to fish on Banquereau Bank.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 13

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 5. Offshore Banks of the Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions (DFO 2014)

3.4.1 History of the fishery Much of the following text is extracted from the Offshore Clam Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) (DFO, 2014).

The development of the Canadian offshore clam fishery started in 1980 when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) commenced a resource survey to determine the commercial potential of underutilised clam species in the Scotia-Fundy Region. These surveys took place from 1980 to 1983 and found commercial densities of Arctic surf clams on Banquereau Bank, for which there was commercial interest as a potential substitute for the highly valued Atlantic surf clam Spisula solidissima, which has a very limited distribution in Canadian waters (Rowell & Chaisson 1983; Chaisson & Rowell 1985). Commercial densities of Arctic surf clam were not found in other areas of the Scotian Shelf but these exploratory surveys were not comprehensive so the possibility of commercial quantities elsewhere could not be excluded.

Based on the survey results, it was estimated that Banquereau Bank had a commercially exploitable biomass of Arctic surf clams of 561,000 t and a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of 16,821 t (Rowell & Amaratunga 1986). A three-month test fishery then took place with three companies participating. Each company used a chartered US vessel equipped with a single hydraulic clam dredge. As a result of the test fishery, the estimated MSY was raised to 24,000 t (Rowell & Amaratunga 1986).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 14

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

In 1987 a three-year Offshore Clam Enterprise Allocation (EA) Program was developed with the industry. Total Allowable Catches (TAC's) and EA's were set for each of the three years of the program based on biological information provided by the surveys and the test fishery, and an economic break-even analysis on the required resource to make a vessel and processor viable. Three companies participated in the fishery. The TAC was set at 30,000 t for Banquereau Bank. One company, not having access to Banquereau Bank, tried experimental fishing on the Grand Bank (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) area 3LNO). A review of the development of the fishery up to 1989 is available in Roddick & Kenchington (1990).

Arctic surf clams officially became a regulated species under the Atlantic Fishery regulations in February 1989 (DFO 2011a). In that year the fishery expanded to the Grand Bank with the issuing of two exploratory licenses and two exploratory permits; these were issued to the three original companies plus a fourth, Newfoundland based, company. For the Grand Bank, a preliminary resource assessment estimated the exploitable biomass at 504,000 t and the fishery operated with a precautionary TAC of 20,000 t. In 1990 the EA was extended for a five-year period, 1990-1994. However, one company stopped fishing in the spring of 1991 and went out of business in 1992. The offshore clam allocations were then revised from January 1, 1992, giving the remaining three companies equal access and allocations on all banks. While the TACs for each fishing area remained unchanged (Banquereau Bank 30,000 t; Grand Bank 20,000 t) it was decided that any future changes in the TAC would also be split equally between the licence holders. By the mid 1990’s CSLP had acquired all the offshore clam licences and became the sole operator in the fishery.

The 1995-1997 Offshore Clam Fishery Multi-Year Harvesting Plan stressed the need for improved scientific data to ensure sustainable harvesting and several information gaps were cited for both Banquereau and Grand Bank, including the lack of reliable estimates of standing stock biomass, growth rates, recruitment and natural mortality. With industry looking to long-term investments in the offshore clam fishery they required regular, up-to- date, estimates of the clam stocks so they entered into a Joint Partnership Agreement (JPA) with DFO to jointly fund the scientific studies. This program undertook to survey the various clam species and offshore banks involved in the fishery on a rotating basis. Under this program, Banquereau Bank was surveyed in 1996-97 (Roddick & Smith 1999), which resulted in a reduction of the TAC for Banquereau from 30,000 t to 24,000 t in 2004, but the results of the Grand Bank part of this survey were never completed due to the demise of the scientist in charge (DFO 2010a). No change was made to the Grand Bank TAC at that time. Subsequent surveys under this program were conducted on Banquereau in 2004, followed by Grand Bank in 2006-2009 and Banquereau again in 2010 (DFO 2012). In addition, the industry also undertook to fund an economic study of the fishery (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. 1998), and a dockside-monitoring program (DFO 2011a).

The 1998-2002 Offshore Clams Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) incorporated similar management measures to the previous plan and stressed the need to determine a sustainable yield and scientifically based TAC. It also identified factors to be evaluated when considering applications for new licences, such as the total TAC exceeding historic levels, uncertainty surrounding recruitment, sustainability of the fishery and market conditions (DFO 2006). The 1998-2002 Plan was extended by the 2005-2009 IFMP on a five-year rolling or “evergreen” basis. Thus, at the end of each year of the agreement, a subsequent year was added to the Offshore Clams IFMP, thereby ensuring that a five-year plan was always in place. This “evergreen” process was subject to either the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the licence holders providing formal notification, within 15 days before the end of each calendar year of the Plan, of their intention whether or not to agree an annual renewal of the Plan. The 2005-2009 IFMP was updated in May 2011 (DFO 2011a) and then in June 2014 (DFO 2014).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 15

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Prior to the 2015 Canadian federal election, the Canadian Fisheries Minister announced that the TAC for the Banquereau and Grand Bank would be increased in 2016 to 52,000 mt and DFO opened a period within which parties could register interest to participate in the fishery (DFO 2015a). Following the election, the new Government’s Fisheries Minister announced that the long-standing TAC of 38,756 mt would be re-established for 2016 and, prior to any change in the TAC and decision on new entrants, further science would need to be completed along with consideration of a spatial management system (DFO 2016). The assessment team have not considered the potential outcome of this decision relative to this assessment. If there were any future changes they would be considered through the surveillance audit process.

From 2006 to 2015 the fishery focussed almost entirely on Banquereau Bank with no fishery at all on Grand Bank in 2014 and 2015 (Table 7). However as noted above, CSLP’s new clam fishing vessel, Belle Carnell, has commenced fishing on the Grand Bank. Preliminary landings for 2016, as indicated by the logbook data provided by industry to DFO Science, show that the fishery on the Grand Bank took 13,560 tonnes relative to a TAC of 14,756 tonnes in 2016, and the fishery on Banquereau Bank took 24,154 tonnes relative to the TAC of 24,000 tonnes in 2016.

Table 7. Annual Arctic surf clam landings (t) for Grand Bank and Banquereau Bank, 1987 – 2015 (modified from Roddick et al. 2011, and with data from previous MSC annual audit reports). Official statistics for 2016 are not yet available.

Year Grand Bank Banquereau Bank Total

1987 0 717 718 1988 0 1,824 1,824 1989 402 7,666 8,068 1990 8,027 4,765 12,792 1991 6,753 746 7,500 1992 11,154 0 11,154 1993 18,905 60 18,965 1994 15,881 4,590 20,471 1995 14,108 10,427 24,535 1996 6,458 18,745 25,203 1997 7,614 19,025 26,639 1998 963 24,695 25,658 1999 1,487 24,413 25,900 2000 3,775 19,989 23,764 2001 8,389 11,443 19,832 2002 6,901 12,492 19,403 2003 10,265 16,883 27,148 2004 6,731 16,686 23,417 2005 3,732 14,689 18,422 2006 4,927 14,859 19,786 2007 211 17,337 17,548 2008 0 19,336 19,336 2009 127 24,565 24,692

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 16

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Year Grand Bank Banquereau Bank Total

2010 0 22,845 22,845 2011 76 22,195 22,271 2012 0 21,995 21,995 2013 199 19,256 19,455 2014 0 23,657 23,657 2015 0 21,951 21,951

When the Arctic surf clam fishery started, participation was initially based on expectations of a strong US market. However, this failed to materialize, due mainly to the distinctive coloration of the Arctic surf clam clam meat that deterred US buyers, so from 1987 onwards the clam fishing companies focused their efforts on penetrating the Japanese market. This was initially slow to respond and by the end of 1989 the economic situation of the fishery had deteriorated (DFO 2011a). In response, Canadian exporters formed the Canadian Hokkigai Export Association (CHEA) to expand the marketing of hokkigai (Arctic surf clams) in Japan. Together with the Canadian and provincial governments, CHEA implemented a major marketing campaign at supermarkets and stores throughout Japan to introduce consumers to Canadian hokkigai. This lead to a gradual increase in Japanese market demand, with over 4,000 t of Canadian Arctic surf clam exported to Japan by 1995. However, reliance on a single market would have left the industry potentially vulnerable so the industry continued efforts to diversify and expand markets throughout China, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. By 2006, exports of Arctic surf clams by market were: Japan 41%, North America 20%, China 29%, and other 10% (DFO, 2011a). However, despite these marketing efforts, the fishery has generally been constrained by market demand and total landings have remained relatively stable (DFO 2014).

3.5 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.5.1 Life history of Arctic surf clam The Arctic surf clam, (Mactromeris polynyma), is a circumboreal species, inhabiting the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Christian et al. 2010), in waters colder than 15°C. It is the largest clam in the northwestern Atlantic and occurs from Labrador to Rhode Island (Abbott 1974), and it has become the object of a substantial commercial fishery in Canada since the late 1980s (Roddick & Kenchington 1990) in the offshore areas of the Scotian Shelf and eastern Grand Banks and in inshore areas off southwest Nova Scotia and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (DFO 1999; 2004). It is a large, long-lived, bivalve found mainly in medium to coarse, well-sorted, sandy sediments. It is a strong, active burrower, capable of burrowing to approximately 20 cm into the sediment, or the depth to which the siphons extend. All Atlantic populations are subtidal down to 110 m depth and on Banquereau Bank the highest densities in surveys were between approximately 50 and 65 m depth (Roddick et al. 2007). Arctic surf clams appear to prefer habitats with high salinity (> 18 ppt) and lower water temperatures (Roddick & Smith, 1999). Despite the commercial fishery, the biology and ecology of M. polynyma has not been studied very thoroughly.

Mactromeris polynyma is a slow-growing, long-lived species and significant numbers appear to reach more than 40 years of age. On Banquereau, the oldest Arctic surf clam aged was 61 years old and the largest observed was 157mm shell length, while on Grand Bank the oldest clam aged was 73 years old, and the largest observed was 142 mm shell length. M. polynyma are patchily distributed, and commercially targeted populations may be widely separated from each other by hundreds of kilometres of ocean bottom in which the clams are relatively scarce. These populations also show significant variations in age structure including large variation in the relative abundance of age-classes 50 years old or more

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 17

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

(Roddick & Smith, 1999). Studies of Arctic surf clam populations from various locations, examined in a study using microsatellite markers (Cassista & Hart 2005; 2007), found broad spatial homogeneity of allele frequencies among northwest Atlantic populations and significant spatial differentiation only on the largest geographic scale (i.e. between Atlantic and Pacific Oceans).

Arctic surf clams are dioecious (they have separate sexes) and typically reach reproductive maturity at 5 to 8 years of age. They are broadcast spawners, with eggs and sperm released into the water column where fertilization and larval development occur. Like other similar large bivalves, fecundity is very high. Spawning generally occurs during the late summer or fall, although some inshore populations may also exhibit spring spawning (DFO 1999; Christian et al. 2010). After a few weeks in the plankton the larvae metamorphose and settle on the seabed on inshore or offshore shallow sandy banks (Lambert & Goudreau 1997; Roddick & Smith 1999). Under laboratory conditions Arctic surf clam larvae hatched one day after spawning at 15ºC and four days after spawning at 8.5ºC (Davis & Shumway 1996). In the same study, metamorphosis to the post-larval stage occurred in 24 days at 15ºC and in 42 days at 10ºC. There have been no studies of larval habitat selection but Davis & Shumway (1996) reported that the growth rate was greatest in silt/sand substrates. Arctic surf clams are filter feeders with a microalgal diet (e.g., diatoms and dinoflagellates), though they probably also utilise re-suspended organic detritus and bacteria from the bottom of the water column.

Age of Arctic surf clams has been estimated by counting microscopic internal bands or annuli in thin sections of the hinge area of the shell and has been used to determine age frequency distributions through time to show variations in annual recruitment, temporal and spatial differences in growth rates, and to establish age at maturity (DFO 2010a, Roddick et al. 2007). DFO undertakes training and testing of Arctic surf clam agers, with a maximum permitted coefficient of variance of 5% being adopted before agers can routinely age Arctic surf clam; this is considered to be conservative (Roddick et al. 2011). For Arctic surf clams from Banquereau, Roddick et al. (2007) reported that the size at 50% maturity was 47.2 mm.shell length, well below the size of 50% retention of the dredge, and the age at 50% maturity was 6.7 years old. DFO (2012) provided new estimates for size and age at 50% maturity for Banquereau of 45.2 mm and 8.3 years respectively, but these figures are still well below the size of 50% retention.

Arctic surf clams have numerous predators. During the pelagic phase, the larvae are eaten by larger zooplankton and planktivorous fish. On the seabed, they are consumed by various predatory invertebrates and vertebrates - sea star Leptasterias polaris, whelk (Buccinum undatum), sea stars (Asterias rubens), rock crab (Cancer irroratus), lyre crab (Hyas araneus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and sea otters (Rochette et al. 1995; Himmelman & Hamel, 1993; Morissette & Himmelman, 2000; Roddick & Lemon, 1992; Green & Brueggeman, 1991).

3.5.2 Management Unit The Arctic surf clam fisheries are managed under the Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions (DFO 2014), which applies to both the Grand Bank and Banquereau fisheries. The Arctic surf clam stocks on these two grounds are surveyed by collaborative industry/DFO surveys, and the resulting assessments form the basis for setting an individual TAC for each ground. Due to the time period between assessments the TACs are set for a multi-year period, using the framework for these stocks developed during 2007 (DFO 2007a), and the TAC’s generally remain in place until the next survey takes place.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 18

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The genetics of Arctic surf clam populations on Grand Bank and Banquereau were examined using microsatellite markers by Cassista & Hart (2007) who found no evidence of differentiation between harvested populations on either side of potential barriers to larval dispersal and gene flow such as offshore banks or the narrow straits that separate Gulf of St. Lawrence from Atlantic Ocean populations. Significant spatial differentiation occurred only on the largest geographical scale, between Atlantic and Pacific Ocean populations. All Arctic surf clams in the Canadian northwest Atlantic can therefore be considered to belong to a single stock. However, as Arctic surf clams are sedentary after settlement, geographically separated populations are demographically distinctive, with different age structures, growth rates, reproductive cycles and reproductive output (Cassista & Hart, 2007), as well as different fishing patterns, the fisheries on Grand Bank and Banquereau are best considered as separate management units. However, the genetic homogeneity indicates that there is some gene flow between these regional components of the stock through larval transport, which could contribute to episodic recruitment events.

3.5.3 Harvest strategy The overarching legislation which underpins the management and harvest strategy in Canadian fisheries is the Fisheries Act 1985. The main regulatory instruments governing the fishery are The Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 and the Fishery (General) Regulations, 1983, and the current harvest strategy has been developed within the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) (DFO 2009a), which specifies the need to incorporate the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fishery management.

The harvest strategy for the Arctic surf clam fisheries is set out in detail in the Offshore Clams Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) for the Maritimes and Newfoundland Region (DFO, 2014).

The stated long-term objectives of the IFMP include:

• Increase certainty that harvesting occurs at an optimum sustainable level to ensure the long-term viability of the resource • Enhance industry’s level of participation in the management of this resource to benefit Canadians • Maintain the long-term viability of the industry, and • Assess, evaluate and minimize any adverse environmental effects of the fishing methods on the habitat.

The primary conservation and sustainability objectives of the IFMP is to ensure that a biologically and economically sustainable offshore clam fishery continues through the auspices of scientifically-based management plans involving collaborative enforcement, monitoring and regulatory measures. A further objective includes the continued cooperation between the licence holders and the Department in establishing ongoing management measures that will minimize impacts of harvesting on the habitat. In addition a Precautionary Approach Framework has been developed which provides a decision making process with rules which identify triggers and responses during periods of changing stock health.

The key elements of the harvest strategy are:

• Limited entry licensing of vessels • The gear used must be a hydraulic dredge as described in the IFMP • An annual TAC based on stock surveys and divided into Enterprise Allocations (EAs) to each licence holder • Bycatch limit of 10% of quahogs • Mandatory log book completion

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 19

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

• A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on all vessels • 100% dockside monitoring of all landings • Biological reference points with associated harvest control rules (HCRs)

3.5.3.1 Review of harvest strategy The IFMP was last updated in June 2014 (DFO 2014) and is considered to be an “evergreen” document in that it will be reviewed annually and amended as required. In addition there are two Advisory Committees composed of the major stakeholders which act as the forum for suggesting and reviewing management measures and recommendations to DFO. The Offshore Clam Advisory Committee (OCAC) is the main consultative and advisory body for this fishery, under which ad-hoc sub-committees or working groups can be established to review and assess specific policy and management measures. The Offshore Clam Management Board (OCMB) is charged with the responsibility of overseeing and directing the implementation of the management plan. The Terms of Reference of the OCAC and OCMB are set out in the Appendices of the IFMP (DFO 2014).

3.5.4 Stock assessment

3.5.4.1 Surveys Since 2012, DFO has adopted a multi-year approach to fisheries management for fisheries that do not need annual science assessments or annual adjustments to management measures, because the status of the fish stock does not significantly vary from year to year. The offshore Arctic surf clam fishery fits the criteria for the application of the multi-year approach and the Science program has been delivered on this basis in recent years. Given the biology of the Arctic surf clam, the large number of year classes present in the populations, and the current conservative approach to harvesting, it is anticipated that formal assessments will only be required approximately every 10 years. During the intervening period, fishery indicators with established triggers are monitored to determine if changes in stock status may be occurring.

The most recent full stock surveys of Arctic surf clams were undertaken on Banquereau Bank in 2010 and on Grand Bank over the period 2006 to 2009.

3.5.4.2 Banquereau In the 2010 survey, a total of 260 stations were randomly assigned within the 100 m contours on Banquereau, equivalent to one station per 39km2. The assignment function allowed a minimum spacing of 2.0 km between tows. Additional stations were generated that could be used as alternates if original stations had to be dropped for some reason. An additional 35 stations from the 2004 survey were selected from areas where no fishing had occurred between the 2004 and 2010 surveys.

The estimated survey biomass in the 2010 survey area was calculated by two methods – random sampling statistics and areal expansion using inverse distance weighting with the ACON Data Visualization software package (Black 1991). Catches were standardised to a tow area of 500 m2. The Research Vessel Biomass Estimate (Brv) from the 2010 Banquereau survey was 798,085 t ± 17,891 tonnes. This estimate was then corrected to fishable biomass, as the survey dredge captures smaller clams than the commercial gear, and then corrected for the survey dredge efficiency to give a biomass estimate of 1,150,585 tonnes. The survey dredge efficiency was estimated with a depletion study that produced a best fit estimate of 45% efficiency with an asymmetrical 95% confidence interval of 21-86%, thereby generating significant levels of uncertainty around the biomass estimate. Results from contouring the 2010 Banquereau Arctic Surf clam survey (Figure 6) indicate areas with a density of 75 g/m2 or more contain 91% of the efficiency corrected fishable biomass (Table 8).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 20

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Surveys have previously been carried out on Banquereau Bank in 1981/82, 1996/97, and 2004. However, all four surveys were carried out using different vessels and different gear, and the 2010 survey was corrected for both dredge efficiency and size selectivity, so the surveys do not provide a reliable time series of comparable data.

Figure 6. Contour map of the catch for the 2010 Banquereau Arctic Surf clam survey. Survey catch has been adjusted for dredge efficiency and commercial selectivity. (Source: DFO, 2012) (Assessment team note – the legend on the original figure from DFO (2012) is given as t/k2, when clearly it should read t/km2)

Table 8. Percent of total survey area and biomass within density contours for 2010 Banquereau Arctic Surf clam survey. (Source: DFO, 2012)

The length frequency distribution of the catch was determined based on measured samples of approximately 100 clams taken from each tow of the survey. Most of the catch came within the size range of 35 – 120 mm shell length, with the modal size of about 80 mm. Smaller samples of whole clams taken on the survey were returned frozen to the DFO laboratory for analysis of length-weight relationships, spawning cycles, age structures and size and age at maturity. Ageing of these samples permitted the construction of an age- length key to convert the length frequency distribution to the resulting age frequency histogram for the aged sample and to estimate the survey age frequency distribution (Roddick et al. 2012), thereby providing information on year-class strength and indicating fluctuations in recruitment through time. Length frequencies from the 2010 survey showed a

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 21

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

pulse of clams that is in the process of entering the fishery (i.e., from 2010 to 2015), as well as a pulse between 5-10 years old that is expected to recruit to the fishery in approximately 2020. The age frequency distributions indicate fluctuations in recruitment through time. Overall, there appears to be a broad range of ages present in the population, which indicates that the fishery is not dependent on incoming recruitment (DFO, 2012).

Further details of the survey results can be found in Roddick et al. (2012).

The age and size at 50% maturity was determined to be 8.3 years and 45.2 mm shell length, respectively. Based on life-history and selectivity parameter estimates, the age of maximum biomass per recruit occurs near the age of 50% selectivity of the commercial gear. Therefore, growth overfishing is unlikely to occur. The age of 50% maturity is also below the age of 50% selectivity (15.3 years), indicating that the average surf clam will be able to spawn over a period of 7 years before being recruited to the fishery. This should help ensure that recruitment overfishing does not occur, although there have been no studies of the relative fecundity of young versus older surf clams.

Using three different methods, natural mortality (M) was estimated to be in the range of 0.076-0.082 (Roddick et al., 2012). An M of 0.08 was used in the past, and this assessment did not provide any evidence to suggest a change. Thus, for the purposes of the 2010 assessment, M for the Banquereau stock was assumed to be 0.08.

The 2010 assessment estimated that total area swept in the fishery during the period 2009- 2010 was approximately 184 km2, representing roughly 2% of the known surf clam habitat on Banquereau Bank (DFO 2012).

3.5.4.3 Grand Bank The survey took place over 2006, 2008 and 2009, with different areas of the Bank surveyed each year. Stations were randomly assigned but with an assignment function that allowed a minimum of 1 km between tows. A total of 722 survey tows was completed over the three years, equivalent to one station per 65.6 km2. Some stations were repeated in 2008 and 2009 in order to compare catch rates between surveys but as these took place one to three years apart, gear differences are confounded with population changes (DFO 2010a). In all, the area surveyed was calculated to be 49,473 km2.

A contour map of the Arctic surf clam biomass for the 2006-09 survey of Grand Bank is shown in Figure 7. There are relatively few, scattered areas of high density. Only 30% of the total biomass is in areas with a density of 120 g/m2 or more (Table 9) and more than half of the total biomass (51%) is in areas with a density of less than 75 g/m2. This means that a large part of the population is unlikely to be fished, but it also means that the fishery will be concentrated on the higher density areas. As the Arctic surf clam is a long-lived, sedentary, species, this is of potential concern as the population will take a long time to recover once an area is fished down (DFO 2010a). Survey densities on Grand Bank were lower than on Banquereau Bank.

Two methods were used to calculate the biomass in the survey area: simple statistics were used for the tows inside the 90 m depth contour, while the ACON Data Visualization package software (Black 1991) also used the deeper stations and calculated biomass by contouring (interpolating) using areal expansion with inverse distance weighting to create estimates of biomass between the point biomass data collected during the survey. Catches were standardized to a tow area of 500 m2. Dredge efficiency could not be quantified so it was assumed to be 100%, which means that the biomass was likely to be underestimated. The research vessel biomass estimate (Brv) for the 2006-2009 Grand Bank survey is estimated to be 1,140,682 ± 35,933 tonnes.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 22

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The length frequency distribution of the catch was determined for >23,000 clams, based on measured samples of approximately 100 clams taken from each tow of the survey. Most of the catch was within the size range of 35 – 120 mm shell length, with a median size of about 80 mm. Smaller samples of whole clams taken on the survey were returned frozen to the DFO laboratory for analysis of length-weight relationships, spawning cycles, age structures and size and age at maturity. Ageing of these samples permitted the construction of an age- length key to convert the length frequency distribution to the resulting age frequency histogram for the aged sample and to estimate the survey age frequency distribution (Roddick et al. 2011), thereby providing information on year-class strength and indicating fluctuations in recruitment through time. Recruitment occurs every year, with no missing year-classes, but with evidence of stronger year-classes every few years.

Figure 7. Contour map of the Arctic surf clam catch for the 2006-2009 Grand Bank survey (Source: DFO, 2010).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 23

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 9. Percent of total survey area and biomass within density contours for Grand Bank Arctic surf clam survey (Source: DFO 2010a).

Further details of the survey results can be found in Roddick et al. (2011) and in the report of the original assessment (Intertek Moody Marine, 2012).

Based on life history and selectivity parameter estimates the age of maximum biomass per recruit occurs below the age of 50% selectivity (22.9 years) so growth overfishing is unlikely to occur. The age of 50% maturity (5.3 years) is also well below the age of 50% selectivity, indicating that surf clams on Grand Bank mature at a younger and smaller size than on Banquereau Bank (DFO 2010a). Grand Bank surf clams are, therefore, able to spawn over a period of 17 years before recruiting to the fishery, compared with 10 years for Banquereau Bank. Although there have been no studies of the relative fecundity of young compared with older surf clams, this should help ensure that recruitment overfishing does not occur. There is, therefore, no evidence that either recruitment or growth overfishing is occurring in the Grand Bank fishery.

An estimate of M of 0.08 calculated using three methods (Roddick et al., 2012) has been used for Grand Bank as well as Banquereau Bank.

Since the Grand Bank surf clam fishery began in 1989, approximately 1,138 km2 have been swept (with most of this activity in the period 1990-1998) which is only 2% of the area surveyed. The average annual area swept from 2005 to 2009 was approximately 26 km2, with low effort in that period (DFO, 2010). From 2010 to 2015, there was a fishery in only three years of that six-year period with the annual swept area less than 10 km2 in the years when there was a small fishery. In 2016, the new clam fishing vessel, Belle Carnell, commenced fishing on the Grand Bank, and preliminary figures show that the fishery landed 13,560 tonnes of the TAC of 14,756 tonnes on the Grand Bank (DFO Science, pers.comm.). Preliminary figures show that the area swept by the fishery in 2016 was 95.4 km2 which is below the annual stock indicator threshold level of 125 km2 (see section 3.5.7 and Table 11).

3.5.5 Management advice The 2007 Offshore Clam Framework Assessment recommended that the surf clam fisheries should be managed by a constant F approach, with a fishing mortality (F) target at Maximum Constant Yield (MCY) estimated to be one-third of natural mortality (DFO 2007b, DFO 2007c, Roddick et al. 2011). A Science Response to clarify the advice stated that as F approaches 0.5 M, increased stock risk could be expected (DFO 2007c). Maximum Constant Yield (MCY) is defined as “the maximum constant catch that is estimated to be sustainable, with an acceptable level of risk, at all future levels of biomass” (Caddy & Mahon, 1995). With an estimate of M=0.08, this results in a permitted annual harvest of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass i.e. in areas with densities greater than 75 g/m2. On Grand Bank, with 49% of the total biomass of 1.14 million tonnes currently found in densities > 75 g/m2, this gives a TAC of 14,756 tonnes, which is a reduction on the previous level of 20,000 tonnes. This is a conservative approach but caution was advised as TACs and catch rates would be expected to decline as landings increase and exceed natural production. In

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 24

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

addition, since current plans are for the stock to be surveyed only every 10 years, the allowable catch must be set low enough that the stock will not be overfished in the event of a period of poor recruitment or other declines in biomass between assessment updates. From 2006 to 2015 there was virtually no fishing on Grand Bank and so the full quota was never taken and the estimated values of F during that period are therefore very much lower than the reference level of 0.33M. In 2016, fishing recommenced on Grand Bank and preliminary DFO landings data show that the TAC was taken virtually in full.

Applying estimated mortality, recruitment and growth rates to the survey population structure on Grand Bank, suggests that production exceeds the level of removals by the fishery (Roddick et al. 2007). In some 23 years of fishing, the stocks have not been heavily impacted by the fishery and are probably still near the virgin biomass level. Serial depletion of grounds could become an issue but there is no indication of it at present.

The Banquereau Bank assessment also adopted F0.33M as an appropriate F. With an estimate of M=0.08, this equates to an F of 2.64% of the biomass. Based on stock biomass in areas with a density of at least 75 g/m2 in the 2010 survey, this would give a TAC of 27,592 tonnes, which is higher than the currently agreed precautionary TAC of 24,000 tonnes (DFO, 2012). Based on the estimates of stock biomass from the 2010 survey, a TAC of 24,000 tonnes would generate an F of 0.021. In practice, the catch from Banquereau Bank has not exceeded the TAC in recent years. In a study of the incidental mortality of small clams that pass through the dredge, conducted on Banquereau, it was estimated that 15% of the clams passing through the dredge suffered lethal damage (DFO 2007b). It is important therefore to adopt precautionary levels of fishing mortality. While the F level maintained in this fishery since 2004 appears to be conservative, the infrequent survey schedule means that the allowable catch must be set low enough to ensure that the stock will not be overfished in the event of a period of poor recruitment or other declines in biomass between assessment updates.

Applying estimated mortality, recruitment and growth rates to the survey population structure on Banquereau Bank suggests that production exceeds the level of removals by the fishery (Roddick et al. 2007). The areas of high biomass in the 2004 and 2010 surveys generally coincided with those in previous surveys and also corresponded to the areas where the fishery has concentrated its effort early in the fishery. This suggests that serial depletion, a concern with fisheries for sedentary species, is not occurring on Banquereau Bank.

