Marine Stewardship Council Re-Assessment of the Canada Pacific Halibut (British Columbia) Hook-and-Line Fishery (Including Bottom Long line, Troll line, and Hand line)

Final Certification Report v 5.0

Certificate Number: SCS-MFCP-F-0020 24 June 2015 Prepared for: Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA) PO Box 16046, 617 Belmont Street New Westminster, B.C. V3M 6W6, Canada Tel: 1 (604) 523-1528 Fax 1 (604) 648-8737 Email [email protected]

Authors: Principle 1: Dr. Joe DeAlteris Principle 2: Dr. Sian Morgan Principle 3: Mr. Bruce Turris Support: Ms. Adrienne Vincent

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 1 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Table of Contents

Glossary ...... 4 1 Executive Summary ...... 7 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 2.1 Authorship ...... 8 2.2 Peer Reviewers...... 9 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 11 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and scope of certification sought ...... 11 3.1.1 Eligible Fishers and the Unit of Certification ...... 11 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 11 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 11 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 11 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 13 3.3.1 The Target Species ...... 13 3.3.2 Life History ...... 13 3.3.3 Distribution and Migration ...... 14 3.3.4 Food and Feeding ...... 14 3.3.5 Stock Status ...... 14 3.3.6 Target Species Catch Data ...... 16 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 26 3.4.1 Overarching Stock Assessment Policies and Procedures ...... 26 3.4.2 Catch Accounting ...... 27 3.4.2 First Nations Fishing ...... 30 3.4.3 Recreational/Sport Fishing ...... 30 3.4.4 DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) incorporating the Precautionary Approach 31 3.4.5 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Groundfish ...... 33 3.4.6 Bycatch and Retained species ...... 37 3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species (ETP) ...... 48 3.4.8 Habitat Considerations ...... 67 3.4.9 Ecosystem Considerations ...... 75 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 78 3.5.1 Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdictions it falls ...... 78 3.5.2 Fleet types for the Fishery ...... 79 3.5.3 Particulars of and Consultations with the Recognised Groups with Interests in the Fishery 79

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 2 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.5.4 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan ...... 82 3.5.5 Consultations with Non-Fishery Users and Activities that may Affect the Fishery ...... 83 3.5.6 Decision Making Process ...... 83 3.5.7 Objectives for the Fishery ...... 84 3.5.8 Acts and Management Measures ...... 87 3.5.9 Monitoring and Enforcement ...... 88 3.5.10 Fishery Research Plan ...... 91 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 94 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 94 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 94 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 94 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 94 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 94 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 95 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 96 5 Traceability ...... 97 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 97 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 97 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 97 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 98 6 Evaluation Results ...... 99 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 99 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 99 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 100 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 100 7 References ...... 101 8 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 109 8.1 Principle 1—Stock Status ...... 109 8.2 Principle 2—Ecosystem Considerations ...... 125 8.3 Appendix 1.1 Condition and Agreement to Meet Condition ...... 223 9 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 226 10 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions & team response ...... 264 11 Appendix 4. Catch Accounting Statistics ...... 291 12 Appendix 5. Surveillance Frequency ...... 292 13 Appendix 6. Sustainable Fisheries Checklist ...... 293 14 Appendix 7. Client Agreement ...... 294 15 Appendix 8. Objections Process ...... 294

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 3 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Glossary