3.5.6 Reference points

This strategy of setting the TAC based on FMCY is inherently conservative and precautionary and strives to maintain the biomass at the level of BMCY, a higher level than that of the MSC default target of 0.4B0. While BMCY is an implicit target reference point, at the time of the original certification assessment, there was no limit reference point (LRP) or threshold that would trigger management action if the stock is becoming overfished.

Following the first certification assessment (Intertek Moody Marine, 2012), two conditions were raised due to the lack of a limit reference point and a lack of well-defined harvest control rules (HCRs).

Upper and limit reference points for the Arctic surf clam fishery were scientifically reviewed and established as a formal component of the IFMP in 2014. The reference points were established based on a BMSY proxy of 1,015,059 tonnes for Banquereau and 703,065 tonnes for Grand Bank. The BMSY proxy was determined using fishable biomass per recruit and estimated average annual recruitment. Reference points were established using the default 80% and 40% of the BMSY proxy for the stock as specified under DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) (DFO 2009a) and are detailed in Table 10. Whilst the

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 25

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

conventional Upper Reference Point in Canadian fisheries at set at the default of 80% of BMSY, the strategy is to maintain the stock significantly above that 80% BMSY point, and therefore can be considered to be equivalent to maintaining the biomass at BMSY.

Estimates of stock biomass from the most recent stock surveys and full assessments demonstrate that the stock is above the Upper Reference Point for both the Banquereau Bank and Grand Bank fisheries.

Table 10. Limit and Upper Reference Points for Banquereau and Grand Banks (tonnes). (Source: DFO 2014).

Area Limit Reference Point (LRP) Upper Reference Point (URP) Banquereau Bank 406,024 812,047 Grand Bank 281,226 562,452

3.5.7 Harvest Control Rules Following the change to a multi-year approach for the assessment of the Arctic surf clam fisheries, Upper (Target) and Limit Reference Points were established for both the Banquereau and Grand Bank fisheries using a Precautionary Approach Framework (DFO, 2012) and these, together with a series of harvest control rules, were formally incorporated into the IFMP in 2014. The harvest control rules set out strategies for managing the fisheries when the biomass is above the Upper Reference Point (URP), between the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and the URP, and below the LRP.

The details of the HCRs are set out below:

Above the Upper Reference Point (URP):

➢ Measures should promote the biomass remaining above the URP ➢ The upper removal reference rate will be F=0.33M (0.0264) for the stock while it is in the healthy zone (i.e. above the Upper Reference Point). This removal reference is applied to the harvestable biomass >75g/m2.

Between the Limit Reference Point (LPR) and the Upper Reference Point (URP):

➢ Fishing mortality will be reduced. ➢ Measures should promote the rebuilding of biomass towards the Upper Reference Point. ➢ The TAC should not be increased if this can reasonably be expected to result in declining trend in the biomass. ➢ Survey frequency will be re-examined in the context of increased risk to the stock.

Below the Limit Reference Point (LRP):

➢ Fishing mortality will be reduced to the lowest practicable level ➢ If the stock falls below the proxy LRP research may be undertaken to better determine the true Limit Reference Point for this stock, the level below which reproductive success would be seriously impaired.

With the multi-year management approach, the expectation is that the stocks on each fishing bank will only be surveyed every 10 years. This schedule has been determined based on the population dynamics of the stock, the fact that the stock is comfortably within the healthy zone (above the URP) and the conservative exploitation rate in place should maintain the stock within the healthy Zone. Such an approach however does not allow an annual

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 26

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

assessment of the status of the stock in relation to the Limit and Upper Reference Points described above. During the years between the stock survey and full stock assessment, the state of the stocks will therefore be monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These trigger levels have been set to maintain stock status in the healthy zone and serve as an early warning of changes in the stock that require further examination of the data, additional surveys or other management actions.

Three indicators are used to monitor the fishery - Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE); the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery; and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The rationales for using these triggers, the value of the trigger for each indicator and the rationale underlying the choice of trigger value, and the method for measurement are described in detail in Table 11.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 27

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 11. Annual stock indicators, their rationale, measurement and trigger values. (Source: Client)

Indicator Rationale for Indicator How Measured Trigger Rationale for Trigger Level Catch per Although a fisheries dependent CPUE (g/m2) calculated 70 g/m2 for CPUE at the recent low point from which an increased was witnessed with Unit Effort index which is influenced by from electronic logbook Banquereau no intervention. CPUE at the trigger level does not indicate a biological harvest strategies of the fleet, if data provided by Bank; concern. interpreted appropriately, CPUE industry directly to DFO 50 g/m2 for can provide an indication of Science. Grand Bank material changes in the stock status between surveys. Spatial At high densities vessels can fish The sum of the area Banquereau The trigger is the historic high for the footprint on each Bank. Banquereau Extent and an area longer with more overlap dredged calculated from Bank: 254 Bank was 254 km2 in 1999 when three vessels were active, almost double Fishery of previous tows and still maintain the electronic logbook km2 the average footprint for the last three years when there have only been Footprint commercial catch rates. As clam data using the number two vessels active, but CPUE has been high and landings near the TAC. densities decline, effort in the of tows, tow time, tow Grand Bank: Grand Bank has seen little effort in recent years, and so the high point was 2 fishery is increased to maintain speed and dredge 128 km2 128 km in 1995. These high levels were determined to indicate a stock landings and more searching for width. This does not status that did not require management intervention. patches of higher density occurs include any adjustment as areas are fished down sooner. for overlapping tow tracks. Size The catch contains a large Onboard size sampling Banquereau Banquereau: the historic low for the percentage of clams over 120 mm is Composition number of age classes, which is data from the unsorted Bank: <1% 1.33% in 2005. Grand Bank has a lower growth rate, and so the size (Abundance consistent with a healthy status. catch provided by of catch representing older clams was set at 105 mm for this area. Sample sizes of older The growth of Arctic surf clams industry >120 mm are smaller from Grand Bank than for Banquereau but the historic low for clams) levels off after age 35 and so any the percentage of clams over 105 mm was 0.76% in 2006. length grouping over 100 mm can Grand Bank: The historic lows occurred during a period when the stock was considered contain clams from 10 to 80 years <0.5% of to be in a state that did not require management intervention. Since there old. The selection of a size catch >105 are recruitment “patches” of surf clams, the fishery has some ability to fish representing older clams mm for certain size ranges by concentrating on appropriate “patches” of age therefore becomes an arbitrary classes. This means that a change in preferred market size could change grouping and will contain some the spatial distribution of effort and the size distribution of the catch without younger clams as well. a change in population size/age structure. The percentage of older clams is also expected to decrease as the fishery develops and the population age structure adjusts to the increased mortality due to fishing.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 29

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The current management regime has been in place since 2012, but because there is always the possibility of serial depletion in fisheries for species such as Arctic surf clam, two independent reviews of the science and management of the fisheries were commissioned by DFO in conjunction with OCAC (Hoenig, 2015; Orensanz, 2015).

The scientific review by Hoenig (2015) considered that the strategy of restricting the fishing mortality over each bank to a small fraction of the natural mortality rate by using biomass estimates only from areas with commercially viable densities was appropriate at the time that it was devised. However Hoenig suggested that the focus of the assessment should now be on determining how long it will take to fish down all known concentrations of clam under various TAC options and comparing this time to the time required for patches to recover to fishable levels. The former must be less than the latter for the fishery to be sustainable. Under this strategy, research goals should be to map commercially viable beds of clams, monitor serial depletion of the beds, and evaluate recovery of previously fished beds.

The main conclusion from the Orensanz (2015) review was that avoiding the extreme spatial heterogeneity of fishing mortality resulting from serial depletion may be desirable in view of uncertainties about the renewal of depleted patches, and justified under rationales pertaining to biological sustainability. Addressing those issues would require the implementation of spatially explicit harvest strategies, e.g. some combination of [i] management at a finer spatial scale (e.g. grounds, even beds); [ii] rotation, [iii] spatial closures when some density threshold is reached, and [iv] reproductive reserves. Given the significance attached to density thresholds by the Department, the assessments should [i] be more clear about how the biomass within density contour lines is calculated, [ii] improve the presentation of concentration profiles, and [iii] be explicit about the spatial scale about which those profiles are informative. The Orensanz review also noted that the efficiency of the survey gear continues to be a major source of uncertainty in the estimation of biomass, and that the quality of management may benefit from more research on that issue.

In response to these two external reviews, both of which highlighted the benefits of a spatial management approach to the Arctic surf clam fishery, an Arctic Surf Clam Framework Data Review was held in June 2016 (DFO 2016g). The Terms of Reference were: • Compile and review the science information basis to conduct a preliminary risk assessment of spatial management options • Conduct a qualitative risk assessment to assess the relative risk and ongoing information requirements of the current management approach and alternative spatial management approaches • Determine whether any of the information present would trigger a new science assessment, and if so what approach would be used to conduct the assessment.

At the time of the Framework meeting (June 2016), there was insufficient information for the Grand Bank to allow a new analysis of that area, so the meeting focussed on Banquereau Bank. The Framework agreed that available information and analyses supported the need for an updated assessment approach and corresponding science advice for Banquereau (DFO 2016g). In the absence of habitat suitability data, the use of VMS data to determine fished area was considered a reasonable proxy for habitat suitability of the surf clam in areas that have been fished. A proposed surplus production model and spatially disaggregated analysis was considered to be informative and useful, and viewed as an improvement over the current stock assessment approach. The consensus at the Framework meeting was that the development of a surplus production model was preferable to the “time-to-depletion” approach suggested in the independent review, and DFO is moving forward with this spatially-explicit assessment methodology in its upcoming stock assessment. The use of multiple assessment approaches was deemed advisable to help validate results. It was recommended that survey data, in addition to other available information, should be used to

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 31 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

inform an integrated stock assessment once sufficient data are available. However the potential yield and biomass per recruit results from a rotational management approach did not appear to be significant and may not reduce risk in comparison to the current approach. The current frequency of stock assessments for Arctic surf clam was considered too low, and it was recommended that the assessment schedule and the format of annual updates should be revisited.

As a result of the outcomes from the Framework meeting, DFO will be undertaking a stock assessment on Banquereau Bank using commercial data in 2017, but as yet there has been no agreed change to stock assessment and annual monitoring methodology.

3.5.8 Current stock status As noted above, estimates of stock biomass from the most recent stock surveys and full assessments demonstrate that the stock is above the Upper Reference Point for both the Banquereau Bank and Grand Bank fisheries. In the intervening years between full stock assessments, the state of the stocks is monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. Three indicators are used to monitor the fishery: catch per unit effort (CPUE); the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery; and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The following information is taken from, “Status of the fishery for Arctic surf clam in Atlantic Canada 2015” (DFO 2016b). In addition, DFO Science provided the assessment team in July 2017 with data for 2016 in a draft report. The data is considered to be preliminary as the report had not fully completed the DFO internal review process.

3.5.8.1 Banquereau Bank Landings of Arctic surf clam from the fishery on Banquereau Bank in 2015, as indicated by the logbook data provided by industry to DFO Science, were 21,951 tonnes, relative to a quota of 24,000 tonnes (Table 12). Preliminary DFO data for 2016 show landings of 24,154 tonnes. CPUE calculated from logbook data provided by industry for the fishery on Banquereau Bank in 2015 indicates an annual average CPUE of 95 g/m2 (Table 12, Figure 8). This is less than the value of 118 g/m2 in 2014, but above the trigger level of 70 g/m2. Preliminary DFO data for 2016 show a CPUE of 110 g/m2. The spatial extent or footprint of the fishery on Banquereau Bank in 2015 was 231.6 km2 (Figure 9, Table 12). This is higher than the value of 200.9 km2 2014, but is still below the threshold level of 254 km2. Preliminary DFO data for 2016 show a footprint of 220.1 km2. The proportion of older/larger Arctic surf clams in the unsorted catch from the fishery on Banquereau Bank in 2015, as indicated by onboard sampling data provided by industry, was 1.94% ≥ 120 mm (Figure 10, Table 13). This value is above the trigger level of 1.0% ≥ 120 mm and has decreased slightly since 2014 (1.96%). Preliminary DFO data show 2.31% of surf clams were ≥ 120 mm in 2016. The three indicators for the Arctic surf clam fishery on Banquereau Bank in 2015 are all positive relative to their respective trigger values and suggest there has been some downward change in stock status since the last full assessment in 2011. Preliminary DFO data also show that all three indicators remained positive relative to their respective trigger values in 2016.

3.5.8.2 Grand Bank There were no fishing trips for Arctic surf clams on Grand Bank in 2014 and 2015. At the time of the most recent published evaluation of the status of the Arctic surf clam fishery

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 32 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

(DFO 2016b), the last recorded landings in 2013 were 199 tonnes, against a quota of 14,756 tonnes, and there had only been limited fishing activity in the previous 8 years (Figure 12, Table 14). With this low level of fishing activity, these indicators cannot be considered representative of the status of the Grand Bank stock, but only of the small area being fished. These few fishing trips in recent years were not commercial fishing trips targeted at maximising landings, but were irregular trips outside the main season to collect samples of target and bycatch species to investigate commercial opportunities (Client, pers. comm.). The annual average CPUE values have been close to or below the trigger level during this period of inactivity (Figure 11). The resulting footprint or spatial extent of the fishery has recently been very small, only 6.1 km2 in 2013 (Figure 12, Table 14). The proportion of older/larger Arctic surf clams in the unsorted catch from the fishery on Grand Bank in recent years has been around the trigger level of 0.5% ≥105 mm, (Figure 13, Table 15). The low effort has resulted in few samples of length frequencies so this is not considered a reflection of stock status on Grand Bank. Up until 2015, there was insuffcient information available to assess whether there has been a change in stock status since the last full assessment in 2010. However as noted above in section 3.4.1, the introduction to the fleet of the vessel Belle Carnell has resulted in the recommencement of the fishery on Grand Bank in 2016 when the fishery landed 13,560 tonnes out of the TAC of 14,756 tonnes. Preliminary DFO data for 2016 on the Grand Bank show that CPUE calculated from logbook data indicate an annual average CPUE of 142 g/m2, which is well above the trigger level of 50 g/m2. The spatial extent or footprint of the fishery on Grand Bank in 2016 was 95.4 km2, which is below the threshold level of 125 km2. The proportion of older/larger Arctic surf clam in the unsorted catch from the fishery on Grand Bank in 2016, as indicated by onboard sampling data provided by industry, was 15.48% ≥ 105 mm, which is above the trigger level of 1.0% ≥ 105 mm. Preliminary values of the three indicators for the Arctic surf clam fishery on Grand Bank in 2016 are all positive relative to their respective trigger values and suggest there has been no change in stock status since the last full assessment in 2011.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 33 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 12. Catch (tonnes), Footprint (Area dredged km2) and CPUE by year for the offshore clam fishery on Banquereau Bank. (Source: DFO 2016b)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 34 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 8. Annual CPUE for the last five vessels active in the Arctic Surf Clam fishery on Banquereau Bank. (Source: DFO 2016b)

Figure 9. Footprint (km2) of the offshore clam fishery by year on the Banquereau Bank. (Source: DFO 2016b).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 35 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 10. Percent of large (≥ 120 mm) Arctic surf clams in unsorted commercial catch on Banquereau Bank. (Source: DFO 2016b).

Table 13. Percent of large Arctic surf clams in unsorted catch on Banquereau Bank. (Source: DFO 2016b).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 36 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 14. Catch (tonnes), Footprint (Area dredged km2) and CPUE by year for the offshore clam fishery on Grand Bank (Source: DFO 2016b).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 37 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 11. Annual CPUE for the last five vessels active in the Arctic surf clam fishery on the Grand Bank (Source: DFO 2016b).

Figure 12. Footprint (km2) of the offshore clam fishery by year on the Grand Bank (Source: DFO 2016b).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 38 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 13. Percent of large (≥ 105 mm) Arctic surf clams in unsorted commercial catch on the Grand Bank. Values since 2006 are not representative of stock status (Source: DFO 2016b). (Assessment team note – the red line in the original figure from DFO 2016b purports to be a Lowess trend fit, but this appears to be wrongly labelled. For comparison see the Lowess trend fit on Figure 10)

Table 15. Percent of large Arctic surf clams in unsorted catch on the Grand Bank. Values since 2006 are not representative of stock status. (Source: DFO 2016b).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 39 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

3.6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.6.1 Banquereau Bank Banquereau is an offshore bank that forms the easternmost part of the Scotian Shelf. In total, the Scotian Shelf comprises an area of approximately 120,000 km2 (Stanley et al. 1972), of which Banquereau makes up approximately 10,900 km2 (DFO 2007). The bank is centred approximately 200 km to the south-east of Cape Breton Island, or 400 km roughly due east of Halifax. At its closest point, Banquereau lies 110 km off the Nova Scotia coast. There is a shoal area of shallow water less than 40 m deep on the eastern half of the bank, but it is otherwise relatively flat-topped, with an average water depth of less than 80 m. The limits of the bank are defined by deeper water with complex post-glacial bottom topography to the north, the shelf break to the south and the Laurentian Channel to the east. The Gully, the largest submarine canyon in eastern North America, lies at the south-west corner (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Map of seafloor complexity on the Scotian Shelf, showing seafloor slopes greater than 0.5 degree, calculated from 3x3 neighbourhoods using 500 m cell grid. Steep slopes in the near shore zone and on the shelf slope are not shown (adapted from Kostylev 2004).

Banquereau is exposed to extreme weather, and the maximum significant wave height is estimated to exceed 12 m (Kostylev 2004). The bottom habitats of Banquereau may be impacted by major storms; benthic disturbance effects from fully developed wind waves of 14 m height can extend to a water depth of approximately 100 m (Kostylev 2004).

The current regime on Banquereau is moderate, with peak water velocities of 15-25 cm per second over much of the bank. The wave and tidal disturbance suggest that the surface

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 40 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

sediments are likely to be mobilised at frequent intervals, and this is supported by observations of well or very well sorted sand across much of the bank (Stanley et al. 1972 and Figure 15).

Figure 15. Surficial sedimentary facies on the Scotian Shelf (NR Canada official publication, adapted from Kostylev 2004).

3.6.2 Grand Bank Grand Bank is an offshore bank located off the eastern coast of Newfoundland, making up the largest part of the Grand Banks that also include Burgeo Bank, St. Pierre Bank, Green Bank and Whale Bank. Grand Bank is centred approximately 240 km to the south-south-east of St. John's, Newfoundland, or 950 km roughly due east of Halifax, Nova Scotia. In total, the Grand Banks comprise an area of approximately 279,720 km2 (Parks Canada 2006), of which the Arctic surf clam habitat on Grand Bank makes up approximately 49,473 km2 (DFO 2010a).

The Nose and the Tail of the Bank lie outside the 200 nautical mile Canadian territorial limit. The Southeastern Shoal is an area of shallow water less than 50 m deep at the extreme eastern edge of the bank, but it is otherwise relatively flat-topped, with an average water depth of around 80 m. The limits of the bank are defined by the shelf break to the south and east. Whale Deep then lies to the west of Grand Bank, while the bank gently shelves into deeper water to the north (Figure 16).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 41 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Figure 16: Map of the Grand Bank (DFO 2010b).

The seabed of the Grand Bank is sedimentary, with the eastern and southern parts of the bank being made up of medium sand with megaripples, sand waves and sand ridges; while the sand ridges may be reclict features, the megaripples and other small, superimposed bedforms are fresh and active down to a depth of around 110 m (Shaw et al., 2014, and Figure 17). The shallow seabed of the Grand Bank is a high-energy environment, with frequent winter storms and accompanying large seas. Modelling work indicates that seabed sediments on the Grand Bank area are mobilised by wave and current stressors (E. King, Geological Survey of Canada, pers. comm.).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 42 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Newfoundland

Figure 17. Geological characteristics of the Grand Bank (Adapted from C-NLOPB 2014).

3.6.3 Retained and bycatch species Catch data as recorded by observers from one or two trips per year (of 26 – 59 days duration) were available for Banqureau from 2011-2015 (Table 16). These data show that Arctic surf clam dominates the catch from Banquereau, comprising around 60% of the total, while northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) is treated as the only main retained species, comprising around 11% of the catch (of which just under 5% was retained). Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus) is treated as the only minor retained species as it comprised around 2% of the observed catch, with 1.4% being retained. Sand dollar (likely Echinarachnius parma) is treated as the only main discard species at around 9% of the observed catch. Whelks (species not specified) comprised 0.7%, but all other species/groups comprised less than 0.2% of the catch and are negligible components that are not considered further in the assessment (Table 16).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 43 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 16. Catch data for Banquereau as recorded by observers 2011-2015 (Clearwater, pers. comm.)

Combined annual % of mean annual 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 total (t) total Species Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Arctic surf clam 5.58 529.77 21.05 1,638.21 27.94 1,598.34 9.52 1,078.32 18.58 1,905.63 82.67 6,750.27 0.74 60.51 Sand dollar (NS) 60.45 0.00 312.80 0.00 360.89 0.00 89.54 0.00 209.93 0.00 1,033.60 0.00 9.27 0.00 Shells 53.31 0.00 81.21 0.00 364.80 0.00 98.11 0.00 259.78 0.00 857.21 0.00 7.68 0.00 Stone 33.98 0.00 170.21 0.00 129.39 0.00 174.38 0.00 259.99 0.00 767.94 0.00 6.88 0.00 Northern propeller clam 128.15 0.00 287.57 134.39 261.50 206.44 4.25 47.21 55.43 128.54 736.90 516.58 6.61 4.63 Greenland cockle 1.38 7.82 44.87 52.33 29.51 80.61 0.05 4.89 0.22 10.17 76.03 155.81 0.68 1.40 Whelks (NS) 6.63 0.00 15.51 0.00 27.53 0.00 13.09 0.00 16.08 0.00 78.84 0.00 0.71 0.00 Brown sea cucumber 0.43 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.34 0.00 11.57 0.00 5.19 0.00 18.17 0.00 0.16 0.00 Sea Urchin (NS) 0.41 0.00 2.47 0.00 2.09 0.00 6.72 0.00 1.96 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.12 0.00 Starfish (NS) 0.02 0.00 1.70 0.00 1.34 0.00 4.38 0.00 2.56 0.00 10.01 0.00 0.09 0.00 Ocean quahog 0.03 0.00 3.54 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.10 3.37 0.56 8.09 0.66 0.07 0.01 Sea Cucumber (NS) 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 6.71 0.00 0.06 0.00 Sand 0.00 0.00 5.95 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.39 0.00 0.06 0.00 Hermit crab (NS) 0.11 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.69 0.00 1.24 0.00 1.53 0.00 5.79 0.00 0.05 0.00 Annelid worm 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.51 0.00 5.67 0.04 0.05 0.00 Polychaete 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 4.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 Mussels (NS) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.23 0.00 1.79 0.00 2.59 0.00 0.02 0.00 Snow crab 0.11 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.49 0.00 2.54 0.00 0.02 0.00 Sand Lances (NS) 0.10 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.51 0.00 2.41 0.00 0.02 0.00 Yellowtail flounder 0.01 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.02 0.00 Skate (NS) 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.01 0.00 Scallop (NS) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.01 0.00 Thorny skate 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.01 0.00 Toad crab (NS) 0.02 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.13 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.00 20 other species/groups 0.10 0.00 1.11 0.00 1.16 0.01 0.82 0.00 0.80 0.00 3.99 0.01 0.04 0.00 Total 290.82 537.59 954.94 1,824.97 1,223.82 1,885.40 415.41 1,130.51 846.76 2,044.90 3,731.76 7,423.37 33.45 66.55 Key Green = target species; Dark blue = main retained species; Light blue = minor retained species; Dark red = main bycatch species; Light red = minor bycatch species; No highlight = negligible bycatch species; Purple = inert material. NS = species not specified.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 44 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

There are no updated catch data for Grand Bank because very little fishing has taken place there in recent years, averaging just 180 t of Arctic surf clam annually for the 2007-2013 period, although preliminary landings data from DFO show that in 2016 the TAC of 14,756 tonnes was taken virtually in full. It is not possible to be confident that bycatch data derived from such a small fishery would be representative of the larger fishery when operating at full capacity. However, catch data are available from commercial trips to the Grand Bank from 2002-2009, which include data collected when greater effort was exerted (Table 17).

Table 17. Catch composition from on-board sampling of unsorted catch from commercial clam vessels from 2002 to 2009 on Grand Bank (DFO 2010a).

Weight % of Cumm Common Name Scientific Name (kg) Total % Arctic surf clam Mactromeris polynyma 410.06 24.65 24.65 Greenland cockle Serripes groenlandicus 351.63 21.14 45.80 Sand dollar Echinarachnius parma 315.61 18.98 64.77 Northern propellerclam Cyrtodaria siliqua 304.71 18.32 83.09 Shell Shell 200.17 12.04 95.13 Rock Rock 50.05 3.01 98.14 Crabs (NS) Cancer sp. 8.90 0.53 98.67 Starfish (NS) Asterias sp. 5.72 0.34 99.02 Ocean quahog Arctica islandica 4.54 0.27 99.29 Whelk Buccinum sp. 4.07 0.24 99.53 Unidentified Unidentified 1.85 0.11 99.65 Whelk (NS) Colus sp. 1.56 0.09 99.74 Wrinkle whelk Neptunea lyrata decemcostata 1.45 0.09 99.83 Sand Lance (NS) Ammodytes sp. 1.42 0.09 99.91 Sea urchin Strongylocentrotus 1.27 0.08 99.99 Hermit crab (NS) Pagurusdroebachiensis sp. 0.19 0.01 100 Totals 1663.2 100.0 n/a Key Green = target species; Dark blue = main retained species; Light blue = minor retained species; Dark red = main bycatch species; Light red = minor bycatch species; No highlight = negligible bycatch species; Purple = inert material

The catch data in Table 17 for Grand Bank show that the Arctic surf clam is again the species that was most commonly taken (24.7%), but that Greenland cockle (21.1%) and northern propellerclam (18.3%) also comprised significant components of the catch and qualify as main retained species. Ocean quahog (0.27%) qualifies as a minor retained species in the Grand Bank fishery. Sand dollar (likely Echinarachnius parma) comprised almost 19% of the catch and qualifies as a main bycatch species. Small quantities of crabs – Cancer spp. (0.53%), starfish – Asterias spp. (0.34%) and whelk – Buccinum spp. (0.24%) were taken and these species/groups qualify as minor bycatch species. Negligible quantities of a number of other species/groups made up the remainder of the catch, but these are not considered further in this assessment.

Formal assessments of neither northern propellerclam nor Greenland cockle has been conducted, but northern propellerclam is widely distributed in the North Atlantic from Cape Cod to Norway, while Greenland cockle has a circum-polar distribution in the northern hemisphere. Northern propellerclam is estimated to mature at 4.7 years of age or 28.6 mm shell length (Kilada et al. 2009), while Greenland cockle is estimated to mature at a minimum shell length and age of 28 mm and 2.8 years for males, and 37 mm and 3.7 years for females (Kilada et al. 2007). These data indicate that individuals of both species mature well below the size at which they are likely to be selected for in the Arctic surf clam fishery, as the

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 45 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

dredges employ a bar spacing of 25 mm, and the selectivity is related to shell height rather than shell length. Furthermore, there is no other fishery for either species on either bank, and analysis of commercial catches from Banquereau showed that the northern propellerclam population is dominated by old animals to ages exceeding 100 years (Kilada et al. 2009). Both species are also widely distributed on Grand Bank (Figure 18). Ocean quahog is also abundant on Grand Bank (Figure 18), as well as in some locations on the Scotian Shelf.

Figure 18. Distribution of the major clam species from the 2006-2009 Grand Bank Arctic Surfclam survey on Grand Bank (Roddick et al. 2011).

The sand dollar Echinarachnius parma is also a very widespread species, with a circum- polar distribution in the northern hemisphere (Mooi & Telford 1982). It is known to be common in areas with fine and medium-grained sands (Breeze et al. 2002). In addition, a large proportion of Banquereau and Grand Bank is not targeted by the Arctic surf clam

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 46 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

fishery, and there is no indication that the E. parma population on either bank has been impacted significantly over time by the fishery (DFO, pers. comm., as reported in IMM 2012).

Cancer crabs, Asterias starfish and Buccinum whelks are all common species/groups within Atlantic Canada and are widely distributed.

3.6.4 Endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species. Under CRv1.3 (MSC 2013), the MSC defines ETP species as species that are:

i) Recognised by national ETP legislation, ii) Listed in Appendix 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 fishery under assessment is not endangered.

Species of relevance to this section therefore include any that are protected under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA 2002), as well as those on CITES Appendix 1. The listing of a species by the COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) does not result in a species being considered under the Endangered Threatened and Protected (ETP) species performance indicators for MSC assessments.

No ETP species were reported from observed fishery catches on Banquereau in 2005, the 2004 Banquereau survey, or from observed Arctic surf clam fishery catches on Grand Bank from 2002 to 2009. More recently, there have been no ETP species recorded in the obligatory SARA logbooks for the entire 2014 - 2015 period (DFO 2016e).

It is very unlikely that any, large ETP species such as cetaceans or turtles would be impacted by the gear, as the dredges are narrow, have a very low mouth opening, and are towed at only 2 knots. The narrow dredge swathe and slow dredge speed means that most mobile animals should be able to avoid the gear.

Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) are classified as ETP species through their listing on schedule 1 of the SARA. Knowledge of the habitat associations of these three wolffish species is based on their occurrence in research trawls in areas of known water depth and temperature (Kulka et al. 2007). The distribution of A. denticulatus is centred on the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf. It has been found on mud, sand, pebbles, small rock and hard bottoms at depths from 38 m to 1504 m (the deepest depth surveyed), but is most common between 500 m and 1000 m, although slightly shallower in the warmer months. The distribution of A. minor is similar to that of A. denticulatus, although this species is found at water depths from 56 m to 1046 m, but most commonly between 200 m and 750 m. A. lupus is a more southern species that is distributed predominantly on the southern Grand Banks and Scotian Shelf, as well as being the most common wolffish species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This species is found from the nearshore to depths of 918 m, but is most common between 150 m and 350 m on rocky bottoms (Kulka et al. 2007).

Arctic surf clam dredges can only be used effectively in well-sorted sand in relatively shallow water. The three wolffish species that occur in the Banquereau and Grand Bank areas prefer water that is deeper than is prosecuted for Arctic surf clams, and appear to be more common on harder or mixed substrates; as such, the potential for wolffish to be taken in the fishery is low. This is supported by by-catch data from the fishery, which show an absence of wolffish in the catches. In addition, the potential for damage to be caused to wolffish spawning sites by this fishery is very low due to the reported preference for wolffish to spawn in stony or rocky habitats (Kulka et al 2007).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 47 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

3.6.5 Habitats Hydraulic dredges use high pressure water jets to fluidise the seabed in front of the dredge, allowing the cutting bar to progress through the sediment to a deeper depth than would otherwise be possible. Arctic surf clam dredges are designed to target surf clams to a depth within the sediment of at least 18 - 20 cm, at a speed of 2 knots. Because of this mode of operation, hydraulic dredges can only be used effectively in non-compacted soft sediments, and Arctic surf clam vessels are equipped with ground discrimination equipment to ensure the vessels stay away from seabed types that are likely to be less productive or might damage the gear. The commercially exploited Arctic surf clam beds on Banquereau and Grand Bank are found in depths of ≤ 70 m, and while the banks are subject to low to moderate strength tidal currents, natural perturbation from storms occurs and so the surficial sediments are well or very well sorted (Stanley et al. 1972, Shaw et al. 2014, Gilkinson et al. 2014). For the purpose of the MSC assessment, the main (and only) habitat on both banks is therefore considered to be well-sorted sand.

In order to determine the impact of the Arctic surf clam fishery on offshore banks, a dredge impact study was started on Banquereau in 1998, and repeat surveys have been undertaken to assess recovery. The experimental site was chosen to closely reflect fished areas, but was also selected slightly away from the main fishery in order to ensure that the results of the study would not be confounded by previous hydraulic dredging events. At 70 - 80 m, the study site was also at the maximum depth of the commercial fishery, and recovery would therefore be expected to be as slow or slower than anywhere in the fishery. In fact, visual evidence of the experimental dredge tracks had disappeared after one year (Gilkinson et al. 2005), and, while side-scan sonar was still barely able to detect dredge tracks after 10 years, with minor exceptions it appeared that the sediment properties at the experimental site had returned to pre-dredging conditions 10 years after dredging (Gilkinson et al., 2014).

An additional important factor to consider is the extent of the fished area relative to the size of Arctic clam habitat on Banquereau and Grand Bank. The total area of Banquereau between 40 m and 100 m depth that comprises habitat suitable for Arctic surf clam is approximately 10,180 km2 (DFO 2007a). In turn, DFO (2014c) reported that the annual swept area of the fishery on Banquereau has averaged 150.1 km2 annually for the period 2000-2013 inclusive ( 1.5% of the total surf clam habitat dredged per year). The Grand Bank fishery for Arctic surf clam has not been prosecuted intensively for some years, and so any swept area analysis based on recent data would not be informative. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, the Arctic surf clam habitat on Grand Bank is estimated to comprise just less than 50,000 km2 (DFO 2010a), indicating that the fishery would be very spatially limited, even if fully prosecuted.

It is noted that DFO has been reviewing potential rotational management strategies for the Arctic surf clam fishery on both Banquereau and Grand Bank, which include CPUE or density thresholds requiring a move to a new area and allowing time for stock recovery (DFO 2016c). The initial focus of these discussions has been on Banquereau because better fine- scale data on distributuion and density are available (DFO 2016d). Because Arctic surf clam is amongst the slowest growing and longest lived components of the benthic community, an advantage of a rotational approach based on recovery of Arctic surf clam is that it would also function as a strategy for managing impacts on other sessile species and habitats.

3.6.6 Ecosystem The MSC defines ‘key’ ecosystem elements as the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the fishery. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity (CB3.17.3, MSC 2013).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 48 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

In this regard, the assessment considers the Scotian Shelf to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the Banquereau UoC, and the Grand Banks to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the Grand Bank UoC. In turn, and because the gear type used in the fishery is a hydraulic dredge that maintains contact with the seabed, benthic community structure and function is considered to be the ‘key ecosystem element’ for both Banquereau and Grand Bank.

As in any demersal fishery, the catch of the target and other species in the Arctic surf clam fisheries has the potential to impact benthic community structure and function. However, the fishery operates in water depths that are shallower than those in which sensitive coral or sponge communities occur, and the well-mixed sand community of which the Arctic surf clam is a component is required to be adapted to regular, wave-induced perturbation. Estimates of Arctic surf clam survey biomass from the most recent stock assessments for Banquereau (DFO 2012) and Grand Bank (Roddick et al. 2011) were around 1.15 million t and 1.14 million t, respectively, demonstrating that the fishery exploitaion rate is low. There is no indication that the fishery directly impacts upon recovering groundfish stocks either directly (i.e., through capture) or indirectly (i.e., through acting to deplete food resources). Also, the area of the potential Arctic surf clam habitat that is fished in any year is very low, with around 1.5% of the habitat fished annually on Banquereau (DFO 2014c), while the area- based trigger level for Grand Bank is set at 128 km2 (DFO 2014c) from a potential fishery area of around 50,000 km2 (DFO 2010a) which equates to about 0.26%. In combination, these features make it extremely unlikely that adverse ecosystem impacts will result from the Arctic surf clam fishery.

3.7 Principle Three: Management System Background The intent of Principle 3 (P3) is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework appropriate to the size and scale of the UoAs for implementing Principles 1 and 2, and that this framework is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with the outcomes articulated in these Principles.

In the following sections a description of the broad, high-level context of the fishery management system and the fishery specific management system is provided with the intent of supporting the scoring rationales used in Appendix 1.1 of this report.

3.7.1 Area of operation of the UoAs The Arctic surf clam fishery is concentrated on offshore clam beds located on the Banquereau and Grand Banks (see Figure 5). The fishery may extend beyond the Canadian 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Sedentary clam resources existing beyond the 200-mile EEZ that are contiguous to the Grand Bank, remain under Canadian fisheries management (DFO 2014). It is a single jurisdictional fishery with no aboriginal or recreational elements.

3.7.2 Jurisdiction Within the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the responsibility for the management of fisheries resides with the federal government (Constitution Act, 1867). Under the Canadian Fisheries Act, 1985, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and his/her authority is delegated to officials through the organizational structure of the DFO. The UoCs (Banquereau Bank and Grand Bank) fall within the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador Regions of DFO, respectively. The management of both the Banquereau and Grand Bank fishing areas is conducted by the Resource Management Branch of DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Internationally Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFA). It has adopted the FAO

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 49 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Code for Responsible Fisheries and assisted the domestic development of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing operations. Canada has also been proactive in support of the four International Plans of Action (IPOA) (on seabirds, sharks, fishing capacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) that have emerged under the FAO Code.

Canada is also a member of several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO) around the world, including (but not limited to) the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

3.8 Legal and policy framework The legislative authority for the management of sea coast and inland fisheries in Canada falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. There are several pieces of legislation that apply to fishing, the major one being the Fisheries Act, 1985. This Act grants wide discretionary authority to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and provides for the enactment of regulations respecting the management of the fishery. The Atlantic Fishery Regulations, 1985 and the Fishery (General) Regulations are the main regulatory instruments governing the fishery.

In addition to the legislative framework, there are a number of policy initiatives that have been developed to guide decision-making in the management of fisheries in Canada.

Relevant legislative instruments and policy documents are outlined in Table 18, below.

Table 18. Principle Acts and policy documents

Principal Acts and Policy Description Documents The Fisheries Act, 1985 Provides absolute discretion to the Minister for the management of fisheries and for the establishment of fishing licences, regulations, reporting requirements, powers of fishery officers, protection of fish habitat and pollution prevention.

The Atlantic Fishery Prescribes conditions for the operation of the fishery Regulations, 1985 including seasons, closures, management and conservation measures, etc. Variation Orders are used to alter conditions and to shorten or lengthen the fishing season as appropriate.

The Fishery (General) Provides for the issue of licences and the authority to specify Regulations 1993 conditions in a fishing licence, e.g. allocations, vessel monitoring systems, hail-in/hail-out requirement, observer coverage, dockside monitoring, etc.

The Coastal Fisheries Prescribes conditions under which foreign vessels are Protection Act, 1985 permitted to fish in Canadian waters.

The Species at Risk Act Authorizes actions aimed at managing species of special (SARA) 2002 concern, preventing the extirpation or extinction of endangered marine species, or promoting their recovery.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 50 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Principal Acts and Policy Description Documents The Oceans Act 1996 Prescribes the Canadian oceans management strategy, including sustainable development, the precautionary approach, the implementation of integrated management of marine activities and the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

The Fish Inspection Act Governs fish processing operations on shore and aboard 1985 vessels in Canadian waters.

The Aboriginal Fisheries Seeks to provide for the effective management and Strategy (DFO 1992) regulation of fishing by Aboriginal groups through the negotiation of mutually acceptable and time-limited fisheries agreements between DFO and Aboriginal groups.

Atlantic Fisheries Policy Presents objectives to guide decision-making in Atlantic Review – A Policy fisheries. It places conservation of the resource as the Framework for the priority, sets the path for greater industry self-reliance, Management of Fisheries establishes transparent rules-based processes for decision- on Canada’s Atlantic making and encourages a greater role for resource users Coast (DFO 2004a) and others.

New Emerging Species Sets out the requirements that must be met and the Policy (DFO 2008) procedures to follow before a new fishery can be initiated.

Sustainable Fisheries Focuses on the need to incorporate the precautionary and Framework (SFF) (DFO ecosystem approaches to fishery management. 2009a)

Policy to Manage the Presents ways of mitigating the impacts of fishing on Impacts of Fishing on sensitive benthic areas. Sensitive Benthic Areas (DFO 2009b)

Policy on Managing Aims to address and take account of total catch, including Bycatch (DFO 2013) retained and non-retained species bycatch in all fisheries management plans.

Canada is also required to comply with constitutional legislation such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, among others. There is also a large body of common law, such as administrative and aboriginal law, which has a major effect on DFO's programs and activities

The regulations noted in Table 18 create the legal framework for the management, licensing and registration of participants of fisheries in Canada. They also provide a ticketing and court sanction system with fines ranging from low to as high as hundreds of thousands of dollars and even jail time in extreme cases. The court also has the discretion to forfeit catch and equipment upon conviction.

3.8.1 Dispute resolution Under the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has broad discretionary powers. The Federal Courts Act (1985) provides a mechanism for someone to challenge

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 51 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals and be provided with a hearing before a justice of the court. Unresolved disputes within the Canadian fisheries management system can be, and have been, taken through the Canadian judicial system. Some of the more notable of these have been the “Sparrow”, “Marshall” and “Larocque” decisions. The Sparrow decision (1990) resolved that aboriginal groups have a right to fish for food, societal and ceremonial purposes and that this use-right is surpassed only by conservation of the resource. The Marshall decision stated that Treaties signed in 1760 and 1761 by Mi’kmaq and Maliseet communities include a communal right to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood (Marshall Decision 1999). This decision essentially gave First Nations in the Maritime Provinces the right to fish commercially. The Larocque decision outlawed the use of resource allocations to pay for services provided to, or on behalf of, government without the approval of Parliament (Larocque Decision 2006). The Fisheries Act has since been amended (Bill C-38, June 2012) creating a new section (10) that authorizes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for the purpose of financing Scientific and Fisheries Management activities under Joint Project Agreements.

There is provision for an appeal of licensing decisions to independent Regional (RLAC) and Atlantic Fisheries License Appeal Boards (AFLAB) but the Minister is not legally bound to accept recommendations made by them.

Generally, DFO avoid legal disputes by obtaining legal advice before the implementation of programs, activities or policies to ensure compliance with applicable legislation prior to implementation.

With respect to this fishery, most disputes are resolved using the representational framework established in the Offshore Clam Advisory Committee (OCAC) / Offshore Clam Management Board (OCMB) forums (see section below). Regional managers of DFO have a particular role to play in brokering solutions on policy related issues, with most unresolved disputes being referred to DFOs Regional Director General (RDG), Maritimes or the Fisheries Minister, for decision. The direct intervention of the present and past Fisheries Ministers with respect to the TAC and new entrants into the fishery is an example of the Minister exercising their discretionary authority (DFO 2015a, DFO 2016).

3.8.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities DFO undertakes consultations on national policy and legislative issues. These are advertised on the DFO website http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/comm/consultation-eng.htm. DFO also conducts regional consultation on national and regional policy initiatives. These are also posted on DFO regional websites, e.g. http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Maritimes/Oceans/Species-at-Risk/Public-Consultations.

With respect to fishery specific issues, DFO consults with industry and other stakeholders on management objectives and measures by stock and area, in particular, through development and review of Annual Fishing Plans (AFP), Conservation Harvesting Plans (CHP) and Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs). There is a current Offshore Clams IFMP. The IFMP covers Arctic surf clam and ocean quahog (Arctica islandica). Quahog are found on the Sable Island Bank (See Figure 5) and a TAC has been set for them. The IFMP was last updated in June 2014 (DFO 2014). The IFMP indicates that it will be reviewed annually and amended as required. The assessment team note that this did not apparently happen in 2015 and that some information, e.g. with respect to research results, needs up dating. It was also noted that the IFMP is not available on the DFO website. The 1998 – 2002 version appears to have been the last version that was published on the website. The assessment team recommends the latest version is published on the DFO website.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 52 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Advisory Committees composed of the major stakeholders serve as the forum for the formulation of management measures and recommendations to DFO. The Offshore Clam Advisory Committee (OCAC) is the main consultative and advisory body for this fishery, it’s Terms of Reference are set out in Appendix II of the IFMP (DFO 2014). The committee is composed of representatives of licence holders, other harvesters and harvesters’ associations/unions, processors, First Nations representatives (standing invitation), the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and provincial government representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia and other stakeholders. Meetings are open to the public, while fishery managers, scientists, economists and enforcement staff from DFO attend the committee and provide advice and assistance. Ad-hoc sub-committees or working groups can be established to review and assess specific policy and management measures.

The Chair of the committee is a DFO official and is rotated between the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador regions. The committee meet at least once a year or as otherwise called by the Chair. Minutes of the meetings are prepared and distributed by DFO.

The purpose of the committee is to provide input and advice to DFO on the conservation, protection and management of the offshore clam resource. The committee also serves as an open public consultation forum on all issues affecting the offshore clam fishery on Canada’s Atlantic coast. Information including scientific and management advice is presented at committee meetings and recommendations on harvest levels and management measures are forwarded to DFO for final decisions on management plans.

A second committee, called the Offshore Clam Management Board (OCMB), is charged with the responsibility of overseeing and directing the implementation of the management plan. Its Terms of Reference are set out in Appendix III of the IFMP (DFO 2014). This committee is composed of representatives of the licence holding companies (all wholly owned by the client, CSLP) and representatives of DFO, from science and management. The OCMB is chaired by an industry member. The position of Vice-Chair is held by a DFO staff person. The Board meets annually or as required.

While not directly related to the offshore clam fishery, DFO Maritimes Region and a group of regional and national Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGOs) – the Ecology Action Centre, World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Wildlife Federation and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – have established a “Dialogue Forum” to “…facilitate information exchange, relationship building and dialogue on strategic policy issues of relevance regarding the sustainable development and conservation of Canda’s marine resources”. The forum operates under an agreed terms of reference (DFO 2011). While the discussion is intended to be at the strategic level, specific operational examples, e.g. specific fisheries, may be used to demonstrate and/or clarify broader policy objectives. These meetings are scheduled to take place 3 times a year. A forum secretariat produces records of the discussion from these meetings and distributes to the forum members. The effectiveness of the forum and its continued existence is reviewed annually.

3.8.3 Long term and fishery specific objectives Stock conservation and other sustainability objectives for the Arctic clam fishery stem from Canadian legislative and evolving policy developments such as the Ocean's and Species at Risk Acts, the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review and Sustainable Fisheries Framework. The offshore clam IFMP reflects the policy objectives set out in these documents, by explicitly including the following short and long term objectives:

• Increase certainty that harvesting occurs at an optimum sustainable level to ensure the long term viability of the resource; • Enhance industry’s level of participation in the management of this resource to

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 53 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

benefit Canadians; • Maintain the long term viability of the industry; and, • Assess, evaluate and minimize any adverse environmental effects of the fishing methods on the habitat.

Fishery specific objectives are also explicitly stated in the IFMP:

• Ensure that a biologically and economically sustainable offshore clam fishery continues through the auspices of scientifically-based management plans involving collaborative enforcement, monitoring and regulatory measures. • The continued cooperation between licence holders and the Department in establishing ongoing management measures that will minimize impacts of harvesting on the habitat.

3.8.4 The decision-making process The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the final decision maker with regard to access, allocations and TACs (DFO 2014). In reality, his/her authority is delegated to officials through the organisational structure of DFO, in this instance, the Regional Director General (RGD) of the Maritimes Region of DFO. His/her decisions take account of consultations and recommendations made in the advisory committee and management board, in this case, OSAC and OSMB, and guided by the short and long term fishery specific objectives for the fishery. These committees use a consensus model, based on the agreement that each member should have the opportunity to express their opinion, be listened to and accept a group recommendation that considers all the relevant factors. This requires the mutual trust and respect of each Committee member.

Recommendations based on consultation at OSAC and OSMB, are generally adhered to by the RGD or Minister. Where parties are not satisfied with the decisions by DFO, they have the right to redress through the Federal Court of Appeal system.

Minutes of advisory committee and management meetings are made publicly available and decisions are released on the DFO website and/or DFO press releases.

3.8.5 Incentives for sustainable fishing The individual quota system of fishing provides a quasi property right to the licence holders. The stability and security of access provides strong economic incentives to harvest for the long-term, maximize value and not volume, and minimize negative impacts on the stock and its ecosystem. The co-management approach afforded by the management process appears to provide a strong incentive to support the effective and long-term management of the fishery. There are no direct financial incentives, e.g., price or fuel subsidies.

3.8.6 Monitoring, control and surveillance The IFMP sets out a specific strategy relating to monitoring and enforcement of the fishery. The annual fishing licences also include a list of conditions that the vessel must adhere to, these include: • Prohibited fishing areas; • Bycatch provisions, i.e. the only permitted retained species, other than Arctic surf clam, is quahog (Arctica islandica), Northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) and Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus); • Reporting requirements, i.e. accurate reporting of catches through log books, 100% dockside monitoring, 100% vessel monitoring system (VMS); and, • At-sea observers.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 54 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

At previous MSC annual audits of the fishery, DFO have consistently confirmed that there have been no compliance issues and the fishery is considered to be low risk. Measures such as VMS, hail-in requirement, catch and information reporting, aircraft surveillance, at-sea boardings and 100% dockside weighing of catch ensure good coverage of the fishery.

A ticket 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 (DFO 2016a).

3.8.7 Management evaluation Annual meetings of OCAC and OCMB provide an opportunity to review and evaluate key parts of the management system. The OCAC and OCMB may also establish ad-hoc sub- committees or working groups to review and assess specific policy and management measures (DFO, 2014).

The Framework Assessments and RAP are the primary processes for the review of science that informs fisheries management. This is an open process with peer review and stakeholder engagement. The official proceedings, participants, and reports from the RAP can be referenced for more detail on the Canadian Secretariat for Science Advice website.

With respect to external review, DFO commissioned two reviews in 2015, one to review the science process (Hoenig 2015) and one to review the management process (Oresanz 2015). As a result, recommendations have been taken into consideration at the OCMB.

The Parliament of Canada has two committees related to Fisheries and Oceans: The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons and the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Senate. Both committees regularly review different aspects of fishery management in Canada and publish reports with their findings and conclusions.

The Canadian Auditor General (AG) has, on an ad-hoc basis, reviewed fisheries related issues, although this has not happened since 2009 when the protection of fish habitat was reviewed (OAGC 2009).

3.8.8 Research The IFMP includes sections on current research and the joint industry/DFO research that has, and continues to be undertaken, in order to better understand the target and non-target species and the effect of the fishing operation on the habitat.

Research includes: • Periodic surveys of Arctic surf clam – approximately 10 yearly cycles - with annual updates based on analysis of data from commercial fishery and sampling data. The surveys are conducted through Joint Project Agreements (JPA) between the CSLP and DFO and undertaken through annual research plans. • By-catch species: research on the biology/abundance of ocean quahogs, Greeenland cockles and Northern propeller clams are ongoing with a view to establishing quota limits. • A multi-year benthic impact research program on Banquereau Bank (conditions on the Grand Bank have been determined to be comparable). The study began in 1998 between DFO Science, the Geological Survey of Canada Atlantic and CSLP. An experimental impact area was identified and dredged in 1998 and repeat surveys

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 55 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

undertaken to assess recovery. The studies have indicated that the sediment properties returned to pre-dredging conditions after approximately 10 years (Gilkinson et al. 2014). • An investigation into growth rates on the eastern part of the Banquereau Bank where there are reports of slow growth in high density areas.

Potential future projects are also identified in the IFMP, including: • Natural mortality rate studies: from size/age data, estimate mortality. Two or three small closed areas may be established from which the commercial vessels would land frozen shell stock (i.e., unprocessed except for freezing) for two consecutive years. • Continuation of studies on the effects of hydraulic gear: the effects of hydraulic dredging on the habitat, recruitment and incidental mortality of clams and other molluscs.

The assessment team also heard of new research to be undertaken following the independent reviews (Hoenig 2015; Oresanz 2015) of the science and management system, highlighted in section 3.8.8 above. Both reviewers identified serial depletion as a potential risk to the fishery. As a result, DFO and CSLP are collaboratively looking at a research program that can address this risk through spatial management (DFO 2016b; DFO 2016c; DFO 2016d).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 56 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised fishery assessment The MSC has detailed an approach to addressing the assessment of overlapping fisheries, where ‘overlapping fisheries’ are defined as “Two or more fisheries which require assessment of some, or all, of the same aspects of MSC Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 within their respective units of certification” (MSC 2013).

The MSC specifies the following (MSC 2013):

“CI3.2.3 CABs shall coordinate their assessments where a fishery under assessment overlaps with a certified fishery to make sure that key assessment products and outcomes are harmonised. CI3.2.3.1 Where an assessment overlaps with a certified fishery or fishery in assessment that a CAB has already scored, the team shall base their assessment on the rationale and scores detailed for the previously scored fishery. CI3.2.3.2 To achieve harmonisation, CABs shall undertake the following key activities: a. The use of complementary assessment trees. b. The sharing of fishery information. c. The achievement of consistent conclusions with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions. CI3.2.3.3 The team shall explain and justify any difference in the scores in the scoring rationale for relevant PIs.”

There are no other overlapping Arctic surf clam fisheries that are certified or in assessment. Furthermore, there are no other fisheries on the Banquereau or Grand Banks using hydraulic dredges. Therefore, there are no Principle 1 or 2 issues that need to be harmonised. There are, however, multiple certified fishers that fish in these areas and so share aspects of the “Governance and Policy” component of Principle 3 (the PIs pre-fixed with 3.1), i.e. focusing on the high level context of the fishery management system within the UoAs. The majority have been assessed using MSC FAM v2 and Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) v1.3. The following table compares the scores assigned to PIs pre-fixed with 3.1 for MSC certified fisheries that could potentially overlap with Arctic surf clam fishery.

Table 19. A list of MSC certifed and in assessment fisheries that could potentially overlap with the Arctic surf clam fishery and the scores that were assigned for their “Governance and Policy” component of Principle 3. The Arctic surf clam scores are highlighted in yellow. –Blue highlighted cells indicate where there was a difference in score of ≥15.

MSC Certified Fisheries 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 Reason for difference in score of ≥15

Canada Atlantic Halibut – 90 85 100 85 N/A Gillnet, Handline, Trawl Scotian Shelf Northern N/A Shrimp Trawl 100 95 100 80 Scotian Shelf Snow Crab N/A Trap 90 80 90 80

Eastern Canada Offshore 95 90 100 90 N/A Scallop

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 57 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

MSC Certified Fisheries 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 Reason for difference in score of ≥15

There is a NAFO management component to this fishery. NAFO OCI Yellowtail Flounder have not adopted precautionary Trawl 90 90 80 90 approach reference points and so the Precautionary Approach cannot be said to be operational or ‘required by management policy”.

Newfoundland and Labrador The team considered that a DFO Snow Crab 100 95 80 90 analysis of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan concluded that the implementation of the precautionary approach is a work in progress and it may not be concluded that all related activities have yet been successful in their adoption of the approach.

Canada 3LN Redfish - - - - No report available, November 2016

Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand 100 95 100 80 Banks Arctic surf clam

None of the performance indicators score below 80. Differences in scores ≥15 were attributed to RFMO aspects of management in the OCI Yellowtail Flounder Fishery and specific differences in the IFMP for the Newfoundland and Labrador Snow Crab Fishery. It is therefore concluded that the Banquereau Bank and Grand Bank Arctic Surf Clam Fisheries are harmonised with overlapping MSC certified fisheries.

4.2 Previous assessments The Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery was assessed previously against the MSC standard and was certified on 12th July 2012.

In 2012, the Public Certification Reports for each fishery concluded the following overall scores and conditions of certification (from Intertek Moody Marine, 2012):

Table 20. Overall scores achieved by each UoC when the fisheries were first assessed and certified in 2012.

MSC Principle Fishery Performance Grand Bank Banquereau Bank Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock 85.0 85.0 Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem 87.7 91.3 Principle 3: Effective Management System 85.6 85.6

The same three conditions of certification were placed on each UoC. Table 21, below, shows each of the conditions, when they were closed, what actions resulted in their closure and their revised score.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 58 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 21. Summary of previous assessment conditions.

Condition PI Year Justification closed 1. The client is required to demonstrate by the 2nd annual 1.1.2 Year 1 Upper and Limit reference points for the Arctic surfclam fishery were audit that: scientifically reviewed and established as a formal component of the

The management system includes a limit reference point IFMP. The reference points were established based on a BMSY proxy of that is appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. 1,015,059 t for Banquereau and 703,065 t for Grand Bank. The BMSY The limit reference point is set above the level at which proxy was determined using fishable biomass per recruit and estimated there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive average annual recruitment. Reference points were established using capacity. the default 80% and 40% of the BMSY proxy for the stock. Revised score of 80. 2. The client is required to demonstrate by the 2nd annual 1.2.2 Year 2 Following the change to a multi-year approach for the assessment of the audit that: Arctic surfclam fisheries, Upper (Target) and Limit reference points were Well-defined harvest control rules are in place that are established for both the Banquereau and Grand Bank fisheries using a consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the Precautionary Approach Framework (DFO, 2012) and these, together exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are with a series of harvest control rules, were formally incorporated into the approached. IFMP. The harvest control rules set out strategies for managing the The selection of the harvest control rules takes into fisheries when the biomass is above the Upper Reference Point (URP), account the main uncertainties. between the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and the URP, and below the LRP. With the multi-year management approach, the expectation is that the stocks on each fishing bank will only be surveyed every 10 years, while the state of the stocks will be monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These trigger levels have been set to maintain stock status in the healthy zone and serve as an early warning of changes in the stock that require further examination of the data, additional surveys or other management actions. Revised score of 90. The client is required to demonstrate by the 2nd annual 3.1.2 Year 1 While past meetings of the Offshore Clam Management Board (OCMB) audit that the management system includes: and Offshore Clam Advisory Committee (OCAC) were held irregularly, in Consultation processes that regularly seek and accept recent years meetings of these groups have been held annually. Those relevant information, including local knowledge. interested parties who have expressed interest in participating in the Consideration of the information obtained. Advisory Committee meetings have been notified of meetings and participation has been welcomed. In addition, DFO continues to host Opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be meetings of the ENGO Forum, where ENGOs have the opportunity to be involved. informed on upcoming advisory processes for specific fisheries.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 60

4.3 Assessment Methodologies This re-assessment was conducted using the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) version 1.3 (MSC 2013) default assessment tree with no changes made to the text of any default Performance Indicator (PI). The assessment followed CR version 2.0 process (MSC 2014). The report has been presented using the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template version 2.0 (noting that the scoring section is from v1.3). The risk-based framework (RBF) was not used in this re-assessment.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits The fisheries were eligible for a “reduced assessment” as the fishery had no conditions remaining after thte 3rd surveillance audit. As such, the re-assessment follows the full assessment requirements except the CAB may undertake assessment with one team member on-site and other team members working remotely. Furthermore, only one peer reviewer is required to review the re-assessment peer review report.

The re-assessment was announced on the MSC website https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/clearwater-seafoods-banquereau-and-grand-bank- arctic-surf-clam-hydraulic-dredge/@@assessments and stakeholders that participated in the original assessment and annual audits were contacted directly.

The site visit took place on 10th and 12th October 2016 in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The fourth surveillance audit and re-assessment site visit were combined, as is normal practice for MSC re-assessments.

Table 22. A list of stakeholders that participated in the the audit / re-assessment meeting

12th October 2016, Clearwater Seafood Partnership Limited (CSLP) Offices, Bedford Highway, Halifax, Nova Scotia Name Organisation Role Paul Knapman Acoura Audit Team Member Team Lead and P3 Specialist Julian Addison Acoura Audit Team Member P1 Specialist (By phone) Rob Blyth-Skyrme Acoura Audit Team Member P2 Specialist (By phone) Catherine Boyd CSLP Director Sustainability Christine Penney CSLP VP Sustainability Scott Coffen-Smout DFO Ecosystem Management Carl MacDonald DFO Resource Management Christa Waters DFO Resource Management Thomas Wheaton DFO Science Coordinator Ryan Stanley DFO Biologist Mark Comley DFO Chief, Program & Operational Readiness Margaret Lever DFO Staff Officer C & P Susan Heaslip DFO Technician Colleen Smith DFO Eco-certification Co-ordinator Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 61

Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The main activities that were discussed, reviewed and inspected included: - New vessels and area of targeted fishery - The stock status - Application of the harvest control rule - The harvest strategy - Scientific research - New scientific staff - External review of the fishery - Bycatch information, including information on ETP species - Habitat and non-target species information - Policy and management changes - Interest in the fishery from other stakeholders - Traceability, including the dockside monitoring programme, landing points, hail-out and hail-in requirements, logbooks. - The status of MPAs, including EBSAs and VMEs. - The Conservation and Protection programme, including levels of monitoring and compliance, licence conditions. - OCAC and OCMB meetings and consultation process - Status of DFO / ENGO forum - Issues raised by the Ecology Action Centre prior to the site visit meeting, including: the adequacy of science with respect to the stock assessment; VMEs in relation to fishing activity; understanding the impact of the fishery on other aspects of the ecosystem.

4.4.2 Consultations The Ecology Action Centre (EAC) had agreed to meet with the audit/re-assessement team on 11th October however, owing to illness the meeting was cancelled. EAC forwarded comments related to the fishery prior to the client and DFO meeting shown in Table 22. Their general comments related to: - Current understanding of the stocks including: assessments and surveys; the science that supports the fishery; impact of the fishery on the stock. - Overlap of the fishery with VMEs; new information on VME indicator species; no new research on long-term consequence of the fishery impact on sea bed habitats. - Ecosystem impacts of removing Arctic surf clam; predator prey interactions; and, impacts on recovering / depleted groundfish.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Several sources of information provided the basis of the conclusions of this assessment, including a review of information and references provided by the client prior to the site visit, information and data sourced during site visit meetings held with stakeholders involved with the fishery, and review of literature and information provided following site visit meetings. Peer review and stakeholder comment on the draft report also provide a very important contribution to the assessment process.

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements for sustainable fishing. These Principles and Criteria have subsequently been used to develop a standardized, default assessment tree (within the MSC Certification Requirements), including Performance Indicators (PIs) and Scoring Issues (SIs), by the MSC and its advisory boards, which have been used in the assessment of this fishery.

Each SI may be scored at three scoring guideposts (SGs), which define the level of performance that is required to achieve 100, 80 (the passing score), and 60 scores; 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of performance and 60 a measurable shortfall. If a fishery does not meet the minimum SG 60 level of performance for any SI, the fishery would fail its assessment.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 62 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

For each PI, the performance of the fishery is evaluated, and a score issued. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall weighted average score of 80 is necessary for each of the three Principles and no SI should score less than 60. Scores are issued using a minimum increment of five. Average scores for each Principle are rounded to one decimal place.

Following the review and synthesis of information available, the assessment team discussed each individual SI to assess whether the evidence is present to assess the level of performance that the fishery achieved. Justification of the scoring is provided in the scoring table presented in Appendix 1. Scores were agreed by consensus between the assessment team.

The elements that were scored for each PI under Principle 1 and 2 are listed for Banquereau in Table 23, and for Grand Bank in Table 24. Scores allocated for each PI were entered into the MSC Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet in order to attain the overall Principle scores; these scores are shown in section 6.2 of this report.

Table 23. Scoring elements for the Banquereau Bank UoC Component Scoring elements Main/Minor Data-deficient (Yes or No) P1 Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) Main No Northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) Main No P2 – Retained species Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus) Minor No Sand dollar (Echinarachnius parma) Main No P2 – By catch species Whelks (Species not specified) Minor No P2 – ETP species None N/A N/A P2 – Habitat Well-sorted sand Main No P2 – Ecosystem Benthic community structure and function Main No

Table 24. Scoring elements of the Grand Bank UoC Component Scoring elements Main/Minor Data-deficient (Yes or No) P1 Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) Main No Northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) Main No P2 – Retained species Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus) Minor No Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) Minor No Sand dollar (Echinarachnius parma) Main No P2 – By catch species Crabs (Cancer spp.) Minor No Starfish (Asterias spp.) Minor No Whelks (Buccinum spp.) Minor No P2 – ETP species None N/A N/A P2 – Habitat Well-sorted sand Main No P2 – Ecosystem Benthic community structure and function Main No

5 Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date for this fishery is 16th July 2017. This is when the existing certification of the fishery ends. Assuming the fishery is re-certified, a new certificate will be issued on this date allowing for an unbroken period of certification for the fisheries.

5.2 Traceability within the fishery Ports of landing for offshore clam vessels include Argentia and St. John’s, Newfoundland (NL), Mulgrave, Nova Scotia (NS) and other ports in Atlantic Canada opportunistically in the Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 63 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery event of vessel distress or inclement weather. Further processing may take place at Grand Bank, NL or Glace Bay, NS, and, in 2017, processing may also take place at Highland, NS.

Traceability of product from the sea to the consumer is important so as to ensure that the MSC standard is maintained. There are several aspects to traceability that the MSC require to be evaluated: Traceability within the fishery; at-sea processing; at the point of landing; and subsequently the eligibility of product to enter the chain of custody. These requirements are assessed here.

• The vessels are remotely monitored with an hourly VMS at all times while fishing. • The vessels must hail-out prior to leaving port and hail-in prior to returning to port. • At-sea monitoring is undertaken via enforcement aircraft and vessels, and periodically by fishery observers. • The vessels are only engaged in fishing for Arctic surf clam. • Trans-shipping of products is not permitted. • All landings are 100% dockside monitored. • There are no other Canadian vessels engaged in fishing for Arctic surf clam on the offshore Banqereau and Grand Banks. • All traceability and segregation systems as appropriate for products are already in place for as part of CSLP’S existing certification.

Table 25, below reviews and summarises the possible traceability risks in the fishery.

Table 25. Traceability factors within the fishery.

Description of risk factor if present. Where Traceability Factor applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems Potential for non-certified gear/s to be The use of hydraulic dredges is required in order to used within the fishery. catch marketable quantities of Arctic surf clam from the offshore banks. Only CSLP vessels are licenced to fish on the offshore beds for clam using hydraulic dredges. The potential for non-certified gear to be used in the fishery is negligible. Potential for vessels from the UoC to Arctic surf clam are not known to ocurr in sufficient fish outside the UoC or in different densities on other offshore banks off the east coast geographical areas (on the same trips of Canada and so there is minimal potential / or different trips). likelihood for the CSLP vessels to fish outside of the UoC. Licence conditions describe specific areas on Banqureau and Grand Bank where fishing is permitted. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC Only CSLP are issued with licences to fish on the or client group fishing the same stock. offshore banks for Arctic surf clam. Therefore, the potential for any other vessels outside of the UoC or client group fishing the same stock is negligible. Risks of mixing between certified and The client has been MSC Chain of Custody (CoC) non-certified catch during storage, certified for Arctic surf clam since the fishery was transport, or handling activities first certified in 2012. No instances of irregularities (including transport at sea and on land, were reported by the CoC Certifier. points of landing, and sales at auction) Arctic surf clam catches are frozen on board the catching vessel and offloaded when the vessel returns to shore. The CSLP do not sell to an auction. The catch is transported using the CSLP’s own transport to CSLP shore based processing or storage facilities.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 64 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Description of risk factor if present. Where Traceability Factor applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems Risks of mixing between certified and No other Arctic surf clam fishery is operating on the non-certified catch during processing offshore banks and so the mixing of certified and non activities (at-sea and/or before certified catch is negligible. subsequent Chain of Custody) Risks of mixing between certified and Transhipping is not permitted in this fishery. non-certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between No other risks of substituting certified and non- fish from the UoC (certified catch) and certified catch are considered likely under this fish from outside this unit (non-certified fisheries certification. catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3 Eligibility to enter further Chains of Custody The fisheries certification extends to the point of landing. Product from the certified fishery must enter into separate Chain of Custody certifications after the point of landing in order to be eligible to carry the MSC logo and be sold as MSC certified.

Anyone taking ownership of certified product and wishing to sell on product as MSC certified, must have a current Chain of Custody certificate that includes Arctic surf clam in its scope.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 65 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery 6 Results

6.1 Principle level scores

Table 26: Principle scores for the Banquereau and Grand Bank Arctic surfclam UoCs.

UoC Principle 1 (Banquereau) 2 (Grand Bank) Principle 1 – Target Species 87.5 86.9 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 91.0 90.0 Principle 3 – Management 89.4 89.4 System

6.2 Summary of PI scores

Table 27: PI scores for the Banquereau and Grand Bank Arctic surfclam UoCs.

UoC Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) 1 (Banq.) 2 (Grand B.) 1.1.1 Stock status 90 90 Outcome 1.1.2 Reference Points 90 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A N/A 1 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 95 95 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85 85 2.1.1 Outcome 80 80 Primary 2.1.2 Management 80 80 species 2.1.3 Information 95 85 2.2.1 Outcome 100 100 Secondary 2.2.2 Management 80 80 species 2.2.3 Information 85 80 2.3.1 Outcome 100 100 2 ETP species 2.3.2 Management 85 85 2.3.3 Information 80 80 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 100 100 2.4.3 Information 85 85 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 100 100 2.5.3 Information 95 95 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 100 100 Governance 3 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 95 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 Fishery 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 system 3.2.4 Research plan 70 70 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 90 90

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 66 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery 6.3 Summary of Conditions PIs 1.2.3 and 3.2.4 did not achieve an unconditional pass mark, and therefore binding conditions are placed on the fishery. A full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.3 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions relate to the infrequent stock surveys and assessments on Grand Bank, and the the client providing a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Table 28. Summary of Condition

Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA) By the fourth annual audit the client shall provide 1 evidence that sufficient regular monitoring of (UoC 2 stock abundance indicators to support the 1.2.3 N only) harvest control rule has been implemented on the Grand Bank. By the second annual audit the client shall provide evidence of a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic 2 3.2.4 N approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

6.4 Recommendations 1. It is recommended that further studies are carried out to estimate efficiency of the dredge used during the stock surveys. 2. It is recommended that the IFMP is reviewed and updated, as necessary, on an annual basis and any changes are recorded in a “Record of Amendment” within the IFMP.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: FCR 7.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 67 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

References

Abbott, R.T. (1974). American Seashells, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, New York. Atlantic Fisheries License Appeal Boards (AFLAB) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/policies- politiques/licences-permis/aflap-pappa/index-eng.htm Atlantic Fishery Regulations (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-86- 21/index.html Black, J. (1991). ACON Data Visualization Software User Manual [Internet]. Version 10.7.05. Dartmouth (Nova Scotia): Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Maritimes Region; [Updated 2007 May 11; cited 2007 May 26]. Available from: http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/acon/. Breeze, H., Fenton, D.G., Rutherford, R.J. & M.A. Silva (2002). The Scotian Shelf: An Ecological Overview for Ocean Planning. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2393. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 259 p. Caddy, J. F. & R. Mahon (1995). Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 347. 83 pp. Canadian Secretariat for Science Advice website http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index- eng.htm Cassista, M. C. & M.W. Hart (2005). Isolation and characterization of new microsatellite markers in the surfclam Mactromeris polynyma. Molecular Ecology Notes, V. 5, pp. 218-219. Cassista, M.C & M.W. Hart (2007). Spatial and temporal genetic homogeneity in the Arctic surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma). Marine Biology, V. 152, pp. 569-579. Chaisson, D.R. & T.W. Rowell (1985). Distribution, Abundance, Population structure, and Meat Yield of the Ocean Quahaug (Arctica islandica) and Stimpson’s Surf Clam (Spisula polynyma) on the Scotian Shelf and Georges Bank. Canadian Industrial Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Number 155: ix + 125 pp. Christian, J.R., Grant, C.G.J., Meade, J.D. & L.D. Noble (2010). Habitat requirements and life history characteristics of selected marine invertebrate species occurring in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. Canadian Manuscript Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Number 2925: vi + 207 pp. C-NLOPB (2014). Eastern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment, Final Report. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, August, 527. Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-33/page- 1.html Criminal Code (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf Davis, C.V. & S.E. Shumway (1996). Larval and juvenile growth of Stimpson’s surfclam – a new candidate species for aquaculture development? Annual Meeting of the National Shellfish Association, April 1996. Abstract: Journal of Shellfish Research, V. 15(2), pp. 479- 480. DFO (1992) The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/aboriginal- autochtones/afs-srapa-eng.htm DFO (1999). Banquereau Bank Arctic surfclam. DFO Science Stock Status Report, C3-34. 3 pp. DFO (2004). The Stimpson’s surfclam in Quebec coastal waters in 2003. DFO Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Stock Status Report 2004/002. 3 pp. DFO (2004a) Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/policies- politiques/afpr-rppa/framework-cadre-eng.htm

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 68 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery DFO (2006). Offshore clams integrated fishery management plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2005-2009. 36 pp. DFO (2007). Assessment of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) stocks on Sable Bank and St. Mary’s Bay, and the Arctic surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Banquereau. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Advisory Report 2007/034. 17 pp. DFO (2007a). Proceedings of the Maritime Provinces regional advisory process on assessment and management strategy framework for Banquereau Arctic surfclam and ocean quahogs on Sable Bank and in St. Mary’s Bay; 17-18 January 2007 and 4-5 April 2007. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Proceedings Series 2007/008.

DFO (2007b). Assessment of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) stocks on Sable Bank and St. Mary’s Bay, and the Arctic surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Banquereau. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Advisory Report 2007/034. 17 pp.

DFO (2007c). Clarification on offshore Arctic surfclam clam and ocean quahog TACs. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Response 2007/018. DFO (2008) The Emerging Species Policy http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/policies- politiques/efp-pnp-eng.htm DFO (2009a) Sustainable Fisheries Framework (2009) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm DFO (2009b) Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi-back-fiche- eng.htm DFO (2009c). Proceedings of a Workshop on Canadian Science and Management Strategies for Whelk; 3-4 June 2008. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Proceedings Series 2009/02, 21 pp. DFO (2010a) Assessment of the Arctic surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Grand Bank. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2010/063. 10 pp. DFO (2010b). The Grand Banks of Newfoundland: atlas of human activities. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0007533. Accessed January 2017. DFO (2011) Terms of Reference Maritimes Region DFO – Marine ENGO Forum DFO (2011a). Offshore clams integrated fishery management plan; Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, May 2011, 42 pp. DFO (2012). Assessment of the Arctic Surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Banquereau in 2010. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretatiat, Science Advisory Report 2011/068. 12 pp. DFO (2013a). Policy on Managing Bycatch http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/bycatch-policy-prise-access-eng.htm DFO (2013b) Offshore surf clam science monitoring program. DFO, 3 pp. DFO (2014a). Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2014 DFO (2014b). Status of the fishery for Arctic surfclam in Atlantic Canada in 2012. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, brief report. 9 pp. DFO (2014c). Status of the fishery for Arctic surfclam in Atlantic Canada in 2013. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, brief report. 10 pp.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 69 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery DFO (2015a). News Release, July 2015, DFO Increase Arctic Surf Clam Quota… http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/983379/DFO-Increases-Arctic-Surf-Clam-Quota-to- 52000-Tons-to-Delight-of-Exporters DFO (2015b). Coral and sponge conseration strategy for Eastern Canada 2015. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 74 pp. http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/363832.pdf DFO (2016). New Release, December 2015, Minister Tootoo Sets Arctic Surf Clam TAC http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/fisheries-oceans-canada-announces-increase- arctic-surf-clam-total-allowable-catch-2039612.htm DFO (2016a). DFO Compliance and Enforcement website, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/enf-loi/index-eng.htm DFO (2016b). Offshore Clam Advisory Committee Minutes, Status of the Arctic Surf Clam in Atlantic Canada in 2015, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016c). Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Overview, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016d). Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Requirements, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016e). Scotia Fundy SARA species report for the Stimpson surfclam fishery, Clearwater Seafoods. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, dated 30th September 2016. 1 pp. DFO (2016f). 2016 Offshore clam fishing licence, issued to Arctic Surf Company. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 27th October 2016. DFO (2016g). Proceedings of the Maritime Regions Peer Review of the Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) Framework 2016. June 28-29 2016. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2016/nnn. FAO (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.HTM Federal Courts Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F%2D7/ Fish Inspection Act 1985 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-12/page-1.html Fisheries Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf Fishery (General) Regulations (1993) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-93-53.pdf. Gilkinson, K.D., Gordon Jr. D.C., MacIsaac, K.G., McKeown, D.L., Kenchington, E.L.R., Bourbonnais, C. & W.P. Vass (2005). Immediate impacts and recovery trajectories of macrofaunal communities following hydraulic clam dredging on Banquereau, eastern Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science, V. 62, pp. 925–947. Gilkinson, K., King, E., Li, M., Roddick, D. Kenchington, E. Han, G., (2014) Processes of physical change to the seabed and bivalve recruitment over a 10 year period following experimental hydraulic dredging on Banquereau, Scotian Shelf. Continental Shelf Research. Elsevier Publishing Green, G.A. & J.J. Brueggeman (1991). Sea otter diets in a declining population in Alaska. Marine Mammal Science, V. 7, pp. 395-401. Himmelman, J.H. & J.R. Hamel (1993). Diet, behaviour and reproduction of the whelk Buccinum undatum in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, eastern Canada. Marine Biology, V. 116, pp. 423-430.

Hoenig (2015) Review of the Scientific Basis for Managing Stocks of Arctic Surf Clam on Banquereau and Grand Bank Intertek Moody Marine (2012) MSC Public Certification Report for the Assessment of the Banquereau Surf Clam Fishery https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/clearwater-seafoods- banquereau-and-grand-bank-arctic-surf-clam-hydraulic-dredge/@@assessments Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 70 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Kilada, R.W., Campana, S.E. & D. Roddick (2009). Growth and sexual maturity of the northern propellerclam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) in Eastern Canada, with bomb radiocarbon age validation. Marine Biology, V. 156, pp. 1029–1037. Kilada, R.W., Roddick, D. & K. Mombourquette (2007). Age determination, validation, growth and minimum size of sexual maturity of the Greenland smoothcockle (Serripes groenlandicus, Brugiere, 1789) in Eastern Canada. Journal of Shellfish Research, V. 26, pp. 443–450. Kostylev V.E. (2004). Habitat management template for Scotian shelf habitat mapping. Progress Report for Horizontal NRCan -DFO habitat mapping project. Natural Resources Canada. Kulka, D., C. Hood & J. Huntington (2007). Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Newfoundland and Labrador Region. St. John’s, NL. x + 103 pp. Lambert, J. & P. Goudreau (1997). Biologie et Exploitation de la mactre de Stimpson (Mactromeris polynyma) sur les Côtes du Québec. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Research Document 97/101. 44 pp. Larocque Decision (2006) http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2006/2006fca237/2006fca237.html Marshall Decision (1999) https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028614/1100100028615 Mooi, R. & Telford, M. 1982. The feeding mechanism of the sand dollar Echinarachnius parma (Lamarck). Pp. 51-57 in J. M. Lawrence (ed.) International Echinoderms Conference, Tampa Bay. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Morissette, S. & J.H. Himmelman (2000). Subtidal food thieves: interactions of four invertebrate kleptoparasites with the sea star Leptasterias polaris. Animal Behaviour, V. 60, pp. 531-543. MSC (2013) MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3 https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme- documents/msc-scheme-requirements/msc-certification-requirements MSC (2014) MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme- documents/fisheries-certification-requirements-version-2.0 NAFO (2013). Report of the 6th meeting of the NAFO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment (WGESA) [Formerly WGEAFM]. NAFO SCS Doc. 13/24 Rev 2. Serial No. N6277. OAGC (2009) Protecting fish habitat. Chapter 1 in a report to Parliament by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_cesd_200905_01_e.pdf Oceans Act (1996) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-2.4.pdf Oresanz (2015) Review of the Arctic Surf Clam Fishery, Prepared by J.M. (Lobo) Orensanz, CENPAT, 9120 Puerto Madryn, Argentina. mail: [email protected] Parks Canada (2006). Canada's national marine conservation areas system plan; the Grand Banks. http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/systemplan/itm2-/atl9_E.asp. Accessed January 2017. Rochette, R., Morissette, S. & J.H. Himmelman (1995). A flexible response to a major predator provides the whelk Buccinum undatum L. with nutritional gains. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, V. 185, pp. 167-180.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 71 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Roddick, D. & S.J. Smith (1999). Assessment of the Banquereau Bank Arctic Surfclam, 1999. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 1999/69. 29 pp. Roddick, D., Brading, J., Carrigan, L., Davignon-Burton, T., Graham, S. & C. McEwen (2011). Assessment of the Arctic surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Grand Bank. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2011/052. 61 pp. Roddick, D., Brading, J., Carrigan, L., Davignon-Burton, T,. Graham, S., and McEwen, C. (2012). Assessment of the Arctic Surfclam (Mactromeris polynyma) stock on Banquereau in 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/050. iii + 59 p. Roddick, D.L. & E. Kenchington (1990). A review of the Banquereau Bank fishery for Mactromeris polynyma for the 1986 to 1989 period. Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Science Advisory Committee Research Document 90/14. 27 pp. Rowell, T.W. & D.R. Chaisson (1983). Distribution and abundance of the ocean quahaug (Arctica islandica) and Stimpson’s surf clam (Spisula polynyma) resource on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian Industrial Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Science Number 142: v + 75 pp. Rowell, T.W. & T. Amaratunga (1986). Distribution, abundance and preliminary estimates of production potential for the Ocean Quahaug (Arctica islandica) and Stimpson's Surf Clam (Spisula polynyma) on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Science Advisory Committee Research Document 86/56. 21 pp. Shaw, J., Todd, B.J., Li, M.Z., Mosher, D.C. & V.E. Kostylev (2014). Continental shelves of Atlantic Canada. Chapter 2 In Chiocci, F.L. & A.R. Chivas (Eds.) Continental shelves of the world: their evolution during the last glacio-eustatic cycle. Geological Society of London, 6th Nov 2014. 343 pp. Sparrow Decision (1990) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do Species at Risk Act (2002) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf Stanley, D.J., Swift, D.J.P., Silverberg, N., James, N.P. & R.G. Sutton (1972). Late quaternary progradation and sand spillover on the outer continental margin off Nova Scotia, Southeast Canada. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, Number 8. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. iv + 86 pp. The Federal Courts Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/ The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Senate http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Langu age=E&comm_id=1007 The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/FOPO/About Tupper, M. & R.G. Boutillier (1995). Effects of Habitat on Settlement, Growth and Post- Settlement Mortality of Atlantic Cod (Gadus Morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 1834–41.

UN (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf UN (1995) United Nations Fisheries Agreement (1995) (UNFA) http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 72 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendices

Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria

Figure 19. Graphic of MSC Principles and Criteria

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 73 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over- view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in Appendix 1.1 of this report. Alternately a more complete description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org).

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Status • The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. • Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). • Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management • There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. • There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. • Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. • The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species • Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 74 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery • There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. • Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species.

Habitat & Ecosystem • The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. • There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. • The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

Governance and policy • The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. • Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. • The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system • Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. • Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. • A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. • A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 75 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 The two UoC being re-assessed are geographically different but subject to the same approach to stock assessment and management and so the scoring rationales and scores apply to both UoCs.

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a It is likely that the It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of stock is above the stock is above the point certainty that the stock is point where where recruitment above the point where recruitment would be would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired.

impaired. Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Limit reference points have been defined for both Banquereau Bank and Grand Bank and the most recent estimate of harvestable stock (i.e. the biomass in areas with a density of at least 75 g/m2, which is a precautionary estimate of total biomass) demonstrates that the stock is well above the limit reference point on both banks. In addition for Banquereau Bank, the age and size at 50% maturity was determined to be 8.3 years and 45.2 mm shell length, respectively. The age of 50% maturity is below the age of 50% selectivity (15.3 years), indicating that the average surf clam will be able to spawn over a period of 7 years before being recruited to the fishery. This should help ensure that recruitment overfishing does not occur. For Grand Bank, the age of 50% maturity (5.3 years) is also well below the age of 50% selectivity (22.9 years), indicating that surf clams on Grand Bank mature at a younger and smaller size than on Banquereau Bank. Grand Bank surf

Justification clams are therefore able to spawn over a period of 17 years before recruiting to the fishery, which should help ensure that recruitment overfishing does not occur. Although stock surveys have not been carried out on either bank for some years, the most recent estimate of stock on Banquereau Bank is 2.83 times the limit reference point and on Grand Bank the most recent stock estimate is 4.06 times the limit reference point, and the landings have not exceeded the precautionary TACs on either banks in recent years. It can be concluded therefore that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired and therefore the SG100 is met. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference

Guidepost point, over recent years. Met? (Y) (N)

Justific Upper stock reference points of 0.8 x Bmsy have been defined for both ation Banquereau and Grand Banks, and the most recent estimate of harvestable stock (i.e. the biomass in areas with a density of at least 75 g/m2, which is a precautionary estimate of total biomass) demonstrates that the stock is above the upper reference point on both banks. As the upper reference point is set at 0.8 x Bmsy, it can be concluded that the stock is at or fluctuating around Bmsy. In addition annual quotas (TACs) for Grand Bank are based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). This results in a permitted annual harvest of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass. For both banks the landings have been below the TAC in every year (in fact, little fishing has occurred

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 76 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing at all on Grand Bank until 2016), and estimates of bank wide fishing mortality from Banquereau Bank are lower than the F that would equate to keeping the stock at Bmsy. The SG 80 is met therefore. As the stock surveys are conducted approximately every ten years, the state of the stocks are therefore monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These indicators are Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The trigger values for these stock indicators were set at levels consistent with previously observed stock levels when management intervention was not required. Recent values of these stock indicators for Banquereau Bank suggest that the stock may have declined, and until 2016 there has not been sufficient fishing on Grand Bank to obtain reliable estimates of these stock indicators. It cannot be concluded therefore that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years on either bank. SG100 is not met therefore.

References DFO 2007; DFO 2009a; DFO 2014; Roddick et al 2011, 2012; DFO 2016b.

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative

point point to reference point Target 0.8 x Bmsy Banquereau Bank Banquereau Bank reference 812,047 tonnes Biomass = 1,150,585 tonnes point Grand Bank = 1.13 x Bmsy 562,452 tonnes Grand Bank Biomass = 1,140,682 tonnes = 1.62 x Bmsy Limit 0.4 x Bmsy Banquereau Bank Banquereau Bank reference 406,024 tonnes Biomass = 2.83 x LRP point Grand Bank Grand Bank 281,226 tonnes Biomass = 4.06 x LRP Annual Banquereau Bank trigger CPUE 70 g/m2 95g/m2 = 1.36 x trigger value reference Spatial extent 254 km2 232 km2 = 0.91 x trigger value points Percentage of larger <1% of catch > 120 mm 1.94% = 1.94 x trigger value clams Note: 2015 data, as 2016 data still to be confirmed

Grand Bank CPUE 50 g/m2 Note: 2015 data, and up to Spatial extent 128 km2 2015 no recent reliable data available for Grand Bank. 2016 Percentage of larger <0.5% of catch > 105 data still to be confirmed. clams mm 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: (both UoCs) CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 77 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference points appropriate for the are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice

Guidepost appropriate for the species category. Met? (Y) (Y)

Consistent with DFO’s Precautionary Approach (PA), stock status of Arctic surf clam on Banquereau and Grand Bank is assessed through the evaluation of stock biomass against limit and upper reference points based on BMSY or a proxy of BMSY. The DFO PA defines the limit reference point (LRP) as the stock status below which serious harm is occurring to the stock, and the upper stock reference point (USR or URP) as the stock level below which removals must be progressively reduced in order to avoid reaching the LRP. Additionally a target reference point may be set at the level of the USR/URP or at a higher level. The DFO PA approach defines the LRP as the boundary between the critical and cautious stock zones, and the USR/URP as the boundary between the cautious and healthy stock zones.