ABC Allowable Biological Catch ACL Annual Catch Limit ADP Annual Deployment Plan AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center AK Alaska state, USA APR Annual Performance Review BC British Columbia, Canada BCSA British Columbia Seafood Alliance Bmsy Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield C&P Conservation and Protection CAB Conformity Assessment Body CB Conference Board CDN Canadian Dollar CDQ Community Development Quota CEY Constant Exploitation Yield CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora cm centimetre COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSAS Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat CSAP Center for Science Advice- Pacific CWS Canada Wildlife Service DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada DSR Demersal Shelf Rockfish EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EM Electronic Monitoring eNGO environmental Non-Governmental Organization ERAF Ecological Risk Assessment Framework ESA United States Endangered Species Act ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FSC Food, Social, and Ceremonial ft feet FVOA Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association GIAB Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board GMU Groundfish Management Unit GOA Gulf of Alaska GPS Global Positioning System GSSP Groundfish Science Strategic Plan HAB Halibut Advisory Board HADD Harmful Alteration, Disruption, or Destruction (of fish habitat) HBCL Habitat Bycatch Conservation Limit HR Harvest Rate IFC International Fisheries Commission IFMP 2013-2015 Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 4 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 IFQ or IQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission IVQ Individual Vessel Quota H+G Headed and Gutted HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern kg Kilogram, equivalent to 2.2lbs km Kilometre lb Pound, equivalent to roughly 0.45kg LOA Length Over-All LOMA Large Ocean Management Area LRP Limit Reference Point LTL Low Trophic Level M Million (lbs) m meter mm millimeter MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPA Marine Protected Area MSA United States Magnuson-Stevens Act MSAB Management Strategy Advisory Board MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation NAP National Advisory Process NFIS national Fisheries Intelligence Service NM Nautical Mile, equivalent to1.85 km NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council NPGOP National Pacific Groundfish Observer Program NSERC Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council NWA National Wildlife Area NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center OAC Observer Advisory Committee ODDS Observer Declare and Deploy System PA Precautionary Approach PAG Processors Advisory Group PI Performance Indicator (MSC) PHMA Pacific Halibut Management Association PNCIMA Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area RAB Research Advisory Board RCA Rockfish Conservation Area SAR Science Advisory Report SARA Canada Species at Risk Act SCS Scientific Certification Systems (changed in 2013 to SCS Global Services Inc.) SFF Sustainable Fisheries Framework SFU Simon Frasier University SRB Scientific Review Board t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch TL Total Length US United States of America

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 5 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 WA Washington state, USA WCGOP West Coast Groundfish Observer Program WPUE Weight per Unit Effort WWF World Wildlife Fund y year

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 6 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 1 Executive Summary This report summarizes the findings from the first Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) re-assessment of the British Columbia (BC) Pacific halibut fishery. SCS Global Services, as the Certification Assessment Body of record re-certifies these fisheries as a source of sustainable seafood under the Marine Stewardship Council Certification Requirements v.1.3. The assessment evaluated the fishery using hook-and-line gears which includes bottom-set longlines, troll and hand-line gear types: non- target species interactions for all of these hook-based gears were scored for Principle 2. The majority of the fishery is conducted using bottom-set longlines. SCS has followed gear terminology used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada which calls the composite of gears above “hook- and-line” and this terminology is used throughout the report, halibut in BC are caught by bottom set longlines, as well an in minor amounts by trolling and handlines. This is consistent with “hook and line” fisheries as defined by the UN Atlas of Oceans and the FAO which specify that hook and line fisheries are handline, pole and line, set or drifting longline and trolling lines1.

The authors of this report are: Dr. Sian Morgan, the lead auditor, team leader and assessor of Principle 2; Mr. Tom Jagielo, assessor of Principle 1, and Mr. Bruce Turris assessor of Principle 3. Support work at SCS was provided by an additional MSC lead auditor with experience in groundfish and with previous history auditing the BC Halibut fishery, Ms. Adrienne Vincent.

The re-assessment was undertaken by in-person meetings that were run concurrently with the 4th annual surveillance audit of the fishery’s original certificate. Meetings included representatives of the client group, the Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA), science and management staff at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and took place in Vancouver, BC. Additional meetings were held in Seattle, Washington with the International Pacific Management Commission (IPHC) and with stakeholders in both locales. Additional communications were held by tele-conference and by email. Stakeholders and interested parties were informed of the consultation periods by direct mailings and publically available postings. The re-assessment team met to determine scores against the MSC Performance Indicators and used MSC Certification Requirements (CR) v1.3 (Jan 2013) which includes the MSC-developed “default assessment tree.” No changes were made to the assessment tree or criteria from what is found in CR v1.3. Scores were determined through team discussion with each expert leading the discussion for their respective Principles.

The BC Pacific halibut hook-and-line fishery is considered well managed and rigorously monitored. Strengths include the exceptional catch accounting and monitoring required by DFO where all retained and bycatch species are recorded. The Integrated Groundfish Management System used for BC groundfish allows operators with Individual Vessel Quotas to trade quota for species landed, reducing discards and promoting full use of groundfish caught in British Columbia.

The fishery received one Condition under Principle 2. The Condition relates to the need for timely stock assessments for groundfish with vulnerable life histories that are encountered with halibut.