The reference points were established based on a BMSY proxy of 1,015,059 tonnes for Banquereau and 703,065 tonnes for Grand Bank. The BMSY proxy was determined using fishable biomass per recruit and estimated average annual recruitment. Reference points were established using the default 80% and 40% of the BMSY proxy for the stock as specified under DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF). In addition to the limit and upper reference points, DFO sets the annual quotas

(TACs) for Grand Bank based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of Justification 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). This results in a permitted annual harvest of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass. The TAC on Banquereau Bank is set at a level lower than that based on the upper removal reference fishing mortality rate. As stock surveys are undertaken approximately every ten years, the state of the stocks are therefore monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These indicators are Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The trigger values for these stock indicators were set at levels consistent with previously observed stock levels when management intervention was not required. All of these reference points can be considered appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. The SG80 is met therefore. b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of

Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? (Y) (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 78 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

The limit reference point for the fishery has been set at 40% of the BMSY reference point, which is consistent with the DFO PA approach to fisheries management. The limit reference points are therefore set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The stock biomass estimates which are used to evaluate stock status in relation to the reference points are based on exploitable stock biomass i.e. the biomass in areas with a density of at least 75 g/m2. As the most recent stock surveys show that these stock biomass estimates

Justification cover only 49% (Grand Bank) and 91% (Banquereau) of the distribution of the stock, the assessment of stock status against the limit reference point can be considered to be precautionary. The SG100 is met therefore. c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is

stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant Guidepost outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Met? (Y) (N)

Within the DFO precautionary approach to fisheries management, upper stock reference points are generally set at 80% of BMSY, and in the absence of any specific target reference point, a management objective of maintaining the stock significantly above the upper stock reference point can be considered to be maintaining the stock at a level consistent with BMSY or its proxy. For the Banquereau and Grand Bank surf clam fishery, the Upper Reference Point has been set at 80% of the BMSY proxy estimated at 812,047 tonnes for Banquereau

Bank and 562,452 tonnes for Grand Bank.

In addition to the Bmsy target reference points, there is also an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). This results in a permitted annual harvest (TAC) of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass, and should act to

Justification maintain the stock at BMCY which is more precautionary than BMSY. The target reference points are therefore such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY, so the SG80 is met. The target reference points do not however take into account the relevant ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. For example, the genetic homogeneity between the Banquereau and Grand Bank populations indicates that there is some potential for gene flow between these regional components of the stock through larval transport, which could contribute to episodic recruitment events, and this is not taken into account. The SG100 is not met therefore. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 79 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) does not meet the criteria for low trophic level species as set out in paragraph CB2.3.13 of the MSC Certification

Requirements v1.3 (MSC 2013a). As such, this SI is not scored. Justification

References DFO 2009a; DFO 2014; Roddick et al 2011, 2012; MSC 2013a

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 80 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is strong expectation of evidence that rebuilding will be

Guidepost success, are in place. complete within the specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A

The stocks of Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) are not considered to be

depleted on either Banquereau or Grand Banks, and so this PI is not scored. Justification

b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable is specified for the is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that is depleted stock that is specified which does not

the shorter of 30 years the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2

Guidepost generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe is timeframe is up to 5 up to 5 years. years. Met? N/A N/A N/A

The stocks of Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) are not considered to be

depleted on either Banquereau or Grand Banks, and so this PI is not scored. Justification

c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance

Guidepost timeframe. that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A

The stocks of Arctic surf clam (Mactromeris polynyma) are not considered to be depleted on either Banquereau or Grand Banks, and so this PI is not scored.

Justification

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 81 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 82 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the

stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management Guidepost objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) Justifi The harvest strategy is underpinned by the Fisheries Act 1985, the Atlantic Fishery cation Regulations, 1985 and the Fishery (General) Regulations, 1983, and has been developed within the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF), which specifies the need to incorporate the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fishery management. The harvest strategy is set out in detail in the Offshore Clams Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) for the Maritimes and Newfoundland Region. The stated long-term objectives of the IFMP include: • Increase certainty that harvesting occurs at an optimum sustainable level to ensure the long-term viability of the resource • Enhance industry’s level of participation in the management of this resource to benefit Canadians • Maintain the long-term viability of the industry, and • Assess, evaluate and minimize any adverse environmental effects of the fishing methods on the habitat. The primary conservation and sustainability objectives of the IFMP is to ensure that a biologically and economically sustainable offshore clam fishery continues through the auspices of scientifically-based management plans involving collaborative enforcement, monitoring and regulatory measures. A further objective includes the continued cooperation between the licence holders and the Department in establishing ongoing management measures that will minimize impacts of harvesting on the habitat. In addition a Precautionary Approach Framework has been developed which provides a decision making process with rules which identify triggers and responses during periods of changing stock health. The key elements of the harvest strategy are: • Limited entry licensing of vessels • The gear used must be a hydraulic dredge as described in the IFMP • An annual TAC based on stock surveys and divided into Enterprise Allocations (EAs) to each licence holder • Bycatch limit of 10% of quahogs • Mandatory log book completion • A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on all vessels • 100% dockside monitoring of all landings • Biological reference points with associated harvest control rules (HCRs) The harvest strategy has been developed over a long period of time in response to Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 83 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

various management issues in an evolving fishery, and includes reference points and harvest control rules which specify what action should be taken if reference points are exceeded. The harvest strategy is therefore responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The SG100 is met. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest

likely to work based on may not have been strategy has been fully prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being

Guidepost objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

The harvest strategy appears to be achieving its objectives as the most recent stock surveys demonstrate that the harvestable stock biomass is well above Bmsy on both banks, and the annual stock indicators for Banquereau Bank have not exceeded their trigger values in recent years. The TACs have not been exceeded in recent years on either bank which implies that the upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) has not been exceeded, the fishery operates in only a very small area of the total distribution of surf clams on both banks, and there is no evidence of serial depletion. Annual production

Justification probably exceeds removals by the fishery and the stock is still at, or around, the virgin biomass. The SG80 is met therefore. However the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated through, for example, a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) and so the SG 100 is not met.

c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is

working. Guidepost

Met? (Y)

Stock biomass and structure are monitored through the collaborative stock surveys,

annual stock status is monitored through the fishery metrics of CPUE, spatial footprint of the fishery and the proportion of larger clams in the catch. Fishing activity is monitored through VMS on all vessels, there are occasional at-sea observers, there is 100% dockside monitoring of landings which provides evidence that the TAC has not been exceeded, and there have been no reports of non-

compliance in the fishery during or prior to its initial MSC certification. All of these Justification elements of the monitoring programme provide evidence that the harvest strategy is working. The SG60 is met.

d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and

improved as necessary. Guidepost

Met? (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 84 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

The IFMP was last updated in June 2014 and is considered to be an “evergreen” document in that it will be reviewed annually and amended as required. In addition there are two Advisory Committees (OCAC and OCMB) composed of the major stakeholders which act as the forum for suggesting and reviewing management

measures and recommendations to DFO.

In addition in 2015 DFO and OCAC commissioned external reviews of the science and management of the Arctic surf clam stocks. The harvest strategy was fully evaluated through these independent reviews and serial depletion was raised as a potential issue. The reviews identified several uncertainties in the data and

Justification recommended a spatial management approach to mitigate several of those uncertainties. As a result of these reviews, a Framework meeting was held in 2016 to evaluate alternative spatially-explicit assessment methodologies. These actions are demonstrative that the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and there is willingness and resources to improve it as necessary. The SG100 is met, therefore.

e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is

place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Sharks are not a target species in this fishery, so this scoring issue is not scored.

Justification

References DFO 2014; Roddick et al. 2011;2012; Hoenig 2015; Orensanz 2015; DFO 2016a.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 85 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in

place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce ensure that the the exploitation rate as exploitation rate is Guidepost limit reference points reduced as limit are approached. reference points are approached. Met? (Y) (Y) Justifi Upper (Target) and Limit reference points have been established for both the cation Banquereau and Grand Bank fisheries using a Precautionary Approach Framework and these, together with a series of harvest control rules, were formally incorporated into the IFMP in 2014. The harvest control rules set out strategies for managing the fisheries when the biomass is above the Upper Reference Point (URP), between the Limit Reference Point (LRP) and the URP, and below the LRP. Above the Upper Reference Point (URP): ➢ Measures should promote the biomass remaining above the URP ➢ The upper removal reference rate will be F=0.33M (0.0264) for the stock while it is in the healthy zone (i.e. above the Upper Reference Point). This removal reference is applied to the harvestable biomass >75g/m2. Between the Limit Reference Point (LPR) and the Upper Reference Point (URP): ➢ Fishing mortality will be reduced. ➢ Measures should promote the rebuilding of biomass towards the Upper Reference Point. ➢ The TAC should not be increased if this can reasonably be expected to result in declining trend in the biomass. ➢ Survey frequency will be re-examined in the context of increased risk to the stock. Below the Limit Reference Point (LRP): ➢ Fishing mortality will be reduced to the lowest practicable level ➢ If the stock falls below the proxy LRP research may be undertaken to better determine the true Limit Reference Point for this stock, the level below which reproductive success would be seriously impaired. In addition to the above harvest control rules, the TAC for the Grand Bank fishery is set using an upper reference fishing mortality (F) rate of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). This results in a permitted annual harvest of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass. (On Banquereau Bank, the TAC is set at a lower level than that indicated by the upper removal reference fishing mortality.) The TAC is set therefore in response to any changes in stock status as determined from the stock survey. It can be concluded therefore that there are well defined harvest control rules in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The SG80 is met. In addition to the formal HCRs, which are based on the stock surveys, in intervening years the state of the stocks are monitored annually by means of key

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 86 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These indicators are Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The trigger values for these stock indicators were set at levels consistent with previously observed stock levels when management intervention was not required.

b The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties.

main uncertainties. Guidepost Met? (Y) (N)

The stock assessments for Grand Bank and for Banquereau Bank form the scientific basis for the harvest strategy and identify the main uncertainties in this fishery. The harvest control rules are triggered when the estimated stock biomass drops below the Upper or Limit reference points which are based on estimates of Bmsy. However the stock surveys calculate harvestable biomass (i.e. the biomass in areas with a density of at least 75 g/m2) which provides a precautionary estimate of total biomass against which a decision will be made whether or not to trigger the harvest control rules. For Grand Bank, the biomass estimate assumes 100% dredge selectivity as dredge efficiency studies were unsuccessful in quantifying dredge selectivity. From a precautionary perspective, 100% dredge selectivity was assumed and therefore biomass is likely to be underestimated. On Banquereau Bank the biomass estimate assumes a dredge selectivity of 45%, but it is recognised that this value has wide confidence intervals. As the stock surveys are undertaken approximately only every ten years, there may be changes in stock status which go undetected. To guard against this uncertainty, the state of the stocks is therefore monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. The trigger values for these stock indicators were set at levels consistent with previously observed stock levels when

management intervention was not required.. Justification The HCR of setting the TAC based on an upper reference fishing mortality (F) rate of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY) is sensitive to estimates of the natural mortality rate (M). Given the importance of the estimate of natural mortality (M) in setting the target fishing mortality and TAC, this value has been scientifically determined and reviewed for both Banquereau and Grand Bank. These reports suggest a possible range but conclude that M=0.08 is a consistent and reasonable estimate of M on both banks, a conclusion that has also been supported through independent review. The HCRs therefore take the main uncertainties into account and so SG80 is met. There is however some potential for serial depletion to occur in the fisheries, and the harvest control rules do not take spatial variations in surf calm abundance and density into account. In addition there is some potential connectivity between stocks on the two banks which is not taken into account in the design of the harvest control rules. The SG100 is not met therefore. c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation levels harvest control rules and effective in required under the harvest are appropriate and achieving the control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 87 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

The main tools in use – limited licences, TAC, mandatory VMS, log books and 100% dockside monitoring and biological reference points based on BMSY – are appropriate and effective tools to ensure that exploitation rates remain at levels which should ensure that the biomass does not drop below the upper reference point. The most recent estimates of harvestable biomass are significantly above Bmsy, and log books and 100% dockside monitoring confirm that the TAC has not been exceeded in recent years confirming that the upper reference fishing mortality (F) rate has not been exceeded and that current fishing mortality rates should therefore ensure that the stock continues to fluctuate around BMSY. The available

Justification evidence indicates that the tools are effective and so SG80 is met, but the stock surveys for both banks are infrequent and the recent DFO Framework meeting concluded that the current frequency of stock assessments was considered too low, and it was recommended that the assessment schedule and the format of annual updates should be revisited. The SG100 is not met therefore.

DFO 2007; 2010; 2012; 2014; 2016b. Roddick et al. 2007; 2011; 2012; Orensanz References 2015.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 88 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure,

stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other available to support data is available to information such as

the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), Guidepost strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? (Y) Both UoCs (Y) Both UoCs (N) Both UoCs

Comprehensive fishery-independent scientific surveys of both banks have been carried out under Joint Project Agreements (JPAs) between the fishing industry and DFO. These surveys collect detailed information on stock structure, productivity, age structure, bycatch and other biological information. In 2012, the Arctic surf clam fishery was transitioned to a multi-year assessment approach because surf clams are sedentary species, the status of the stock is close to the initial stock biomass, and fishing effort is low, so the stock status does not vary significantly from year to year. Given the biology of the species, the large number of year classes present in the populations, and the current, conservative approach to harvesting, there is assumed to be a low risk to the current harvest strategy. However during the intervening years between stock surveys, fishery indicators defined in the IFMP are monitored annually by DFO to determine whether changes in the stock can be detected. Any change would trigger management actions, including the possibility of additional scientific surveys and assessments. The annual monitoring program for the status of the Arctic surf clam fishery is described in the document Offshore Surfclam Science Monitoring Program. Fishing location is monitored at high resolution via 100% VMS coverage, landings are subject to 100% dockside monitoring, there are mandatory log books and data are also collected each trip by crew and from time-to-time at-sea observers. Fleet composition is well understood as the fishery is limited to three licences and up to four vessels.

Justification For Banquereau Bank, the most recent stock survey was undertaken in 2010, a new stock assessment using commercial data will be undertaken in 2017, and fisheries-dependent stock indicators have been collected every year since the last stock survey. The SG80 is met, therefore, for Banquereau Bank. On Grand Bank, the most recent stock survey was undertaken between 2006 and 2009, and following minimal commercial fishing on the bank since 2006, the new vessel, Belle Carnell, has commenced fishing on the Grand Bank. Preliminary landings data for 2016, as indicated by the logbook data provided by industry to DFO Science, show that the fishery on the Grand Bank took 13,560 tonnes relative to a TAC of 14,756 tonnes in 2016, and reliable fisheries-dependent stock indicators have been collected again. The SG80 is met therefore for Grand Bank. Whilst detailed in their nature, the stock surveys are undertaken approximately only every ten years, and even taking into account the long-lived nature of the species, the information on stock structure, including the potential for local serial depletions and stock productivity, cannot be considered to be comprehensive. In addition, incidental mortality has been estimated and shown to reduce Fmax and F0.1 but the implications of incorporating incidental mortality into the process of setting TACs has not been evaluated. The SG100 is not met, therefore.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 89 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high frequency

one indicator is level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of Guidepost control rule. and monitored with assessment and management sufficient frequency to to this uncertainty. support the harvest control rule. Met? (Y) Both UoCs (Y) UoC 1 Banquereau (N) Both UoCs (N) UoC 2 Grand Bank Stock abundance is regularly monitored through stock surveys of both Banquereau and Grand Bank at a level of accuracy consistent with the harvest control rules in which stock biomass is assessed in relation to upper and lower reference points and the TAC is set based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality rate (F). In the years between stock surveys, catch indicators are monitored annually to provide early warning signs of declines in stock abundance. Landings are subject to 100% dockside monitoring. Regular reports of catch are forwarded to DFO throughout the fishing trip and fishing logs are provided at the end of each trip. Fishing location is monitored at high resolution via 100% VMS coverage, all of which provides evidence that fishery removals are rigorously monitored. For Banquereau Bank the most recent survey was undertaken in 2010 and a new stock assessment using commercial data is planned for 2017. Since the last stock survey, fisheries dependent data have been collected every year. The SG80 is met therefore for Banquereau Bank. For Grand Bank, there has been no stock survey since a multi-year survey commenced in 2006, and as yet there are no plans for another survey or a new assessment using commercial fisheries data as is the case for Banquereau Bank. The recent DFO Framework meeting concluded that the current frequency of stock assessments was considered too low, and it was

Justification recommended that the assessment schedule and the format of annual updates should be revisited. With no stock survey or alternative assessment approach planned for Grand Bank in the near future, the assessment team concluded that stock abundance indicators on Grand Bank are not monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The SG80 is not met therefore for Grand Bank. Recent external reviews and a framework meeting concluded that stock surveys should be conducted on a more regular basis, and that the stock survey estimates of harvestable biomass are subject to some uncertainty due to limited knowledge of dredge efficiency (see recommendation under PI 1.2.4). There are also uncertainties about the potential of serial depletion of surf clams in high density areas, and there is therefore a limited understanding of the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. The SG100 is not met, therefore, for both Banquereau and Grand Bank.

c There is good information on all other fishery removals from

the stock. Guidepost Met? (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 90 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

All fisheries in the area are subject to 100% dockside monitoring which provides evidence that no other fisheries remove significant quantities of Arctic surf clam from either Banquereau or Grand Bank. The SG80 is met.

Justification

References DFO 2013; 2014; Roddick et al 2007; 2011, 2012; Dockside monitoring programme. 80 UoC 1 (Banquereau) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 UoC 2 (Grand Bank) CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 91 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the harvest stock and for the control rule and takes into harvest control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the

Guidepost species and the nature of the fishery. Met? (Y) (N)

The key element of the stock assessment is the estimation of harvestable stock biomass from a detailed stock survey carried out on both Banquereau and Grand Banks. The confidence intervals around the biomass estimates are low for Grand Bank, but for Banquereau Bank the biomass estimate took into account dredge efficiency, and uncertainty around the dredge efficiency produced a biomass estimate with wider confidence intervals. The survey also provides information on length and age frequencies and estimates of recruitment, and the age at maturity, maximum biomass per recruit, and size and age of selectivity by the gear are also known. On Grand Bank, the estimate of harvestable biomass is used to set an annual TAC based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) designed to achieve Maximum Constant Yield (MCY). This results in a permitted annual harvest of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass. On Banquereau Bank, the TAC is set at a lower level than that indicated

by the upper removal reference fishing mortality. The estimate of harvestable biomass on each bank is then reviewed in relation to Bmsy proxy reference points which were determined using fishable biomass per recruit and estimated average annual recruitment, and which provide the trigger levels for the harvest control rules. The assessment is therefore appropriate to the harvest control rules, and the

SG80 is met. Justification Stock surveys are undertaken approximately every ten years, and in the intervening years, the stock is monitored annually by means of key indicators (CPUE, fishery footprint, abundance of larger clams) with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These trigger levels have been set to maintain stock status in the healthy zone and serve as an early warning of changes in the stock that require further examination of the data, additional surveys or other management actions. However recent peer reviews of the assessment process suggest that even for such a long-lived species with multiple age-classes and regular recruitment, stock surveys should be conducted more frequently. In addition with a sedentary species such as Arctic clam, a spatially-explicit assessment methodology may be considered to be more appropriate. The SG100 is not met, therefore. It is recommended that further studies are carried out to estimate efficiency of the dredge used during the stock surveys.

b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference

points. Guidepost Met? (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 92 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

The assessment undertakes detailed stock surveys of both Banquereau and Grand Banks which provide estimates of the harvestable biomass, and these estimates are used to define stock status relative to BMSY limit and upper reference points. Based on estimated stock biomass from surveys, there is also an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) which results in a permitted annual harvest (TAC) of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass on Grand Bank. (This method has not yet been used to set a TAC on Banquereau Bank, but the current TAC is lower than that calculated using the upper removal reference fishing mortality.) Annual landings data and estimated harvestable stock biomass from the stock surveys allow a calculation of F relative to this upper

removal reference fishing mortality (F). Justification As stock surveys are conducted approximately every 10 years, in the intervening years the state of the stocks are therefore monitored annually by means of key indicators, with established trigger levels to detect changes in stock status. These indicators are Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), the spatial extent or footprint of the fishery and the abundance of older/larger clams in the catch. The SG60 is met therefore.

c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a

Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

The stock surveys estimate harvestable stock biomass with confidence intervals. These confidence intervals are narrow for the Grand Bank stock survey, but wider for the Banquereau Bank survey where dredge efficiency is included in the estimation. The stock surveys estimate harvestable biomass, i.e. biomass in areas where the density is greater than 75 g/m2 and therefore the evaluation of stock biomass against the Bmsy reference points is inherently precautionary. One of the main uncertainties in mollusc population estimates is the observed significant variation in recruitment. The stock surveys provide both length and age- distributions and therefore provide information on recruitment patterns in the

tion fishery. As Arctic surf clam is a slow-growing, long-lived sessile species, variations in recruitment do not drive stock dynamics in the way that they may do for species with shorter life spans. The calculation of TAC for the stocks is based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality (F) of 0.33 x the natural mortality rate (M) which Justifica results in a permitted annual harvest (TAC) of 2.64% of the estimated harvestable biomass on Grand Bank. The TAC is sensitive therefore to uncertainty around the value of M, and Roddick et al. (2012) used three separate methods of estimating M, all of which support the estimate of M=0.08 used in the assessments for the two banks. Whilst the assessment takes uncertainty into account and the SG80 is met, it cannot be concluded that the assessment fully takes uncertainty into account in evaluating stock status in a probabilistic way, and therefore the SG100 is not met.

d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have

been rigorously explored. Guidepost Met? (N)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 93 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Whilst the current assessment method has appeared to be robust in recent years, it is clear that serial local depletion could be a concern in this fishery and therefore alternative spatial assessment approaches may well be more appropriate than the current method of restricting the fishing mortality over each bank to a small fraction of the natural mortality rate by using biomass estimates only from areas with commercially viable densities. However such spatial assessment approaches have

Justification only recently been investigated and cannot be said to have been “rigorously explored”. The SG100 is not met therefore.

e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer

to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y)

The assessment of stock status of the Arctic surf clam stocks is subject to rigorous internal and external peer review. The Framework Process is the mechanism whereby the scientific assumptions and data inputs underlying the management of the fishery are assessed. The Regional Assessment Process (RAP) is the process, guided by the Framework, for coalescing scientific advice that then feeds into management decisions. Sources of uncertainty are addressed in the RAP and taken into consideration when deciding management advice, which governs the harvest strategy. The RAP includes peer review and is open to participants other than those directly involved in the management or prosecution of the fishery Additionally Science Responses can also be used to provide greater clarity. Management decisions are made by DFO with OCMB and OCAC. The OCAC has standing members external to the fishery and is attended by observers.

In addition in 2015 DFO and OCAC commissioned external reviews of the science and management of the Arctic surf clam stocks. The science review evaluated the adequacy of data inputs, analysis of the data, and interpretation of assessment results by DFO staff. The management report was commissioned to determine if the interpretation of assessment information was appropriate, whether harvest

Justification levels (TACs) were consistent with internal policy, and whether the advice was objective. This report identified several uncertainties in the data and recommended a spatial management approach to mitigate several of those uncertainties. Together, these independent reports provide reasonable confidence in the capacity of DFO scientists and managers to continue to competently manage the fishery under DFO’s Precautionary Approach Framework. A framework meeting for the surf clam fishery took place in June 2016 with participation from DFO scientists and managers in both Newfoundland and Maritimes Region, external peer reviewers, and interested stakeholders. Its purpose was to assess alternative assessment methodologies and to increase the spatial resolution of the assessment to focus on fished areas. It can be concluded therefore that the assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed, and so the SG100 is met.

References DFO 2007; 2010; 2012; Hoenig 2015; Orensanz 2015; DFO 2106a; OCAC minutes.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 94 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 The two UoCs being re-assessed are geographically distinct and some differences exist between the bycatch profiles of the two fisheries. As such, scoring is conducted separately where appropriate, but some text is also shared. The intent is to make any distinctions clear throughout the scoring of P2.

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c below). to scoring issue c their target reference points.

Guidepost below). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N) Justifi The catch of species other than Arctic surfclam that may be retained in the Arctic cation surfclam fishery is limited by licence conditions to northern propellerclam, Greenland cockle and ocean quahog (DFO 2016f). Banquereau Based on observer data from samples collected over the 2011-2015 period, northern propellerclam (11.2% of total catch) qualifies as a main retained species, and Greenland cockle (2.1% of total catch) qualifies as a minor retained species. Ocean quahog was taken in negligible quanitites on Banquereau and is not considered further. Northern propellerclam is widely distributed across the North Atlantic from Cape Cod to Norway, and maturation occurs relatively early at 4.7 years of age or 28.6 mm shell length (Kilada et al. 2009). This size is likely to be well below the size of selection in the Arctic surfclam fishery, where the bar spacing in the hydraulic dredges is 25mm, because of the selectivity acting across the height of the animals rather than the shell length. There is no specific targeting of northern propellerclam on Banquereau. Greenland cockles have been studied relatively little, although they are known to have a circum-polar distribution in the northern hemisphere. It is estimated that this species matures at a minimum size and age of 28 mm and 2.8 years for males, and 37 mm and 3.7 years for females (Kilada et al. 2007). This is likely to be well below the size at which they would be selected by the commercial Arctic surfclam fishery, again because of the selectivity acting across the height of the animals rather than the shell length. While Greenland cockles have at times been targeted in the fishery (Roddick et al. 2011), there is no current fishery for Greenland cockle on the Scotian Shelf. While the Banquereau fishery has only a minimal impact on any retained species, and it is highly likely that all retained species are within biologically based limits, in the absence of target reference points it is not possible for the fishery to score higher than 80 for this SI. Grand Bank No recent catch data are available from Grand Bank because until 2016 the fishery has not operated at a significant level for some years. However, observer data from 2002-2009 show that the northern propellerclam (18.3% of total catch) and Greenland cockle (21.1% of total catch) both qualify as main retained species, and ocean quahog (0.3% of total catch) qualifies as a minor retained species. Northern propellerclam is a long-lived, slow-growing species, and analysis of commercial catches from Grand Bank showed that the population is dominated by old animals up to more than 100 years of age.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 95 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Ocean quahog is spatially distributed away from Arctic surfclam on Grand Bank (Figure 18, and Roddick et al. 2011), and this species is widely distributed in the North Atlantic. The ocean quahog stock on nearby Sable Bank exceeds 1,300,000 t (DFO 2007a). The Grand Bank stock of ocean quahog is not subjected to targeted fishing. The same information for Greenland cockle that applies to Banquereau also applies to Grand Bank. As for Banquereau, while the Grand Bank fishery has only a minimal impact on any retained species and it is highly likely that all retained species are within biologically based limits, in the absence of target reference points it is not possible for the fishery to score higher than 80 for this SI.

b Target reference points are

defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (N)

Target reference points are not defined for any of the retained species, and so neither the Banquereau nor the Grand Bank fishery meets this SG100 level

requirement. Justification c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the

the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to ensure demonstrably effective that the fishery does management measures not hinder recovery in place such that the Guidepost and rebuilding of the fishery does not hinder depleted species. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Main retained species for both Banquereau and Grand Bank are highly likely to be

within biologically based limits. This SI is met at SG80. Justification d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or

Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 96 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1

retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

Sufficient information is known on the relative status of northern propellerclam, Greenland cockle and ocean quahog to be confident that it is highly likely that the

fishery has only a minimal impact on this species. This SG60 requirement is met. Justification

References DFO 2016f, Roddick et al. 2011,

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 97 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically

Guidepost limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For Banquereau, northern propellerclam is a main retained species, and Greenland cockle is a minor retained species. For Grand Bank, northern propellerclam and Greenland cockle are main retained species, and ocean quahog is a minor retained species. The bar spacing employed in the dredges ensures that northern propellerclam and Greenland cockle are unlikely to be selected for in the Arctic surfclam fishery until well after they have matured. Maturity data on ocean quahog suggest that some individuals may be below the age of first maturity when first selected (DFO 2007a), but the stock on the Grand Bank is spatially located away from Arctic surfclam (Figure 18, and Roddick et al. 2011). The fishery has not operated at capacity on Grand Bank in recent years, but the Banquereau fishery covered only around 1.5% of the Arctic surfclam habitat annually in recent years. These features constitute a Justification partial strategy to manage retained species bycatch. Observer data from the fishery, as well as biological data collected during surveys, provide evidence that the catches are being maintained at a low level and the stocks of retained species are highly unlikely to have been impacted significantly by the fishery. Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG80. SG100 would require a full strategy for managing retained species to be in place, and this is not the case. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g., general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly

Guidepost comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved. fisheries/species). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 98 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Species specific data on maturation size and stock distribution for northern

propellerclam, Greenland cockle and ocean quahog, showing that these species are able to mature before being captured and/or are widely distributed, typically away from Arctic surfclam, as well as data showing that annual fishing effort is very low in comparison to the fishable area, provide objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG80 is met.

Justification In the absence of a strategy to manage retained species (i.e., SIa was scored 80 not 100), the fishery cannot meet SG100. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented

successfully. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Bar spacing of the clam deredges is set to optimise the Arctic surfclam catch rate and miniise bycatch of non-surfclam species, and there is detailed information on the area of Banquereau and Grand Bank that is fished, annually. SG80 is met. In the absence of a strategy to manage retained species (i.e., SIa was scored 80

not 100), the fishery cannot meet SG100. Justification

d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its

overall objective. Guidepost

Met? Banquereau – (N)

Grand Bank – (N)

In the absence of a strategy to manage retained species (i.e., SIa was scored 80

not 100), the fishery cannot meet this SG100 level requirement. Justification

e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is

place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? (Not relevant) (Not relevant) (Not relevant)

No sharks are retained (or taken) in the Banquereau or Grand bank fishery, and so

this SI is scored ‘not relevant’. Justification

References DFO 2007a, Roddick et al. 2011.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: (Banquereau): 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 80

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 99 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 100 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all retained species retained species taken available on the and the consequences for the by the fishery. amount of main status of affected populations. retained species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For Banquereau, northern propellerclam is a main retained species, and Greenland cockle is a minor retained species. For Grand Bank, northern propellerclam and Greenland cockle are main retained species, and ocean quahog is a minor retained species. Banquereau Arctic surfclam fishing vessels are monitored continuously with VMS, and dockside monitoring occurs at all landings. Observer data provide information on all catches, based on samples taken during one or two trips per year. No detailed stock assessment data are available to assess the impacts of the fishery on the retained species, but the information on size at maturity and age structure in the stocks (e.g. Northern propellerclam- Kilada et al. 2009, Greenland cockle – Kilada et al. 2007), and/or habitat preferences of the different species (e.g., ocean quahog – Roddick et al. 2011), as well as the swept area of the fishery (DFO 2014c), provide hgh confidence that the Banquereau Arctic surfclam fishery does not pose a risk to stocks of retained species. It is considered that Banquereau meets SG100. Grand Bank

The information available for the Grand Bank fishery is very similar as that for the Banquereau fishery, but it is noted that there are no representative commercial catch data for the recent period. As such, while there are quantitative information available, and it is highly likely that the fishery poses no risk to stocks of retained species, it is not considered accurate and verifiable in the same way as the

information for Banquereau. Grand Bank meets SG80. Justification b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess status with respect to status with a high degree of outcome status with biologically based certainty. respect to biologically limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N) Just Banquereau ifica tion Information on size at maturity and age structure in the stocks (e.g. Northern propellerclam- Kilada et al. 2009, Greenland cockle – Kilada et al. 2007), and/or habitat preferences of the different species (e.g., ocean quahog – Roddick et al. 2011), as well as the swept area of the fishery (DFO 2014c), is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. It is considered that Banquereau meets SG100. Grand Bank The information available for the Grand Bank fishery is very similar as that for the

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 101 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Banquereau fishery, but in the absence of catch data from the recent period it is not possible to say that information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. Nevertheless, Grand Bank meets SG80. c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate main retained species. main retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

For both Banquereau and Grand Bank, information on size at maturity and age

structure in the stocks (e.g. Northern propellerclam- Kilada et al. 2009, Greenland cockle – Kilada et al. 2007) and/or habitat preferences of the different species (e.g., ocean quahog – Roddick et al. 2011), as well as the swept area of the fishery (DFO 2014c), is adequate to support a strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective (for

example, of keeping retained catch levels within particular bounds and ensuring Justification catches are sustainable). It is considered that Banquereau and Grand Bank both meet SG100. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species to be collected to is conducted in sufficient detail

detect any increase in to assess ongoing mortalities to risk level (e.g. due to all retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation Guidepost of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For both Banquereau and Grand Bank, data on catches and fished area continue to be collected and are certainly sufficient to detect any increase in risk level for retained species. However, it is not clear that mortality rates for discards or for individuals that pass under the dredge head or through the bars of the dredge are

estimated. SG80 is met, but SG100 is not for both areas. Justification

References DFO 2014c, Kilada et al. 2007, Kilada et al. 2009, Roddick et al. 2011.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 95

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 102 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b

Guidepost below). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Just The catch of species other than Arctic surfclam that may be retained in the Arctic ifica surfclam fishery is limited by licence conditions to northern propellerclam, tion Greenland cockle and ocean quahog (DFO 2016f). As such, all other species taken in the fishery are treated as bycatch. Banquereau Based on observer data from samples collected over the 2011-2015 period, sand dollar – Echinarachnius parma (9.3% of total catch) qualifies as a main bycatch species, and whelk – species not specified (0.7% of total catch) qualifies as a minor bycatch species. All other bycatch species were taken in negligible quanitites on Banquereau and are not considered further. The sand dollar E. parma is a very widespread species, with a circum-polar distribution in the northern hemisphere (Mooi & Telford 1982). It is known to be common in areas of the Scotian shelf with fine and medium-grained sands (Breeze et al. 2002). In addition, only 1.5% of the Arctic surfclam habitat is fished annually on Banquereau (and the rest of the Scotian Shelf is not fished by the fishery), and there is no indication that the E. parma population has been impacted significantly over time (DFO, pers. comm.). Gilkinson et al. (2005) reported little or no change in abundance of E. parma immediately post experimental dredging on Banquereau. Whelk (almost certainly mainly Buccinum undatum) are also widely distributed in the North Atlantic, but this species occurs in greatest densities at a depth of 15 - 30 m (DFO 2009c), which is shallower than the depth at which the Arctic surfclam fishery occurs. Again, given the small area of the bank that is fished annually, the Arctic surfclam fishery is very unlikely to pose a threat to this species. Overall, given the nature of the fishery and the wide distribution of the species, it is considered that there is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits, and so Banquereau meets SG100 for this SI. Grand Bank No recent catch data are available from Grand Bank because until 2016 the fishery has not operated at a significant level for some years. However, observer data from 2002-2009 show that the sand dollar – E. parma (19.0% of total catch) qualifies as main bycatch species, and Cancer spp. crabs (0.5% of total catch), Asterias spp. starfish (0.3% of total catch) and Buccinum spp. whelk (0.2% of total catch) qualify as minor bycatch species. Using the same justification as for Banquereau, there is a high degree of certainty that sand dollars are within biologically based limits for Grand Bank. Cancer crabs, Asterias starfish and Buccinum whelk species are all common within Atlantic Canada and are widely distributed. Again, given the area of the Grand Bank that is fished (even at full exploitation), there is a high degree of certainty that these species are within biologically based limits. Overall, Grand Bank meets SG100 for this SI.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 103 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and

Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The main bycatch species for both Banquereau and Grand Bank (E. parma, only) is

highly likely to be within biologically based limits. This SI is met at SG80. Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or

Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Sufficient information is known on the relative status of E. parma to be confident that it is highly likely that the fishery has only a minimal impact on this species. This

SG60 requirement is met. Justification

References Breeze et al. 2002, DFO 2009c, Gilkinson et al. 2005, Mooi & Telford 1982.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 104 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not hinder ensure the fishery does their recovery and not hinder their rebuilding. recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For Banquereau, sand dollar (E. parma) is a main bycatch species, and whelk is a minor bycatch species. For Grand Bank, sand dollar (E. parma) is a main bycatch species, and Cancer crabs, Asterias starfish and Buccinum whelks are minor

bycatch species.

The bar spacing employed in the dredges reduces the potential for sand dollars to be selected for, but their flattened shape ensures that some are taken. Nevertheless, E. parma has a circumpolar distribution in the northern hemisphere (Mooi & Telford 1982), and the Banquereau fishery has covered only around 1.5%

of the Arctic surfclam habitat annually (DFO 2014c). While the fishery has not Justification operated at capacity on Grand Bank in recent years, the low annual coverage in this fishery also constitutes a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG80. SG100 would require a full strategy for managing bycatch species to be in place, and this is not the case. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly

Guidepost comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved. fisheries/species). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

E. parma is a very widespread species (Mooi & Telford 1982). Data showing that annual fishing effort is very low in comparison to the fishable area (DFO 2014c) provide objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG80 is met. In the absence of a strategy to manage bycatch species (i.e., SIa was scored 80

not 100), the fishery cannot meet SG100. Justification

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 105 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations

c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented

successfully. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

There is detailed information on the area of Banquereau and Grand Bank that is fished, annually, showing that the fishery occurs in only a very small proportion of the Arctic surfclam habitat (DFO 2014c) (and therefore an even small proporton of either bank in total). SG80 is met. In the absence of a strategy to manage bycatch species (i.e., SIa was scored 80 Justification not 100), the fishery cannot meet SG100.

d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its

overall objective. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (N)

In the absence of a strategy to manage bycatch species (i.e., SIa was scored 80

not 100), the fishery cannot meet this SG100 level requirement. Justification

References DFO 2014c, Mooi & Telford 1982

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 106 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all bycatch species and bycatch species taken available on the the consequences for the by the fishery. amount of main status of affected populations. bycatch species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For Banquereau, sand dollar (E. parma) is a main bycatch species, and whelk is a minor bycatch species. For Grand Bank, sand dollar (E. parma) is a main bycatch species, and Cancer crabs, Asterias starfish and Buccinum whelks are minor bycatch species. Banquereau

Observer data provide quantitative information on all catches, based on samples taken during one or two trips per year. The annually fished area of the Arctic surfclam habitat on Banquereau has averaged just 1.5% in recent years, and there is therefore considered to be high confidence that the fishery poses no risk to stocks of bycatch species. Banquereau meets SG100.

Justification Grand Bank The information available for the Grand Bank fishery is very similar as that for the Banquereau fishery, but it is noted that there are no representative commercial catch data for the recent period. As such, while there are quantitative information available, and it is highly likely that the fishery poses no risk to stocks of bycatch species, it is not considered accurate and verifiable in the same way as the information for Banquereau. Grand Bank meets SG80. b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome understand outcome status with respect to status with respect to status with respect to biologically based biologically based limits with a biologically based limits. high degree of certainty.

Guidepost limits Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Information on the circumpolar distribution of E. parma (Mooi & Telford 1982) together with detailed data on the area of the banks fished annually (DFO 2014c) is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Both

Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG80. Justification c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage bycatch species, and evaluate bycatch. main bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 107 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

For both Banquereau and Grand Bank, information on the swept area of the fishery (DFO 2014c), is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species (E. parma). It is considered that Banquereau and Grand Bank both meet SG80. There is insufficient biological information available on E. parma and other

minor bycatch species to score the fisheries higher. Justification d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to conducted in sufficient detail to detect any increase in assess ongoing mortalities to risk to main bycatch all bycatch species. species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator

Guidepost scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

For both Banquereau and Grand Bank, data on catches and fished area continue to be collected and are certainly sufficient to detect any increase in risk level for bycatch species. However, it is not clear that mortality rates for discards or for individuals that pass under the dredge head or through the bars of the dredge are

estimated. SG80 is met, but SG100 is not for both areas. Justification

References DFO 2014c, Mooi & Telford 1982.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 85

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 108 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of

fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of national are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of and international within limits of national national and international requirements for and international requirements for protection of protection of ETP requirements for ETP species. Guidepost species. protection of ETP species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

A variety of ETP species are known to occur in the Banquereau and Grand Bank areas, including cetacean and turtle species, as well as Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) that are classified as ETP species through their listing on schedule 1 of the SARA.

Justification However, there are no relevant defined ‘limits’ for protection of these species, and so this SI is not scored.

b Known direct effects Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of are unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts unacceptable impacts significant detrimental direct to ETP species. to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP

species. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The ETP species that are known to occur in the Banquereau and Grand Bank areas are either too large and fast moving to interact in any significant way with the dredges employed in the Arctic surfclam fishery (i.e., cetaceans and turtles will not fit in to the mouth of the dredge, which in any case moves at a speed of ≤2 knots)

or their centres of distribution are located away from areas that are targeted by the fishery on Banquereau and Grand Bank (i..e, the three wolffish species are more common at deeper or much deeper depths than are fished, and on rocky bottoms that cannot be fished) (Kulka et al. 2007). Observer data show no captures of ETP species (e.g., Banquereau – Table 16,

Justification Grand Bank – Table 17), and SARA logs data show no interactions between the fishery and ETP species for 2014 and 2015 (DFO 2016e). There is considered to be a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species, and so SG100 is met on both Banquereau and Grand Bank. c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP

unacceptable impacts. species. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 109 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species The Banquereau and Grand bank fisheries are conducted in relatively small areas, and are undertaken with gear that is towed at slow speed. The target, retained and main bycatch species are not key prey items for any ETP species. As such, the only plausible indirect impact to ETP species could be the disturbance/destruction of wolffish nesting sites by the activity of the dredge on the seabed, but all three wolffish species are more common at deeper or much deeper depths than are

fished, and on rocky bottoms that cannot be fished) (Kulka et al. 2007). Justification Overall, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species, and so SG100 is met.

References DFO 2016e, Kulka et al. 2007.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 110 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP managing the fishery’s

species, and are species, including impact on ETP species, expected to be highly measures to minimise including measures to likely to achieve mortality, which is minimise mortality, which is national and designed to be highly designed to achieve above international likely to achieve national national and international Guidepost requirements for the and international requirements for the protection of ETP requirements for the protection of ETP species. species. protection of ETP species. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

A variety of ETP species are known to occur in the Banquereau and Grand Bank areas, including cetacean and turtle species, as well as Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) that are classified as ETP species through their listing on schedule 1 of the SARA. The hydraulic dredge gear employed in the Banquereau and Grand Bank Arctic surfclam fishery has a very low and narrow mouth opening, such that the potential for large ETP species, such as cetaceans or turtles, to be impacted appears to be almost non-existent. There is no reason to suspect that ETP seabirds are impacted in any way by the fishery. Also, the gear can only be operated efficiently on well- sorted sandy sediments; in order to ensure the gear is only used on suitable sediments, the vessels are equipped with Roxanne seabed discrimination systems

(CSLP, pers. comm.). As such, and because the Arctic surfclam fishery occurs in shallower waters than the main areas of wolffish abundance, while wolffish also prefer to spawn in rocky substrates (Kulka et al. 2007), the potential for the fishery to impact wolffish or their habitat is very limited. Observer data showing no catches of ETP speices in the Arctic surfclam fishery support these assertions (Table 16,

Justification Table 17). The offshore clam IFMP (DFO 2014a) mirrors the SARA (2002) requirements, that the offshore clam fishery participants take all feasible measures to minimize the impact on listed species and their residences, and that the survival or recovery of listed species will not be jeopardized (DFO 2014a). This is mirrored in licence conditions for the fishery, which require Northern wolffish, spotted wolffish and leatherback turtles to be returned to the place from which they were taken, and where they are alive, in a manner that causes the least harm (DFO 2016f). Licence conditions also require that SARA logbooks are required to be completed to record interactions. These features of the fishery can be regarded as a strategy for managing the fishery's impact on ETP species – SG80 is met. The lack of comprehensive observer coverage prevents the fishery scoring 100.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 111 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species involved, plausible argument work, based on and a quantitative analysis (e.g., general information directly supports high confidence that experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the strategy will work.

Guidepost comparison with the species involved. similar fisheries/species). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

The gear type and useage and the known distribution of ETP species (particularly wolffish) provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy to minimise the potential for the fishery to impact ETP species will work. SG80 is met. The Assessment Team is not aware of a quantitative analysis having been undertaken to support the strategy, however, that would allow the Banquereau or Grand Bank

Justification to meet 100.

c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully.

successfully. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

The strategy to minimise the potential for the fishery to impact ETP species includes the requirement to return ETP species to the place from which they were taken, and where they are alive, in a manner that causes the least harm, as well as to record interactions on the SARA logsheet (DFO 2016f). Fishing occurs on sandy sediments rather than in rocky areas, which minimises the potential for interactiosn

with wolffish species. The fishery meets SG80, but the lack of comprehensive Justification observer data prevents the fishery from scoring 100, here.

d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its

objective. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Albeit that the observer coverage of the Banquereau and Grand Bank fisheries is not comprehensive, observer data and SARA data together provide evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective of minimising the potential for the fishery to impact ETP species. This SG100 requitrement is met.

Justification

References DFO 2014a, DFO 2016f, Kulka et al. 2007, SARA 2002.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 85

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 112 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP PI 2.3.2 species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 113 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome estimate the fishery fishery related mortality status of ETP species with a related mortality of and the impact of high degree of certainty. ETP species. fishing to be

Guidepost quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

A variety of ETP species are known to occur in the Banquereau and Grand Bank areas, including cetacean and turtle species, as well as Northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus), spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) and Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) that are classified as ETP species through their listing on schedule 1 of the SARA. For both Banquereau and Grand Bank, observer data showing zero catches of ETP species in the Arctic surfclam fishery (Table 16, Table 17), together with SARA

Justification logsheet data that also show zero captures in the Arctic surfclam fishery for 2014- 2015 (DFO 2016e), provide sufficient information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated. SG80 is met, but the lack of comprehensive observer data prevents the fishery from meeting SG100. b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Similar to SIa, for both Banquereau and Grand Bank, observer data showing zero catches of ETP species in the Arctic surfclam fishery (Table 16, Table 17), together with SARA logsheet data that also show zero captures in the Arctic surfclam fishery for 2014-2015 (DFO 2016e), provide sufficient information to determine that the fishery is not a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG80 is met, but the lack of comprehensive observer data and an unknwn level of unobserved

Justification interactions (which appear highly likely to be negligible) prevents the fishery from meeting SG100. c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to

adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP to manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty Guidepost whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 114 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Observer data and SARA logsheet data on ETP species together provide information that is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. SG80 is met, but the Assessment Team is not aware of an evaluation having been undertaken that would allow the fishery to meet

SG100. Justification

References DFO 2016e

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 115 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible

Guidepost irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Arctic surfclam dredges are designed to target surfclams to a depth within the sediment of at least 18 - 20 cm, at a speed of 2 knots. Because of this mode of operation, hydraulic dredges can only be used effectively in non-compacted soft sediments, and Arctic surfclam vessels are equipped with ground discrimination equipment to ensure the vessels stay away from seabed types that are likely to be less productive or might damage the gear. The commercially exploited Arctic surfclam beds on Banquereau and Grand Bank are found in depths of ≤ 70 m, and while the banks are subject to low to moderate strength tidal currents, natural perturbation from storms occurs and so the surficial sediments are well or very well sorted (Stanley et al. 1972, Shaw et al. 2014, Gilkinson et al. 2014). For the purpose of the MSC assessment, the main (and only) habitat on both banks is therefore considered to be well-sorted sand. In order to determine the impact of the Arctic surfclam fishery on offshore banks, a dredge impact study was started on Banquereau in 1998, and repeat surveys have been undertaken to assess recovery. Visual evidence of the experimental dredge tracks had disappeared after one year (Gilkinson et al. 2005), and, while side-scan sonar was still barely able to detect dredge tracks after 10 years, with minor exceptions it appeared that the sediment properties at the experimental site had

returned to pre-dredging conditions 10 years after dredging (Gilkinson et al., 2014). Gilkinson et al 2005 also looked at benthic community recovery, and noted that two years after dredging, the populations of non-target species had shfted to higher levels of abundance. They considered that recovery (albeit possibly at a new equilibrium state) was well underway. Gilkinson et al. (2014) reported that the

Justification populations of the four commercial bivalves (Arctic surfclam, northern propeller clam, ocean quahog and Greenland cockle) had not recovered in the dredged areas after 10 years, but also that there had been no significant recruitment in undredged reference areas during that period. These authors concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that lack of recruitment in these species was due to a dredging effect. The total area of Banquereau between 40 m and 100 m depth that comprises habitat suitable for Arctic surfclam is approximately 10,180 km2 (DFO 2007a). In turn, DFO (2014c) reported that the annual swept area of the fishery on Banquereau has averaged 150.1 km2 annually for the period 2000-2013 inclusive ( 1.5% of the total surfclam habitat dredged per year). The Grand Bank fishery for Arctic surfclam has not been prosecuted intensively for some years, but the Arctic surfclam habitat on Grand Bank is estimated to comprise just less than 50,000 km2 (DFO 2010a), indicating that the fishery would be very spatially limited, even if fully prosecuted. The extent of any impacts are therefore spatially extremely limited. Overall, it is considered that there is evidence that the fisheries on both Banquereau and Grand Bank is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, and a score of 100 is attained.

References DFO 2007a, DFO 2010a, DFO 2014c, Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson et al. 2014,

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 116 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Stanley et al. 1972, Shaw et al. 2014.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 117 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of performance

Guidepost or above. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Just Hydraulic dredging can only be undertaken in sandy sediments, and the fishery ifica takes place in relatively shallow water of less than 70 m depth that is subject to tion natural perturbation (Gilkinson et al. 2014). Arctic surfclam fishing vessels utilise ground discrimination gear to ensure the dredges are used in areas that are appropriate for Arctic surfclams (CSLP, pers. comm.), while the client has also developed a detailed, multibeam bathymetric survey of Banquereau with further work completed on Grand Bank in 2016, allowing fishing sites to be targeted with high precision; fished areas are left fallow for approximately 10 years before being fished again (Client, pers. comm.). Importantly, experimental dredge impact work on Banquereau has provided data showing recovery of the seabed habitat within about 10 years (Gilkinson et al. 2014), although this is likely to be a worst case scenario, and recovery has been shown to be faster at shallower depths on Sable Bank (Gilkinson et al. 2005). The annual swept area of the fishery is restricted in part by the TAC; the Grand Bank fishery has not been fully prosecuted in recent years, but while the TAC is set at the current level, the area of Banquereau that is fished is unlikely to increase significantly from its current level of approximately 1.5% of the surfclam habitat. As a proxy for monitoring stock status in years when there is no stock assessment, annual thresholds for fished area have been set at 254 km2 for Banquereau and 128 km2 for Grand Bank, based on historical maxima at times when stock status was such that no management intervention was required (DFO 2013b). The annual fished areas from both banks are now reported against these thresholds in DFO reviews of the fishery (e.g., DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c). Further work as undertaken in 2016 (DFO 2016b), looking at the potential for the introduction of management at a high resolution (i.e., fine scale management of the Arctic surfclam beds based on local stock abundance/status) or low resolution (i.e., effort/time or CPUE-based management of different zones), with either approach being intended to address stock management issues, but also habitat recovery by association. This work is ongoing but implementation of either course of action is expected to take several years (DFO). Overall, and given that a gear and site-specific study has been undertaken to understand the impact of the Arctic surfclam gear on Arctic surfclam grounds, and subsequent recovery periods, it must be considered that there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. SG100 is met. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the strategy work, based on the partial strategy will will work, based on information plausible argument work, based on directly about the fishery (e.g. general information directly and/or habitats involved. experience, theory or about the fishery and/or

Guidepost comparison with habitats involved. similar fisheries/habitats).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 118 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The area of the Arctic surfclam beds is known on both Banquereau and Grand Bank, and the fished area is calculated annually (DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c). The recovery period for the habitat is also known from a gear and site-specific impact study (Gilkinson et al. 2014). It is considered that testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or

Justification habitats involved. SG100 is met.

c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that that the partial strategy the strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully.

successfully. Guidepost

Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The area of the Arctic surfclam beds is known on both Banquereau and Grand Bank, and the fished area is calculated annually based on detailed VMS records for the Arctic surfclam fleet (e.g., DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c). This constitutes clear

evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully; SG100 is met. Justification

d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its

objective. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The fished area for Banquereau and Grand Bank is calculated annually based on detailed VMS records for the Arctic surfclam fleet, and the levels are well below the thresholds established for stock (and, by association, habitat) management (DFO 2013b). It is considered that this comprises evidence that the strategy is achieving

its objective, and SG100 is met. Justification

DFO 2013b, DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c, DFO 2016b, Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson References et al. 2014.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 119 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types

understanding of the and vulnerability of all is known over their range, with types and distribution main habitat types in particular attention to the of main habitats in the the fishery are known occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. at a level of detail habitat types. relevant to the scale Guidepost and intensity of the fishery. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

The habitats of Banquereau and Grand Bank have been mapped, and some areas,

in particular on Banquereau, have been mapped in detail using multibeam bathymetry to allow the most productive beds to be targeted. These detailed maps comprise proprietary information so are not available. It is clear that the nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the Justification fishery, so SG80 is met. It is not clear that the distributiuon of habitat types is known over their range, however, so SG100 is not met. b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts of been quantified fully. of the main impacts of the fishery on habitat gear use on the main types to be identified habitats, including and there is reliable spatial overlap of information on the habitat with fishing spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of

Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Just A dredge impact study was conducted on Banquereau, starting in 1998 but wih ifica repeat surveys undertaken to assess recovery. At 70 - 80 m depth, the study site tion was at the maximum depth of the commercial fishery, and recovery would therefore be expected to be as slow or slower than anywhere in the fishery. In fact, visual evidence of the experimental dredge tracks had disappeared after one year, and the non-target community was well on the way to recovery (Gilkinson et al. 2005). While side-scan sonar was still barely able to detect dredge tracks after 10 years, with minor exceptions it appeared that the sediment properties at the experimental site had returned to pre-dredging conditions 10 years after dredging (Gilkinson et al., 2014). These authors noted that the populations of the four commercially- targeted bivalves (Arctic surfclam, northern propeller clam, ocean quahog and Greenland cockle) had not recovered in the dredged areas after 10 years, but also that there had been no significant recruitment in undredged reference areas during that period. They concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that lack of recruitment in these species was due to a dredging effect. It is somewhat unusual to have direct, site and gear-specific evidence of impact and recovery for any fishery. However, these data exist for the Arctic surfclam fishery, and so it is considered that the physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully; SG100 is met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 120 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to over time are measured.

detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation Guidepost of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

Detailed VMS data are collected for the Arctic surflam fleet and reported annually (e.g., DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c), and these would allow any increase in risk to habitats to be detected. SG80 is met. It is not thought that changes in habitat

distribution over time are measured, so SG100 is not met. Justification

References DFO 2014b, DFO 2014c, Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson et al., 2014,

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 85

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 121 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the

to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or Guidepost a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The Scotian Shelf is considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the assessment of the Banquereau UoC, while the Grand Banks are considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the assessment of the Grand Bank UoC. For both UoCs, the key ecosystem element is considered to be the structure and function of the benthic community. The Arctic surfclam fishery operates in water depths that are shallower than those in which sensitive coral or sponge communities occur, and no closed areas for habitat or proposed marine protected areas for sensitive species occur in the

vicinity of the fishery within fished depths (DFO 2015b). The well-mixed sand community, of which the Arctic surfclam is a component, is required to be adapted to regular, wave-induced perturbation. Estimates of Arctic surfclam survey biomass from the most recent stock assessments for Banquereau (DFO 2012) and Grand Bank (Roddick et al. 2011) were around 1.15 million t and 1.14 million t,

Justification respectively, demonstrating that the fishery exploitation rate is low. Also, only a limited area of Arctic surfclam habitat is fished in any year (recently, around 1.5% annually on Banquereau (DFO 2014c), while the annual areal trigger level on Grand Bank is set at 128 km2 (DFO 2014c) from a potential fishery area of around 50,000 km2 (DFO 2010a) = 0.26%). Together with the low levels of bycatch and high selectivity for larger individuals of the bivalve species present, these features of the fishery provide evidence that the UoCs are highly unlikely to disrupt benthic community structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm; SG100 is met.

References DFO 2010a, DFO 2012, DFO 2014c, DFO 2015b, Roddick et al. 2011..

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 122 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place.

necessary. Guidepost Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Just The Scotian Shelf is considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the assessment of the ifica Banquereau UoC, while the Grand Banks are considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for tion the assessment of the Grand Bank UoC. For both UoCs, the key ecosystem element is considered to be the structure and function of the benthic community. Following national legislative drivers including the Oceans Act 1997 and the 2002 Oceans Strategy, the IFMP for the Arctic surfclam fishery (DFO 2014a) contains two overarching general objectives focused on ensuring the fishery poses no threat to ecosystem structure and function; these are: • The sustainability of human usage of ocean resources, and • The conservation of species and habitats, including those other ecosystem components that may not be utilized by humans. The IFMP then details a number of specific objectives: 1) Diversity of benthic communities: - Maintain area of disturbance within identified limits. 2) Effects on coral communities: - Prevent significant adverse alteration of coral communities on the Scotian Shelf and Slope Initiative. - Prevent significant adverse alteration of coral communities in the Stone Fence area. 3) High diversity benthic community in the Gully MPA: - Prevent significant adverse alteration of benthic communities in The Gully MPA. 4) Overall species diversity: - Minimize incidental mortality of non-target species. 5) Genetic diversity of populations under human pressure: - Prevent elimination of spawning/breeding component by human activity. The objectives laid out in the IFMP are functionally transformed into a strategy through a combination of the precautionary TAC for Arctic surfclam and work undertaken to determine and manage the impact of the dredges on the Banquereau habitat and associated community (e.g., Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson et al. 2014). On this latter point, hydraulic dredges can only be used efficiently in well- mixed sandy sediments, which is targeted through the use of Roxanne equipment aboard the fishing vessels (CSLP pers. comm.). The fishery then occurs in a very small area of each bank in any given year, in relatively shallow water that is subject to natural perturbation, and away from vulnerable components such as The Gully and deeper coral communities of the Stone Fence. Enforcement of the Arctic surfclam TAC works to ensure the sustainable management of the Arctic surfclams and the other components of the benthic community that are vulnerable to being taken within the Arctic surfclam dredges. Overall, it is considered that there is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place, and

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 123 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function both Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG100.

b The measures take The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of into account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of the on key elements of the and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The ecosystem so as to plan and measures are based achieve the Ecosystem on well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. Guidepost This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The key ecosystem element for the Arctic surfclam fishery is considered to be

benthic community structure and function. Key measures within the strategy to address impacts are based on knowledge of stock status, habitat diversity and community structure obtained through surveys of the fishing grounds (e.g., Figure 18 and Roddick et al. 2011, DFO 2012) and include TACs that control effort, and area-based thresholds to inform stock status. In combination with the very limited

area of suitable habitat that is fished annually, these measures restrain impacts on Justification the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm; SG100 is met. c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from the (e.g., general (e.g., general fishery/ecosystems involved. experience, theory or experience, theory or

Guidepost comparison with comparison with similar similar fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

As noted in SIb, there is good information on the benthic community of Banquereau and Grand Bank, based on detailed survey data. The strategy to manage

ecosystem impacts is considered likely to work and so SG100 is met. Justification

d There is some There is evidence that the evidence that the measures are being measures comprising implemented successfully. the partial strategy are being implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 124 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Arctic surfclam vessels are required to operate with a working VMS, and all landings are subject to dockside monitoring. Information on catches, catch rates, effort and spatial coverage in the fishery are summarised in annual fishery reports (e.g., DFO 2013b, DFO 2014c). This provides evidence that the measures are

being implemented successfully, and SG100 is met. Justification

DFO 2012, DFO 2013b, DFO 2014a, DFO 2014c, Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson References et al. 2014, Roddick et al. 2011.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 125 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is Information is adequate adequate to identify to broadly understand the key elements of the key elements of the the ecosystem (e.g., ecosystem. trophic structure and function, community

Guidepost composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

The Scotian Shelf is considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the assessment of the Banquereau UoC, while the Grand Banks are considered to be the ‘ecosystem’ for the assessment of the Grand Bank UoC. For both UoCs, the key ecosystem element is considered to be the structure and function of the benthic community. Benthic survey data for both Banquereau (DFO 2012) and Grand Bank (Roddick et al. 2011) are available, and stock status data for Arcitic surfclam show that the biomass on both banks exceeds 1.1 million t. Recent work, summarised by NAFO (2013), has been undertaken to determine the

Justification trophic ecology/species interactions for the Grand Banks (NAFO Divisions 2J3KLNO), and the ecosystem production potential (EPP) for different parts of the NAFO Convention Area, including the Scotian Shelf and Grand Banks. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, and both Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG80. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated in detail.