1 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/1617/en

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 7 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

The overall scores in Principles 1, 2 and 3 were: 88.8, 87.3 and 97.8 respectively. The specific Condition for the fishery based on the results of this re-assessment may be found in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of Conditions for Continued Certification Scoring Text of Condition # PI Issue The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence 1 2.3.2 b that the strategy for yelloweye and rougheye rockfishes will be effective, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

Conditions to certification require a client action plan and have been assigned to the Performance Indicator (PI) that did not reach the Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 80. The action plan is intended to bring the fishery up to the SG80 requirements for PI 2.3.2.

The team found that the BC Pacific halibut hook-and-line fisheries were generally compliant with the MSC standard for sustainable fisheries and supports continued certification based on the best and most current available information. The report was reviewed by two independent peer reviewers that evaluated the scores and rationales from the team. The team considered comments and made some adjustments or clarifications. The report was then available for public comment for a period of 30 days. Stakeholders were informed of the comment period and the report was available on the MSC website. The Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA) took this opportunity to provide additional comment on the report. The responses to these comments have also been included in this final version of the report. The report and comments were provided to the SCS Certification Board that reviewed the available information and made a certification decision. The SCS Certification Board concurred with the audit team’s recommendation that the fishery may be re-certified as a source of sustainable seafood. Stakeholders engaged in the assessment process had the opportunity to object to the determination for a period of 15 United Kingdom working days. No objections were received, and the fishery is now re-certified for a period of 5 years.

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

2.1 Authorship Dr. Siân Morgan, Scientific Certification Systems, Team Leader and P2 Dr. Morgan comes from a background in marine ecology and fisheries science with particular expertise in markets-based fisheries reform, certification and quantitative methods for decision analysis. She has worked in non-governmental, academic and consulting settings and brings to the team a strong background in cross-sectoral consultation. Her doctoral research at the Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia/McGill examined the population dynamics and management of a small-scale, data poor multi-species fishery in Asia. Dr. Morgan has participated standards setting and revision processes for both fisheries and aquaculture, was a past member of the MSC Stakeholder Council (public chamber) and is a current member of the Technical Advisory Group for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. Examples of SCS client fisheries that Sian has managed include Louisiana Blue Crab, Gulf of California Mexico low trophic levels fisheries for sardine and thread herring, Pacific Halibut as well as various international reform/preassessment projects. Past initiatives managed by Siân include developing SeaChoice, a national seafood program for Canada, conceiving pragmatic trade tools for CITES and researching species responses to area-based management for WWF. Sian is trained to audit the MSC standard, various ASC standards, MSC/ASC CoC, ISO 9001 and SA 8000.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 8 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Dr. Joseph DeAlteris, University of Rhode Island, P1 Professor Emeritus of fisheries science at the University of Rhode Island, Dr. DeAlteris has an international reputation as an expert in the field of stock assessments; he brings intimate knowledge of invertebrate fisheries and has considerable experience in MSC fishery evaluations. Dr. DeAlteris has worked with SCS on the full assessment of the Atlantic deep-sea red crab evaluation and the Louisiana blue crab evaluation. Dr. DeAlteris’ knowledge of the management of invertebrate fisheries, the MSC evaluation process and of crab fisheries in particular guarantees the client the most reliable review possible by any scientist or certification body.

Mr. Bruce Turris, Pacific Fisheries Management Inc. P3 Mr. Turris has been involved with commercial fisheries management on the west coast of Canada for 25 years. The focus of his work has been in the design, development, and implementation of new management systems. Mr. Turris has been integral in the first at-sea observer program, the design of individual vessel quotas (IVQs) for the Pacific halibut, and the design and implementation of the first dockside monitoring program for all groundfish fisheries in Canada. President of Pacific Fisheries Management Inc., Mr. Turris provides consulting, executive management, policy and strategic planning services for individuals, companies, NGOs and government agencies involved in commercial fisheries. He focuses on policy development, program analysis, and the negotiation, coordination and implementation of commercial fishery management programs. Mr. Turris was also the Pacific halibut and sablefish coordinator for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where he was the liaison with industry representatives and a developer of long-term management plans and operational procedures. As an economist, Mr. Turris focused on cost/benefit analysis for commercial fisheries and developed policy recommendations for management systems and measures