Guidepost and have not been and some have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Just The impact of the Arctic surfclam fishery on benthic community structure and ifica function has been investigated in detail through the gear impact study that tion commenced on Banquereau in 1998 (Gilkinson 2005, Gilkinson 2014). Results showed that visual evidence of the experimental dredge tracks had disappeared after one year, although the community was still in the colonising phase after two years (Gilkinson et al. 2005). Recruitment of the larger bivalves had not occurred at the experimental site after 10 years, but this was not attributed to dredging impacts (Gilkinson et al., 2014). It is apparent that the main interactions between the fishery and benthic community structure and function can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail; SG100 is met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 126 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) Components in the ecosystem

Guidepost in the ecosystem are are understood. known. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (N) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (N)

The main functions of the target, retained, bycatch and ETP species as predators and prey in the ecosystem are known (e.g., NAFO 2013), as is the role and importance of habitats for different species (e.g., Roddick et al. 2011, Tupper & Boutillier 1995). However, it is not possible to confirm that the main functions of these components are 'understood'. As such, Banquereau and Grand Bank score

Justification 80 for this SI. d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is

available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main to allow some of the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. Guidepost the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

There is routine collection of catch data through the observer programme, and detailed landings data for the fishery. Gear and site-specific work has been undertaken to determine impacts of the Arctic surfclam fishery on and recovery of the benthic communtiy and benthic habitats within fished areas (Gilkinson et al. 2005, Gilkinson et al. 2014). EPP and Fisheries Production Potential (FPP) estimates have been devised for the Scotian Shelf and Grand Banks regions

(NAFO 2013). Justification Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to support the development of

detect any increase in strategies to manage risk level (e.g., due to ecosystem impacts. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation Guidepost of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? Banquereau – (Y) Banquereau – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y) Grand Bank – (Y)

As reported throughout the text for this PI, there is a large quantity of information available on target, retained and ETP species and habitats, including sensitive, structuring species. Recovery of the community following impacts has also been ation studied. This information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage

Justific ecosystem impacts, and so Banquereau and Grand Bank meet SG100.

References DFO 2012, Gilkinson 2005, Gilkinson 2014, NAFO 2013, Roddick et al. 2011,

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 127 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Tupper & Boutillier 1995.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Banquereau): 95

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (Grand Bank): 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 128 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 The two UoC being re-assessed are geographically different but subject to the same management regime and so the scoring rationales and scores apply to both UoCs. The “Governance and Policy” component of Principle 3 (the PIs pre-fixed with 3.1) focuses on the high level context of the fishery management system within the UoAs.

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

Guidepost management outcomes outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC consistent with MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2 Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

The legal framework for the management of Canadian fisheries is described in sections 3.7.2 and 3.8, above. The federal government has jurisdiction for sea coast and inland fisheries in Canada, and it has enacted several pieces of legislation that govern fisheries, notably the Canadian Fisheries Act 1985, which grants authority and regulatory powers for fisheries management. The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility for the fishery and his/her authority is delegated to officials through the organizational structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), i.e. there is a formal and binding system for the cooperation between national entities at the federal and regional level. The Fisheries Act provides the legislative basis for the implementation of regulations, e.g. The Fishery (General) Regulations 1993 and the Atlantic Fishery Regulations 1985, that, among other things, provide for the issuing of fishing licences and prescription of conditions for the operation of the fishery. The Species at Risk Act 2002 and the Oceans Act 1996 provide the framework for implementing Justification domestic management in a manner consistent with MSC Principle 2. Internationally Canada is a signatory to the FAO Code of Conduct, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and United Nations Fisheries Agreement (UNFA) and a member of several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) worldwide, e.g. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). The legal framework for the management of Canadian fisheries provides an effective national system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties, which deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2, thereby meeting SG 100.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 129 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b The management The management The management system system incorporates or system incorporates or incorporates or subject by is subject by law to a is subject by law to a law to a transparent mechanism for the transparent mechanism mechanism for the resolution resolution of legal for the resolution of legal of legal disputes that is disputes arising within disputes which is appropriate to the context of the system. considered to be the fishery and has been

Guidepost effective in dealing with tested and proven to be most issues and that is effective. appropriate to the context of the fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

The management system incorporates a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes, as described in section 3.8.1 above. The Federal Courts Act 1985, provides a transparent mechanism for parties to challenge decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals and receive a hearing before a justice of the court. The system has been tested and proven to be effective on several occasions, for example, in 1990 at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), “The Sparrow Decision” resolved that aboriginal groups have a right to fish for food, societal and ceremonial

purposes and that this use-right is surpassed only by conservation of the resource. Justification The management system incorporates and is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery, and has been tested and proven to be effective, thereby meeting the SG 100. d The management The management system The management system system has a has a mechanism to has a mechanism to mechanism to generally observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal

respect the legal rights created explicitly or rights created explicitly or created explicitly or established by custom of established by custom of established by custom people dependent on people dependent on of people dependent on fishing for food or fishing for food and fishing for food or livelihood in a manner livelihood in a manner Guidepost livelihood in a manner consistent with the consistent with the consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 130 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The Canadian judicial system and changes to legislation as a result of Supreme Court rulings, demonstrates that the management of fisheries exists within a system that is committed to the legal and customary rights of peoples dependent on the

fishery for food, maintaining cultural values and for earning a livelihood. Such rights are surpassed only by conservation of the resource. It is noted that there is currently no aboriginal presence in the offshore clam fishery,

ification however, the IFMP requires that First Nations representatives be advised of

meetings and can attend at their discretion (DFO 2014). Just It is considered that the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2, thereby meeting SG 100.

Fisheries Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf Fishery (General) Regulations (1993) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-93- 53.pdf Atlantic Fishery Regulations (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor- 86-21/index.html Species at Risk Act (2002) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf Oceans Act (1996) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-2.4.pdf FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.HTM References United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf United Nations Fisheries Agreement (UNFA) (1995) http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_sto cks.htm Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) https://www.nafo.int The Federal Courts Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/ Sparrow Decision https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2014.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 131 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in the individuals involved in the involved in the management management process management process have process have been identified. have been identified. been identified. Functions, Functions, roles and Functions, roles and roles and responsibilities responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are are explicitly defined and defined and well understood

Guidepost generally understood. well understood for key for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and and interaction. interaction. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

The “Framework Process” is the mechanism whereby DFO science assesses the assumptions and data inputs underlying the management of the fishery. The Regional Assessment Process (RAP) is the process, guided by the Framework, for coalescing scientific advice that then feeds into management decisions. Sources of uncertainty are addressed in the RAP and taken into consideration when deciding management advice, which governs the harvest strategy. The RAP includes peer review and is open to participants other than those directly involved in the management or prosecution of the fishery Additionally Science Responses can also be used to provide greater clarity. The Offshore Clam Advisory Committee (OCAC) is the main consultative body for the fishery. The Offshore Clam Management Board (OCMB) is the body charged with the responsibility to oversee and direct the implementation of the management plan. The terms of reference for both are clearly laid out in the IFMP (DFO, 2014). Sitting members of the OCAC include the single licence holder, the regulator (DFO science and management), representatives of the processing sector, First Nations representatives as they wish, representatives of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and ation Newfoundland and Labrador, and other stakeholders and interested parties. Meetings of the advisory committee are open to the public. The Chair of the committee is a DFO

official (DFO, 2014). The roles and responsibilities of participants are well understood. Justific The OCMB is composed of two representatives each of the two licence holding companies (both wholly owned by the client) and four representatives of DFO, two each from science and management. The OCMB is chaired by an industry member and the position of Vice Chair is held by a DFO staff person. The functions and responsibilities of the board are clearly outlined (DFO, 2014). DFO Maritimes Region and a group of regional and national Environmental Non Governmental Organisations (ENGOs) have established a “Dialogue Forum” that meets on a regular basis to help inform those stakeholders of upcoming items of interest related to Fisheries and Oceans management. The forum operates under an agreed terms of reference (DFO 2011). Organisations 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, thereby meeting the SG 100.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 132 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery 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 b The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation

processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly seek relevant information from seek and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge. The knowledge. The management knowledge, to inform the management system system demonstrates Guidepost management system. demonstrates consideration consideration of the of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

National, regional and fishery specific consultations take place within the management system. Examples of national consultation include the development of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren- peche/sff-cpd/stake-inter-back-fiche-eng.htm and a national network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpaframework- cadrezpm/page04-eng.html. An example of a regional consultation is the selection of the St Anns Bank “Area of Interest (AoI)”, i.e. the first step in the Canadian process of designating an MPA http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Maritimes/Oceans/OCMD/Marine-Protection/Areas- Interest. DFO also demonstrates through their website the input and consideration of local knowledge and information obtained from consultations, e.g. the following link presents information that was provided to DFO following the consultation on three potential AoIs off the Nova Scotia coast http://www.inter.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Maritimes/Oceans/OCMD/Marine-Protection/What-We-Heard. With respect to fishery specific consultation the OCAC serves as an open consultation

forum on all issues affecting the offshore clam fishery on Canada’s Atlantic coast (DFO, Justification 2014). The defined purpose of the committee is to provide input and advice to the DFO on the conservation, protection and management of the offshore clam resource. At the meetings, information on harvest levels and management measures is presented and discussed for consideration and formulated into recommendations. Local knowledge and input is considered. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The terms of reference are clearly laid out in the IFMP and establish the forum for extensive stakeholder participation at the regional level (DFO, 2014). The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained, thereby meeting the SG 80 requirements. The SG 100 is not met as there was not evidence to show that the management system demonstrates how information is used or not used. c The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and

Guidepost facilitates their effective engagement. Met? (Y) (Y)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 133 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery 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 Through DFO national and regional websites, consultation are widely available and are considered to provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved. Evidence through feedback provided on, “what we heard” links, e.g. http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Maritimes/Oceans/OCMD/Marine-Protection/What- We-Heard, suggests effective engagement. Minutes of the OCAB and OCMB provide evidence that the fishery specific consultation

Justification process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties, and facilitates their effective engagement. The SG 100 is therefore achieved.

DFO (2014). Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and References Newfoundland Regions, 2014. DFO (2011) Terms of Reference Maritimes Region DFO – Marine ENGO Forum.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 134 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives to guide decision- objectives that guide that guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC with the MSC consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria the precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are explicit within and

Guidepost approach, are implicit approach are explicit required by management within management within management policy. policy policy. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Fish stock conservation and other ecosystem sustainability objectives stem from Canadian legislation such as: the Fisheries Act, Ocean’s Act and Species at Risk Acts, and policy initiatives such as: the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review and Sustainable Fisheries Framework. The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review provides objectives to guide decision-making in Atlantic fisheries. It places conservation of the resource as the priority, sets the path for greater industry self-reliance, establishes transparent rules-based processes for decision-making and encourages a greater role for resource users and others (DFO 2004a). The precautionary and ecosystem approaches are required to be incorporated into all fishery management decisions while protecting biodiversity and fisheries habitat by virtue of the “Sustainable Fisheries Framework” (DFO 2009a).

The “Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas” requires the mitigation of the impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas or avoidance of impacts of fishing that are likely to cause serious or irreversible harm to sensitive marine habitat, communities and species (DFO 2009b). Requirements and procedures for new fisheries are outlined in “The Emerging

Justification Species Policy”. A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of a scientific base with which stock responses to new fishing pressures can be assessed (DFO 2008). The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy was developed to implement the Supreme Court of Canada decision that aboriginal people have a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, a right that takes priority, after conservation, over other users of the resource. The policy seeks to provide stability where DFO manages the fishery and where land claims settlements have not already put a fisheries management regime in place (DFO 1992). These broad policy guidelines are implemented through fisheries specific objectives that are outlined in fisheries management plans. Therefore, the management policy has explicit clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach meeting the SG 100.

DFO (2004a) Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/policies-politiques/afpr-rppa/framework-cadre-eng.htm DFO (2009a) Sustainable Fisheries Framework (2009) http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm References DFO (2009b) Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi- back-fiche-eng.htm DFO (2008) The Emerging Species Policy http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/policies-politiques/efp-pnp-eng.htm

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 135 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach DFO (1992) The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/aboriginal-autochtones/afs-srapa-eng.htm

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 136 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management system The management system system provides for provides for incentives provides for incentives that incentives that are that are consistent with are consistent with consistent with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC expressed by MSC expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and Principles 1 and 2, and Principles 1 and 2. seeks to ensure that explicitly considers perverse incentives do not incentives in a regular

Guidepost arise. review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

The individual quota system of fishing provides a quasi property right to the licence holders. The stability and security of access provides strong economic incentives to harvest for the long-term, maximize value and not volume, and minimize negative

impacts on the stock and its ecosystem. The co-management approach afforded by the management process provides a strong incentive to support the effective and long-term management of the fishery. There are no direct financial incentives, e.g., price or fuel subsidies.

Justification The fishery therefore meets SG 80. As it is not evident that the management system explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices, the requirements of SG 100 are not met. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 137 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Fishery-specific objectives

The “Fishery-specific management system” component of Principle 3 (the PIs pre-fixed with 3.2) focuses on the management system applied directly to the fishery.

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a 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 objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s achieving the outcomes demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are expressed by MSC’s achieving the outcomes implicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are expressed by MSC’s

Guidepost fishery’s management explicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are system fishery’s management explicit within the fishery’s system. management system. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

Fish stock conservation and other ecosystem sustainability objectives stem from Canadian legislation such as: the Fisheries Act, Ocean’s Act and Species at Risk Acts, and policy initiatives such as: the Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review and Sustainable Fisheries Framework. The offshore clam IFMP reflects the policy objectives set out in these documents, by explicitly including the following short and long term objectives: • Increase certainty that harvesting occurs at an optimum sustainable level to ensure the long term viability of the resource; • Enhance industry’s level of participation in the management of this

resource to benefit Canadians;

• Maintain the long term viability of the industry; and, • Assess, evaluate and minimize any adverse environmental effects of the fishing methods on the habitat. • Ensure that a biologically and economically sustainable offshore clam

fishery continues through the auspices of scientifically-based management Justification plans involving collaborative enforcement, monitoring and regulatory measures. • The continued cooperation between licence holders and the Department in establishing ongoing management measures that will minimize impacts of harvesting on the habitat. These clear and explicit objectives within the IFMP are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and so achieve the SG 80. The fishery does not meet SG 100 as it cannot be said that the objectives are operationally defined in such a way that the performance against the objective can be measured.

Fisheries Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf Species at Risk Act (2002) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf Oceans Act (1996) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-2.4.pdf References DFO (2004a) Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/policies-politiques/afpr-rppa/framework-cadre-eng.htm DFO (2009a) Sustainable Fisheries Framework (2009) http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 138 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Newfoundland Regions, 2014.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 139 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies strategies to achieve the to achieve the fishery-

Guidepost fishery-specific specific objectives. objectives. Met? (Y) (Y)

While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the final arbiter of decisions his/her authority is delegated to officials through the organisational structure of DFO, in this instance, the Regional Director General (RGD) of the Maritimes Region of DFO. His/her decisions are informed by consultations and recommendations made by DFO science and in the advisory committee and management board, i.e. OCAC and OCMB, and guided by the short long term and fishery specific objectives for the fishery. The Framework Process is the mechanism whereby DFO science assesses the assumptions and data inputs underlying the management of the fishery. The Regional Assessment Process (RAP) is the process, guided by the Framework, for coalescing scientific advice that then feeds into management decisions. Sources of uncertainty are addressed in the RAP and taken into consideration when deciding management advice, which governs the harvest strategy. The RAP includes peer review and is open to participants other than those directly involved in the management or prosecution of the fishery Additionally Science Responses can also be used to provide greater clarity. The OCAC is the forum for broad discussion of issues related to the management

Justification and development of the fishery. The Committee reviews all available information including scientific advice and provides input for the content of the annual management plan, including but not limited to advice on the TAC, regulatory, conservation, compliance and licencing issues. The OCAC seeks to work on a consensus basis (DFO, 2014). The OCMB is responsible for the overseeing and directing the implementation of the plan. Recommendations based on consultation at OCAC and OCMB, are considered in the decision making process. Where parties are not satisfied with the decisions by DFO, they have the right to redress through the Federal Court of Appeal system. As a result, the SG 80 is achieved, as there are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery specific objectives. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues identified relevant research, monitoring, evaluation in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and and consultation, in a transparent, timely and

Guidepost adaptive manner and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take take some account of adaptive manner and take account of the wider the wider implications of account of the wider implications of decisions. decisions. implications of decisions.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 140 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

The OCAC meetings are where details of the past season’s fishery are reviewed, any issues identified, scientific advice received, management proposals made and consensus sought on management measures for the following fishing season. Minutes of the meetings are provided (DFO, 2014). The OCMB, meetings deal with day-to-day management of the fishery. It oversees and directs the implementation of the IFMP and is required, inter alia, to develop and recommend conservation and protection measures. The Minister or his delegated officials generally adhere to recommendations. Recommendations and decisions by DFO are guided by the objectives set out in

the IFMP. As an example of the decision-making process response, following an external evaluation of the fishery by two independent reviewers (Hoenig 2015; Oresanz 2015) that identified serial depletion as a potential risk to the fishery, DFO initiated a framework assessement meeting and is looking at a research program that can Justification address this risk through updated stock assessment methods that consider spatial dynamics of the resource (DFO 2015a; DFO 2016; DFO 2016a; DFO 2016b). The decision making process is considered to respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions, thereby meeting the SG 80. The SG100 is not met as it cannot be said that all issues identified in relevant reseach, montoring, evaluation and consultation are responded to, e.g. the stock assessments are considered to be too infrequent but this has not been resolved as yet.

c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best

Guidepost available information. Met? (Y)

The precautionary approach is required for all fisheries as a matter of policy as outlined in the “Sustainable Fisheries Framework.” (DFO 2009a). An example of precautionary decision-making in this fishery is the setting of TACs based on a fishing mortality rate well below the rate of natural mortality. A formal Precautionary Approach Framework was adopted for this fishery and integrated

Justification into the IFMP in 2014 (DFO 2014). As a result the SG 80 is met. d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, and information on fishery

available on request to explanations are provided performance and stakeholders. for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and Guidepost emerging from research, relevant monitoring, evaluation and recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 141 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

The OCAC meetings are open to the public and so information on the fishery performance and management action is available. Minutes of the meetings are made available to participants or on request from DFO. The minutes may include explanations for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. DFO and regional ENGOs have also established a forum by which information can be exchanged and this is considered to provide an alternative mechanism for sharing and disseminating information and the provision of updates on actions. Fisheries management decisions are made available on the DFO website. As a result, the SG 80 is achieved. It cannot be said that a formal process has been established to inform all interested stakeholders and so the SG 100 is not Justification met. It is noted that the IFMP is an important document in providing information to stakeholders. While it is intended to be an ever-green document and updated on an annual basis, this has not been achieved, the last update taking place in 2014. It is recommended that there is a standing agenda item at OCAC which reviews the necessity for any changes to the IFMP and any updates are made on an annual basis. In so doing, it is recommended that a “Record of Amendment” is included in the IFMP. e Although the The management The management system management authority system or fishery is or fishery acts proactively or fishery may be attempting to comply in to avoid legal disputes or

subject to continuing a timely fashion with rapidly implements judicial court challenges, it is judicial decisions arising decisions arising from legal not indicating a from any legal challenges. disrespect or defiance of challenges. the law by repeatedly Guidepost violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Legal disputes respecting fishing are adjudicated quickly and fairly in an open and transparent public forum through the Canadian judicial process. The legal and policy framework has been tested on several occasions and shown to be effective, “Larocque”, “Sparrow” and “Marshall” decisions. Many disputes, legal and otherwise, are avoided through a proactive co-

management advisory process and frequent communication between the regulator stification

and the fishery participants. There have been no legal challenges to the Arctic surf Ju clam fishery to date. The SG 100 is therefore met.

DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2014 Hoenig (2015) Review of the Scientific Basis for Managing Stocks of Arctic Surf References Clam on Banquereau and Grand Bank Oresanz (2015) Review of the Arctic Surf Clam Fishery DFO (2015a) New Release, December 2015, Minister Tootoo Sets Arctic Surf Clam TAC http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1025539

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 142 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. DFO (2016) Offshore Clam Advisory Committee Minutes, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016a) Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Overview, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016b) Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Requirements, 19 February 2016 DFO (2009a) Sustainable Fisheries Framework (2009) http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm Sparrow Decision https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do Larocque Decision http://www.fishharvesterspecheurs.ca/system/files/products/Court- LarocqueDecisionSupremeCourt-Bilingual.pdf Marshall Decision https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028614/1100100028615

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 143 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance and surveillance system control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are has been implemented system has been implemented implemented in the in the fishery under in the fishery under fishery under assessment and has assessment and has assessment and there demonstrated an ability demonstrated a consistent

Guidepost is a reasonable to enforce relevant ability to enforce relevant expectation that they management measures, management measures, are effective. strategies and/or rules. strategies and/or rules. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

The IFMP sets out a specific strategy relating to monitoring and enforcement of the fishery. Vessels are issued a licence to fish with list of conditions that the vessel must adhere. These include: • Prohibited fishing areas; • Bycatch provisions, i.e. the only permitted retained species, other than Arctic surf clam, is quahog (Arctica islandica), Northern propeller clam (Cyrtodaria siliqua) and Greenland cockle (Serripes groenlandicus); • Reporting requirements, i.e. accurate reporting of catches through log books, 100% dockside monitoring, 100% vessel monitoring system (VMS); and, • The carrying of observers when required by the regulator (DFO).

Justification At previous MSC annual audits of the fishery, DFO have provided Conservation and Protection (C&P) data showing compliance and enforcement effort and have consistently confirmed that there have been no compliance issues and the fishery is considered to be low risk (MSC 2011 - 2016) There is a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance system in place that covers the area of operation of the offshore clam fishery and it has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The SG 100 is therefore met.

b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently applied consistently applied and evidence that they are and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective

Guidepost applied. effective deterrence. deterrence. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

A ticket 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. There have been no reports of non-compliance in the fishery during or prior to its Justification initial MSC certification. No sanctions have therefore been applied but are considered to provide an effective deterrent. The SG 100 is met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 144 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery.

Guidepost information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Evidence provided by DFO at annual audits (MSC 2011 – 2016) shows that fishers comply with the management system and provide necessary information through logbooks, VMS and the dockside-monitoring program. The list of conditions that the vessels must adhere to are relatively easy to monitor, e.g. bycatch retention is monitored by dockside monitoring, restricted fishing areas is monitored via VMS. Furthermore, there are considered to be no big incentives for non-compliance (DFO, C&P pers. comm.). There is therefore a high degree of confidence that Justification fishers comply with the management system. The requirements of SG 100 are therefore met.

d There is no evidence of systematic non-

compliance. Guidepost Met? (Y)

DFO compliance and enforcement reports indicate a high level of compliance within the fishery. No evidence of systematic non-compliance was provided. The SG 80

requirments are therefore met. Justification

DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2014 MSC 2011 – 2016 Initial assessment and annual audit reports References https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/clearwater-seafoods-banquereau-and-grand- bank-arctic-surf-clam-hydraulic-dredge/@@assessments Criminal Code (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf. Fisheries Act (1985) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 145 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is A research plan provides A comprehensive research undertaken, as the management system plan provides the

required, to achieve with a strategic approach management system with a the objectives to research and reliable coherent and strategic consistent with MSC’s and timely information approach to research across Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the P1, P2 and P3, and reliable objectives consistent with and timely information Guidepost MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Met? (Y) (N) (N)

The IFMP (DFO 2014) includes sections highlighting current research and the joint industry/DFO research that has been undertaken in order to better understand the target and non-target species and the effect of the fishing operation on the habitat. Potential future projects are also identified: On-going joint industry/DFO research: • Arctic surf clam stock surveys and assessments. Surveys are conducted through Joint Project Agreements (JPA) between the CSLP and DFO. The target frequency for the surveys is a 10-year cycle in each of the fishing areas. • A multi-year benthic impact research program on Banquereau Bank (conditions on the Grand Bank have been determined to be comparable) began in 1998 between DFO Science, the Geological Survey of Canada Atlantic and CSLP. • An investigation into growth rates on the eastern part of the Banquereau Bank where there are reports of slow growth in high density areas.

Possible future research includes: • Natural mortality rate studies: from size/age data, estimate mortality. Two or three small closed areas may be established from which the commercial vessels would land frozen shell stock (i.e., unprocessed except for freezing) for two consecutive years. Justification • Continuation of studies on the effects of hydraulic gear: the effects of hydraulic dredging on the habitat, recruitment and incidental mortality of clams and other molluscs. The assessment team also heard of new research to be undertaken following the independent reviews of the science and management system (Hoenig 2015; Oresanz 2015). Both reviewers identified serial depletion as a potential risk to the fishery. As a result, DFO and CSLP are collaboratively looking at a research program that can address this risk through spatial management (DFO 2016, DFO 2016a; DFO 2016b). It is clear that research is undertaken that achieves the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting the SG 60. Research is undertaken strategically, as evidenced by the response to the external reviews of the science and management system. Also, reliable and timely information is provided to the OCAC and OCMB, as evidence by minutes of meetings. However, the IFMP does not provide a “research plan”, rather, it is considered to present a list of research activities and so does not meet the SG 80 or SG 100. A Condition of Certification (#1) is therefore imposed.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 146 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management

b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results available to interested disseminated to all are disseminated to all parties. interested parties in a interested parties in a timely timely fashion. fashion and are widely and

publicly available. Guidepost

Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

Research results are disseminated to members of the OCAC and OCMB in a timely fashion, as evidenced by minutes from their meetings. Research results are available to interested parties on request from DFO. The IFMP lists research and provides details on some of the research that has

been undertaken, however, a “research plan” is not considered to be available. The Justification SG 80 is therefore met but not the SG 100.

DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and Newfoundland Regions, 2014 Hoenig (2015) Review of the Scientific Basis for Managing Stocks of Arctic Surf Clam on Banquereau and Grand Bank Oresanz (2015) Review of the Arctic Surf Clam Fishery References DFO (2016) Offshore Clam Advisory Committee Minutes, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016a) Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Overview, 19 February 2016 DFO (2016b) Presentation to OCAC on Rotational Spatial Management Requirements, 19 February 2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 147 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of key parts of the parts of the management the management management system system.

system. Guidepost

Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)

Annual meetings of OCAC and OCMB provide an opportunity to monitor, review and evaluate key parts of the management system. The OCAC and OCMB may also establish ad-hoc sub-committees or working groups to review and assess specific policy and management measures (DFO, 2014).

DFO review and evaluate compliance and monitoring on a regular basis. Justification The SG 100 is therefore met.

b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system management system is subject is subject to is subject to regular to regular internal and external occasional internal internal and review. review. occasional external Guidepost review. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)

Annual meetings of OCAC and OCMB provide an opportunity to review and evaluate key parts of the management system. The OCAC may also establish ad- hoc sub-committees or working groups to review and assess specific policy and management measures (DFO, 2014). The Framework Assessments and RAP are the primary processes for the review of science that informs fisheries management. This is an open process with peer review and stakeholder engagement. The official proceedings, participants, and reports from the RAP can be referenced for more detail on the Canadian Secretariat for Science Advice website.

With respect to external review, DFO commissioned two reviews in 2015, one to review the science process and one to review the management process (Hoenig 2015; Oresanz 2015). As a result, recommendations have been taken into consideration at the OCMB. The Parliament of Canada has two committees related to Fisheries and Oceans: Justification The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons and The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Senate. Both committees regularly review different aspects of fishery management in Canada and publish reports with their findings and conclusions. The Canadian Auditor General (AG) has, on an ad-hoc basis, reviewed fisheries related issues, although this has not happened since 2009 when the protection of fish habitat was reviewed (OAGC 2009). The SG 80 is therefore met. While there have been two recent external reviews of the fisheries it cannot be said there have been or there are planned to be further and regular external reviews and so the SG 100 is not met.

DFO (2014) Offshore Clams Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Maritimes and References Newfoundland Regions, 2014

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 148 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Hoenig (2015) Review of the Scientific Basis for Managing Stocks of Arctic Surf Clam on Banquereau and Grand Bank Oresanz (2015) Review of the Arctic Surf Clam Fishery Canadian Secretariat for Science Advice website http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/index-eng.htm The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the House of Commons http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/FOPO/About The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of the Senate http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?parl=41&ses =2&Language=E&comm_id=1007 OAGC (2009) Protecting fish habitat. Chapter 1 in a report to Parliament by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, http://www.oag- bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_cesd_200905_01_e.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 149 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table 29. Condition 1 UoC 2 (Grand Bank) only

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Performance SG 80 SIb. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a Indicator level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Score 75 SIb. Stock abundance is regularly monitored through stock surveys of both Banquereau and Grand Bank at a level of accuracy consistent with the harvest control rules in which stock biomass is assessed in relation to upper and lower reference points and the TAC is set based on an upper removal reference fishing mortality rate (F). In the years between stock surveys, catch indicators are monitored annually to provide early warning signs of declines in stock abundance. Landings are subject to 100% dockside monitoring. Regular reports of catch are forwarded to DFO throughout the fishing trip and fishing logs are provided at the end of each trip. Fishing location is monitored at high resolution via 100% VMS coverage, all of which provides evidence that fishery removals are rigorously monitored.

Rationale For Banquereau Bank the most recent survey was undertaken in 2010 and a new stock assessment using commercial data is planned for 2017. Since the last stock survey, fisheries dependent data have been collected every year. The SG80 is met therefore for Banquereau Bank. For Grand Bank, there has been no stock survey since a multi-year survey commenced in 2006, and as yet there are no plans for another survey or a new assessment using commercial fisheries data as is the case for Banquereau Bank. The recent DFO Framework meeting concluded that the current frequency of stock assessments was considered too low, and it was recommended that the assessment schedule and the format of annual updates should be revisited. With no stock survey or alternative assessment approach planned for Grand Bank in the near future, the assessment team concluded that stock abundance indicators on Grand Bank are not monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The SG80 is not met therefore for Grand Bank.

By the fourth annual audit the client shall provide evidence that sufficient regular Condition monitoring of stock abundance indicators to support the harvest control rule has

been implemented on the Grand Bank. At the first annual audit the client shall provide evidence that the fishery- dependent stock indicators for Grand Bank are regularly updated. Achievement of this milestone will not result in a change of score, the fishery will continue to meet 75 At the second annual audit the client shall provide evidence that the fishery- dependent stock indicators for Grand Bank are regularly updated and a risk evaluation for Grand Bank in line with the research plan has been planned to evaluate the robustness of the current monitoring framework and the format of Milestones the annual updates. Achievement of this milestone will not result in a change of score, the fishery will continue to meet 75 At the third annual audit, the client shall provide evidence that the fishery- dependent stock indicators for Grand Bank are regularly updated, and report on progress towards the evaluation of the current monitoring framework and the format of the annual updates. Achievement of this milestone will not result in a change of score, the fishery will continue to meet 75 At the fourth annual audit the client shall provide evidence that the fishery-

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 150 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery dependent stock indicators for Grand Bank are regularly updated, and that the current monitoring framework and the format of annual updates have been evaluated and any changes required to adequately support the harvest control rule have been implemented. Successful completion of this condition will demonstrate that regular monitoring of stock abundance indicators is in place. This will result in the rescoring of this PI to at least 80. The Client, in conjunction with DFO and by the fourth annual audit, will ensure that, • yearly updates of the fishery dependent indicators are available, • a risk evaluation for Grand Bank is included in the research plan with the goal to evaluate the robustness of the current monitoring framework and Client action plan format of the annual updates,

• any changes to the monitoring framework and format of annual updates identified during the risk assessment as needed to support the harvest control rules have been implemented. The results of this work will be reported to the audit team as it is completed and progress reported during any surveillance audits Consultation on The DFO have provided a letter of support with respect to meeting this condition condition. See below

Table 30 Condition 2.

PI 3.2.4 - The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management. Performance Indicator SG 80, SI (a): A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Score 70 The IFMP (DFO 2014) includes sections highlighting current research and the joint industry/DFO research that has been undertaken in order to better understand the target and non-target species and the effect of the fishing operation on the habitat. Potential future projects are also identified: On-going joint industry/DFO research: • Arctic surf clam stock surveys and assessments. Surveys are conducted through Joint Project Agreements (JPA) between the CSLP and DFO. The target frequency for the surveys is a 10-year cycle in each of the fishing areas. • A multi-year benthic impact research program on Banquereau Bank (conditions on the Grand Bank have been determined to be Rationale comparable) began in 1998 between DFO Science, the Geological Survey of Canada Atlantic and CSLP. • An investigation into growth rates on the eastern part of the Banquereau Bank where there are reports of slow growth in high density areas.

Possible future research includes: • Natural mortality rate studies: from size/age data, estimate mortality. Two or three small closed areas may be established from which the commercial vessels would land frozen shell stock (i.e., unprocessed except for freezing) for two consecutive years. • Continuation of studies on the effects of hydraulic gear: the effects of hydraulic dredging on the habitat, recruitment and incidental mortality of clams and other molluscs. The assessment team also heard of new research to be undertaken following

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 151 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery the independent reviews of the science and management system (Hoenig 2015; Oresanz 2015). Both reviewers identified serial depletion as a potential risk to the fishery. As a result, DFO and CSLP are collaboratively looking at a research program that can address this risk through spatial management (DFO 2016, DFO 2016a; DFO 2016b). It is clear that research is undertaken that achieves the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting the SG 60. Research is undertaken strategically, as evidenced by the response to the external reviews of the science and management system. Also, reliable and timely information is provided to the OCAC and OCMB, as evidence by minutes of meetings. However, the IFMP does not provide a “research plan”, rather, it is considered to present a list of research activities and so does not meet the SG 80 or SG 100. By the second annual audit the client shall provide evidence of a research plan Condition that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. At the first annual audit the client shall provide evidence of the development of a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Achievement of this milestone will not result in a change of score, the fishery will continue to meet 70. Milestones At the second annual audit the client shall provide evidence that a research plan is in place and provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Successful completion of this condition will demonstrate that the fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management. This will result in the rescoring of this PI to at least 80. The Client, in conjunction with DFO and by the second annual audit, will ensure that a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information is in place. The Client action plan research plan will be sufficient to achieve the objectives of management and consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The results of this work will be reported to the audit team as it is completed and progress reported during any surveillance audits Consultation on The DFO have provided a letter of support with respect to meeting this condition condition. See below

This PI scored 90 at the original assessment. The original assessment team used the research section in the IFMP as evidence of a research plan. At that time, an alternative IFMP was in place and the assessment team considered all the SG 80 scoring issues and one of the SG 100 scoring issues were met. In this instance, the assessment team are of the view that the revised IFMP clearly sets out a series of existing and possible future research projects, however, they do not explicitly relate to the overall management objectives of the fishery and do not clearly indicate a strategic approach to research in the form of a plan.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 152 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery Letter of support for client action plan (Condition 1& 2) from DFO.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 153 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendix 2 Peer Review Report

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The peer reviewer raises important Yes for Banquereau. issues in relation to the scoring of P1 for Possibly not for Grand Banks. It is conceivable that re-scoring the Grand Bank fishery – the infrequent of some of the relevant Scoring Indicators might lead to a stock surveys for this bank, and further condition on the fishery although I do believe it is because there was virtually no fishing sustainable and worthy of MSC certification. from 2006 to 2015, the lack of reliable fisheries dependent stock indicators. The stock at Grand Banks was at a high level at the last survey, which was likely to be a considerable underestimate of DFO has now provided preliminary fishable biomass (due to assumptions of 100% dredge values of the annual stock indicators for efficiency which are unlikely to be true) and there has been Grand Bank, but the assessment team little fishing since till recently. I have no doubt, therefore, that accepts that there is insufficiently the stock is likely to be at a high level. However, going regular monitoring of stock abundance forward I have reservations regarding the infrequent stock for Grand Bank to support the harvest assessments (c. 10 years, and possibly more for Grand Banks control rule and has raised a condition as there are no stated plans for the next survey) and the against PI 1.2.3, and has reduced the fishery dependent indices used as triggers for possible score for PI 1.2.2 for both banks from 90 additional actions. For Grand Banks I am not completely to 80. convinced that the trigger points for the indices are demonstrably “set at levels consistent with previously More detailed responses to the peer observed stock levels when management intervention was not reviewer’s comments can be found in required”. the commentaries below in relation to each PI. Since both the stock assessment and the indices (triggers) are referred to in the justification for numerous scoring indices in many of the PIs in Principle I, I have inevitably referred to my reservations several times below. This may make my concerns seem more exaggerated than they are.

Due largely to the very small spatial extent of the fisheries and their being limited to fishing on well sorted sands I see no obvious problems with P2, and similarly find no major issues with P3.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: The condition requires the formalization of what is already a comprehensive list of research aspirations into a research plan, which is perfectly achievable within the timeframe.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient No CAB Response

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 154 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: This is actually somewhat nebulous at present; the condition requires development of a research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 by the second annual assessment, with evidence that this is being developed by the first annual assessment.

At present the draft report simply states:

“The client has accepted the condition and is in the process of preparing a client action plan” And “The client works closely with DFO and has confirmed that confirmation of their support will be provided in ther form of a letter of support.” Whilst this may be understandable given the timescales of the condition, it would be better if the action plan and letter of support were supplied to, and deemed acceptable by, the CAB prior to certification. The condition will require attention at the first two annual assessments.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 155 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Table 30 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.1 N N NA I do believe that the stocks are highly likely to The assessment team agrees with the peer be above the upper reference point for both reviewer that there is some uncertainty about fisheries. However, the CAB gave a score of the status of the Grand Bank stock because 100 for SI1.1.1(a) but I question whether the the last stock survey was undertaken from 100 guideline is met, particularly for Grand 2006 to 2009 and there are no plans at Banks. The last stock assessment for GB present for another survey or an alternative was 9 to 11 years ago and the recent assessment of stock status. This is fisheries dependent indices (CPUE, footprint understandable given that from 2007 to 2015 and proportion of old clams) are largely there had been virtually no fishery. However ignored due to the small size of the fishery in with the re-commenced fishery in 2016, the those years. I am not convinced the low lack of a recent survey becomes much more CPUE values for all recent years can that important. Since the peer review for this easily be dismissed given that the fishery certification report was completed, additional could be expected to have been trying to information has been received in relation to target expected areas of high density; agreed the annual stock indicators for Grand Bank. the areas involved are small historically and Firstly the Client has confirmed that the few relative to the Grand Banks, but they still fishing trips from 2007 to 2015 were not represent many km2 of seabed in each year. primarily commercial fishing trips targeted at The justification also relies to some degree maximising landings, but were essentially on the fact that clams have an estimated 7 irregular trips outside the main season to and 17 years at Banquereau and Grand collect samples of target and bycatch Banks respectively in which to spawn prior to species to investigate commercial

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 156 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

reaching harvestable size. However, opportunities. The annual stock indicators elsewhere the report says that an estimated for these years on Grand Bank cannot 15% mortality of small clams occurs during therefore be considered as reliable indicators fishing, which, given fishing will concentrate of stock status. Secondly DFO have now on areas of high density in the long term, provided preliminary figures for 2016 based could have considerable effect over long on a full fishery for the annual stock periods (although in recent years till 2016 indicators which show that all three indicators there has been minimal fishing at Grand on Grand Bank in 2016 were positive relative Banks). This is without considering sub- to their respective trigger values, and lethal effects. suggest there has been no change in stock I do acknowledge however, that since there status since the last full assessment in 2011. has been no correction for dredge efficiency We also note the point about mortality of for Grand Banks (cf 45% for Banquereau) small clams during the dredging operations. the stock assessment is likely to be a considerable underestimate of commercially The assessment team have considered all fishable stock. the above points and concluded (as did the Nevertheless the above factors suggests that peer reviewer) that the stocks are highly the 100 guideline may not be met, at least for likely to be above the upper reference point Grand Banks. for both Banquereau and Grand Bank, i.e. SG80b is met for both fisheries. The uncertainty caused by infrequent stock surveys is however taken into account in the determination that SG100b is not met. For SIa, the most recent estimate of stock biomass for Grand Bank (considered to be a significant underestimate) was 4x the limit reference point, and with clams on the Grand

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 157 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

Bank having 17 years in which to spawn before being vulnerable to fishing, with virtually no fishing for nearly a decade on Grand Bank before 2016, and with the stock considered to be highly likely to be above the upper reference point, the assessment team considers that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock on Grand Bank is above the point at which recuitment would be impaired, i.e. SG100a is met for both fisheries. The assessment team concludes that there is sufficient evidence to retain the overall score for this PI at 90. Some additional text has been added to the rationale.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 158 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.2 Y N NA The reference points seem precautionary The assessment team determined the and are well argued. scoring of this PI on the limit and target reference points based on estimates of Bmsy However, the fact that stock assessments proxies and the upper removal reference are only carried out at very infrequent fishing mortality based on Maximum intervals means that a series of stock Constant Yield (MCY). As the peer reviewer indicators are used as proxies for intervening notes, these reference points are well years. I question how well proven these are founded and precautionary. in respect of the Grand Banks fishery, especially the CPUE indicator. It is stated for Until 2016, there was some uncertainty SI1.1.2(a) that “The trigger values for these concerning the fisheries-dependent stock stock indicators were set at levels consistent indicators for Grand Bank because they are with previously observed stock levels when based on historical data, and there has been management intervention was not required” no recent stock survey, and there had been but the evidence presented for this e.g. in no significant recent landings (until 2016) on Table 14 and Figure 11 and associated text which to judge whether the trigger values for is not strong given the overall apparent trend the fisheries-dependent indicators remain in CPUE. If there is additional evidence then appropriate for Grand Bank. Since the peer that should be presented or referred to, review for this certification report was otherwise a reduce score should be completed, additional information has been considered. received in relation to the annual stock indicators for Grand Bank, both in terms of the reliability of the indicators from 2007 to 2015, and new figures from the 2016 fishery (see response to comment on PI 1.1.1). The new information provides further justification that the score for PI 1.1.2 remains appropriate.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 159 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.1 Y Y Just a comment : As acknowledged in the No further comment required. report, the results for the indicators for 2016 fior Grand banks will be very important in view of the long time since a formal stock assessment and limited amounts of fishery independent data prior to setting the TAC for 2016.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 160 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.2 Y N Harvest control rules for intervening years (ie The assessment team determined the scoring of between formal stock assessments which this PI on the formal harvest control rules as set are of the order of ten years apart) are the out in the IFMP. These harvest control rules are fishery dependent indicators, with trigger triggered by the estimated stock biomass dropping below the upper stock reference point or levels to detect changes in stock status. As the limit reference point and set out explicitly what discussed above, however, I am not very actions will be taken if the stock drops below convinced by the evidence presented that these points. The score is also based upon the the trigger levels are “set at levels consistent setting of an upper reference fishing mortality (F) with previously observed stock levels when rate which ensures that the TAC is set in management intervention was not required” response to any changes in stock status as with respect to the Grand Banks. Also, given determined from the stock survey. that the Grand Banks clams have a slower Whilst the fisheries-dependent indicators are growth rate than those at Banquereau, is it useful in providing guidance on stock status in the years between stock surveys, they are secondary reasonable for the trigger level CPU to be indicators and the action taken when the trigger lower at Grand Banks (50 g/m2) than it is at levels are exceeded are not explicitly set out in Banquereau (70 g/m2)? Unless the trigger the IFMP. The assessment team considers levels can be better justified I do not see how therefore that the scores for SIa and SIb are the Grand Banks fishery can meet the 80 correct. However the assessment team notes that guideline for any of the three indicators. the stock surveys for both banks are infrequent and considers therefore that for both banks, there is insufficient evidence to justify the SG100c. The score for both banks has been reduced to 80 for SIc and the overall score for this PI has beeen reduced to 80. DFO have now provided preliminary figures for 2016 based on a full fishery for the annual stock indicators which show that all three indicators on Grand Bank in 2016 were positive relative to their respective trigger values, and suggest there has been no change in stock status since the last full assessment in 2011.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 161 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.3 Y N NA It is debatable whether there is sufficient up- The assessment team agrees with the peer to-date data on of the Grand Banks fishery to reviewer that as there are no plans for a new support a score of 80 for SI1.2.3a; stock stock survey on Grand Bank, or for an structure etc, and possibly for SI1.2.3b stock alternative assessment of stock status, there status, given that it has been approximately is not sufficiently regular monitoring of stock 8-11 years since any fishery independent abundance to support the harvest strategy stock assesment was performed, and given on Grand Bank. DFO has now produced also a reliance to some degree on more preliminary values for the annual stock recent fishery dependent data that seems to indicators on Grand Bank in 2016. The be considered at least in part as not assessment team now concludes that SG80b representative of the fishery (although much is not met for Grand Bank. The overall score improved data on the latter should be for this PI has been reduced to 75 for Grand available imminently). All other fishery Bank and a condition has been raised. The removals (SI1.2.3c) are clearly well known rationale has been revised accordingly. for both fisheries, but I am not convinced that the score of 80 is justified for Scoring The score remains unchanged for Indicators a and b for the Grand Banks Banquereau Bank. fishery.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 162 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.4 Y N Given there are recommendations for more The assessent team consider that the stock frequent stock surveys, and for spatial assessment methodology used for this considerations to be taken into account, and fishery is appropriate given the long-lived some doubt over knowledge of dredge nature of the species, and that the efficiency (assumed to be 100% for Grand assessment takes into account the main banks and hence v conservative); plus my uncertainties (precautionary estimates of concerns over the validity of the stock stock biomass, dredge efficiency assumed to indicator trigger levels used in intervening be 100% if no estimate is available, years at Grand Banks, I consider it debatable uncertainties in recruitment and natural whether the Grand Banks fishery meets the mortality) and therefore the assessment 80 guideline for SI 1.2.4(a) and (c). team considers that the scores allocated for SIa and SIc are correct. The main deficiency relates to the infrequent nature of the stock surveys, not the approach itself, and this deficiency has resulted in the raising of a condition against PI 1.2.3. The score for this PI is unchanged.

2.1.1 Y Y No comments noted.

2.1.2 Y Y No comments noted.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 163 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.3 Y Y I agree with the impliction that information on Noted, thank you. incidental mortality would be useful (SI 2.1.3d). It can be expected to be quite high in some groups, given the nature of the dredge. I agree with the PI score.

2.2.1 Y Y No comments noted.

2.2.2 Y Y No comments noted.

2.2.3 Y Y I agree that Grand Bank does not presently Noted, thank you. meet SG 100 for any of the SI’sand that information on incidental mortalities, including for discards, would be required to meet SG 100 for 2.2.3(d)

2.3.1 Y Y There are clearly no significant issues for Noted, thank you. ETP species.

2.3.2 Y Y The fishery has measures that are clearly Noted, thank you. commensurate with the risk of impacting ETP species. I agree with the reasoning and scoring.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 164 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.3.3 Y Y Information gatherered appears to be Noted, thank you. commensurate with the risk of impacting ETP species. I agree with the reasoning and scoring.

2.4.1 Y N The scoring justification for SI2 .4.1 (scored Noted, thank you. A brief paragraph has at 100) presents evidence that physical been added to reflect that two years after properties of sediment recover from dredge dredging, Gilkinson et al. (2005) had disturbance within 10 years but to score 100 observed an increase in the populations of I would expect that information on associated non-target species to or exceeding pre- community recovery should be presented dredge levels. Gilkinson et al. (2015) found also. that significant recruitment in the four commercially targeted bivalve species had not occurred even in the undredged, reference areas, but found no evidence of a dredge effect. In any case, the point is remade that the area dredged each year is extremely small relative to the area of habitat on each of the banks. The Assessment Team considers that the data support a score of 100 for this PI.

2.4.2 Y Y No comments noted.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 165 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.4.3 Y N For SI 2.4.3b to score 100 as here, I would Similar to the note against PI 2.4.1, again expect that information on associated additional information on the Gilkinson et al. community recovery should be presented (2005) and Gilkinson et al. (2015) studies also. has been added to the text. We consider that SG100 is justified.

2.5.1 Y Y No comments noted.

2.5.2 Y Y No comments noted.

2.5.3 Y Y No comments noted.

3.1.1 Y Y No comments noted.

3.1.2 Y Y No comments noted.

3.1.3 Y Y No comments noted.

3.2.1 Y Y No comments noted.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 166 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.2 Y N I am not convinced that SI 3.2.2(b) is met at The assessment team accept this comment 100 (as scored here). The 100 score and have revised the score for this scoring requires that “Decision-making processes issue to 80. The PIs overall score is reduced respond to all issues identified in relevant from 95 to 85 as a result and the overall research, monitoring, evaluation and Principle score reduced from 90.4 to 89.4. consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.” The example given is that the identified possibility of serial depletion is to be addressed by a research program that can address this risk through updated stock assessment methods that consider spatial dynamics of the resource which is fair enough. However, it has also been suggested that stock assessments should be more frequent, but this does not appear to be being seriously considered.

3.2.3 Y Y No comments noted.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes Note comments on client action plan (which has not yet been supplied) above.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 167 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report

The report is comprehensive, well researched and generally well written. It presents a slightly unusual management system very well.

I have not commented upon formatting or general grammar, spelling etc but the following points should be dealt with:

The statement on page 32: “The average annual area swept during the last five years of the fishery (2005-2009) is approximately 26 km2,” is clearly out of date and needs to be updated.

Assessment team response: The text has been updated.

Quahog at Grand Banks is mostly referred to as minor retained species (table 17; scoring issues 2.1.1a and subsequent scoring issues) but is referred to as minor bycatch in text on page 45 and in Table 24. This should not affect any scoring but should be standardized throughout.

Assessment team response: Noted, thank you. These have now been corrected to show that quahog is a minor retaind species for the Grand Bank fishery.

Figure 13 claims to have a Lowess trend fit but does not.

Assessment team response: The reviewer is correct in that the red line on Figure 13 does not appear to be a Lowess trend fit as purported by the original Figure in DFO (2016b). (For comparison see the Lowess trend fit in Figure 10.) As this is an error in the original figure that has been reproduced in this report, an explanatory note has been added to the figure legend.

Units for Figure 6 should presumably be T/km2 (not T/k2).

Assessment team response: This is an error in the legend on the original figure reproduced from DFO (2012). An explanatory note has been added to the figure legend.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 168 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

The following email submission was received from a representative from the Ecology Action Centre.

From: Susan Fuller Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:31 AM To: Paul Knapman , Acoura Fisheries Subject: Re: MSC Re-assessment of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Bank Arctic surfclam fishery (82531 ArcticClam 4thSA-RA)

Hello Paul (and Polly) ,

Apologies for not getting these general comments to you yesterday. I was fully out of commission which is a rather rare occurrence. Please note that EAC will be submitting detailed comments using the MSC stakeholder template by early next week. We would like to confirm the standard that is being used for this re-assessment - is it 1.3 or 2.0 (I asked because the Stakeholder comment form is for 2.0) but I understood that for re-assessments, 2.0 would not be used until 2021.

Generally, we are concerned about the following: - no new stock assessment or survey since 2010. The recent framework assessment meeting did not produce a science advisory report, only a record of the proceedings of the meeting. No information was presented on the Grand Bank fishery and all information on the Banquereau fishery was industry dependent CPUE data. Because of the decline in CPUE, the long lived nature of this species and the fact that this fishery seems to be one of repeated depletion of beds - we have concerns that adequate science is not being done and when it is it is not independent, with data also not being made fully public. This makes it difficult to actually understand stock status and impacts P1. Note as well that in the framework assessment concensus statements, CPUE declines could in fact be steeper than estimated, suggesting that there is insufficient information available to actually understand the impact of the fishery on the over all stock biomass. We think the following statement from the surf clam framework proceedings shows the deficiencies in the current understanding of this stock:

· It was recommended that the objectives, timing, and design/methodology of the surveys on both Banquereau and Grand Bank be re-evaluated and that these fishery- independent surveys, in addition to other available information, are used to inform an integrated stock assessment once sufficient data are available. The benefits of these surveys include: provision of independent biomass estimates for the whole bank (with particular attention to areas characterized by high abundance), verification of stock status, and provision of information on recovery times. A standardized survey approach (e.g., consistent gear) is strongly recommended to enable comparison of survey results across years and continuity of analysis.

- With regards to P2, we raised concerns, as did WWF Canada, at the first certification of this fishery regarding the overlap with vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NAFO area, and specifically on the Grand Banks. Since 2012, there has been additional information gathered through the NAFO scientific council and its working groups on VME indicator species, including bryozoans and tunicates on the southern Grand Bank. We hope that this new information will be taken into account in the habitat assessment of this fishery. Generally, we know that the surf clam gear has a significant impact on the seabed - but no new research has been done to better understand the long term consequences of this fishery on seafloor ecosystem structure and function. No effort in either fishing area has been made to close areas to protect other species or to prevent recruitment overfishing.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 169 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

- Secondly, with regards to P2, there has been no attempt to understand the impact of this fishery and removal of surf clams and other targeted and bycatch bivalve species on other aspects of the ecosystem. Despite a commitment to an ecosystem approach, DFO has not made any progress in incorporating predator prey interactions and impacts of this fishery on recovering / depleted groundfish species.

These are our major areas of concern and we will detail them appropriately in the stakeholder form.

Again, apologies for not being able to meet in person.

Susanna

Assessment team response: The email submission was received the morning of the site visit and the points that were raised were covered in the assessment teams meetings with the client and DFO and have been taken into account in this draft report.

A further more detailed submission, as indicated in the email, was not received.

An email responding to the question related to which version of the MSC standard that has been used in the re-assessment was provided by email and is included below:

From: Acoura Fisheries To: Susanna Fuller; Paul Knapman Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:33 AM

Hello Susanna,

I hope this finds you well. I’ll leave Paul to the technical elements of your mail and echo his thanks for your always useful contributions.

Regarding the version of the standard being used, this is a re-assessment to V1.3 of the standard (scoring tree etc) being conducted using the V2.0 process (timelines, reduced etc). Any re-assessment taking place before the 1st October 2017 may remain with V1.3 or opt to change to V2.0. After that point all re-assessments must be done to V2.0. I think the 2021 reference is the year when new fisheries assessed using V2.0 would have their first V2.0 re-assessment though this isn’t a date referred to in the Standard.

For convenience, find the Implementation Timeline for CR2.0 below in italics.

Regards,

Billy

The implementation timelines are different for the process requirements and the standard requirements. Although these requirements are found in the same document, the MSC Fisheries Standards are located in the S-Annexes, while the process requirements are found in the main document of the FCR and the P-Annexes.

First full assessments that commence after the effective date shall be conducted in accordance with the new standard requirements in FCR v2.0 in addition to using the new processes, including the RBF (Annex PF).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 170 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

All other assessment processes (including first assessments, surveillance audits, certificate extensions and reassessments) in existing fisheries (in assessment or certified before the effective date) that commence1 after 1st April 2015 shall be conducted in accordance with the new process requirements in FCR v2.0, with the exception of the RBF requirements (Annex PF). Existing fisheries still using the standard requirements v1.3 shall apply the RBF requirements as published in CR v1.3 (Annex CC), unless variation is requested and granted to allow use of the RBF process in FCR 2.0 (Annex PF). Such request shall confirm how the differences between CR versions are to be allowed for and which sections of Annex PF shall be applied.

Existing fisheries (in assessment or certified) shall apply the new standard requirements in addition to the RBF (Annex PF) at their first reassessment commencing after 1st October 2017.

Any fishery may elect to use the new process and standard requirements as of the publication date (1st October 2014) if they wish and CABs can confirm their readiness to apply. Fisheries which entered full assessment prior to 10 March 2012 and which have not published their PCDR by 1 December 2014 shall apply FCR 7.3.

CABs shall use the same version of the FCR process for each full assessment (i.e., from the start of announcement of the fishery through to certification), and for each individual surveillance, except in cases where the assessments are delayed, as covered by FCR sections 7.3.3-4, and allowing for the special case of the RBF process, as outlined above.

1. The report shall include:

a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in FCR 7.15.4.1. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR 7.15.4.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify:

a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.

(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 171 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on- e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced site with remote that information needed to verify progress support from 1 towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be auditor provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, 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.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 172 Acoura Marine Public Comment Draft Report Re-assessmemt of Clearwater Seafoods Banquereau and Grand Banks Arctic surf clam fishery

Appendix 5 Objections Process

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

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

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 173