Ms. Adrienne Vincent, SCS Global Services, Editorial and Auditing Support Ms. Vincent is a marine biologist that has worked closely with finfish species of commercial importance including California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), surfperches (Embiotocidae family) and white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis). After completing her B.Sc. in biology from the University of Oregon she completed an e.M.B. in marine science with the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology and focused on marine species management, estuarine trophic relationships, and plankton distribution based on real time oceanographic conditions. Ms. Vincent thereafter joined the State Managed Finfish Project with the California Department of Fish and Game where she worked on stock assessment, bycatch and fishing mortality surveys and other management issues. Ms. Vincent managed the hook-and-line and trawl fishery independent sampling (indices of abundance) and by- catch rate surveys as well as halibut movement and age structure studies. Since with SCS, she has been involved with the MSC certifications of US Pacific halibut, US Pacific sablefish, Scotian Shelf shrimp, Iturup and Annette Island salmon, and several Canadian groundfish fisheries. In this capacity, Ms. Vincent has also worked with tribal and first nations fisheries. Ms. Vincent is a lead auditor under the International Standard Organization (ISO) 90011:2008, has undertaken SA8000 social accountability auditor training, is a chain-of-custody auditor and is qualified to lead Risk- Based-Framework and Low-Trophic-Level MSC Assessments.

2.2 Peer Reviewers Bruce Atkinson, DFO (retired) Mr. Atkinson is a retired fisheries biologist with more than 30 years’ experience primarily related to the biology, life history and assessment of groundfish, but also with experience related to pelagic fishes and shellfish. His extended career with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) also included management positions within Science culminating in the position of Regional Director of Science and Oceans sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador. He participated in the Northwest

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 9 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) for many years and was the Head of the Canadian Delegation to the Scientific Council from 2000-2004. Since retirement in 2005, he has maintained a keen interest in fisheries. He served on an Expert Panel that reviewed the performance of NEAFC (North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) in relation to its mandated responsibilities, participated in regional groundfish assessments carried out by DFO in Newfoundland as rapporteur, served as a reviewer of fisheries related proposals for European Union Framework Programme (FP7) funding, chaired an Expert Panel that prepared a report on the Impacts of EU Framework Programmes (2000- 2010) and Prospects for Research and Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture, served on an Expert Panel charged with developing an Outreach Strategy to better familiarize the public with Framework Programme benefits (2011-2012) served as a member of the Assessment Team for assessment of the Ocean Choice International Yellowtail Flounder Trawl Fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria serving as lead for assessment of Principle 1 as well as being a member of the team conducting the first three annual audits of this fishery, served as Chair of an Expert Panel that conducted a review of the methods of catch estimation of NAFO stocks by the NAFO Scientific Council as well as carrying out other fisheries related work under contract including the conduct of 15 MSC CoC audits. He is currently a member of the COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) Marine Fishes Specialist Subcommittee.

Patrick Sullivan, Cornell University, Professor Patrick J. Sullivan is a Professor of Quantitative Population and Community Dynamics in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Prior to that, he was a Population Dynamicist for 10 years with the International Pacific Halibut Commission in Seattle, WA. He received his Masters and PhD degrees from the University of Washington in Fisheries Science and Biostatistics and Biomathematics respectively. His research focusses principally on the spatial and temporal dynamics of fish populations in marine and estuarine waters, the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, and the inland lakes and streams of New York. However, he also oversees a long term research project in association with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation focusing on terrestrial biodiversity conservation in the Hudson River Valley watershed. He spent a recent sabbatical leave as the first Hjort scholar at Hjort Centre for Marine Ecosystem Dynamics in association with the Institute for Marine Research, Bergen, Norway. Dr. Sullivan is a member of the Scientific and Statistical Committee that advises the New England Fisheries Management Council, is a member of the Steering Committee for the Center for Independent Experts that provides peer review for the National Marine Fisheries Service stock assessment review process, and had chaired or co-chaired three National Academy of Sciences reviews, the most recent being the Committee to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 10 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3 Description of the Fishery

A brief description of the Pacific halibut fishery assessed in this project is provided in the following subsections.

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and scope of certification sought The fishery meets the MSC scope criteria for wild capture fisheries. The unit of certification is considered a single species under a single management regime. The Pacific halibut wild capture fishery in British Columbia, Canada executed by hook-and-line gear includes bottom longline, troll and hand-line gear. The fishery is not conducted under controversial unilateral exemption to international agreements and does not use destructive fishing practices. The fishery is also not currently under dispute or controversy that prevents it from meeting the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

Table 2. Unit of Assessment Species Hippoglossus stenolepis Geographical Area British Columbia, Canada Stock Eastern Pacific Gear Type Hook and line (Bottom longline, troll and hand-line ) Management System TAC, ITQ, time and area closures, and minimum size limit with gear restrictions Client Group Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA)

3.1.1 Eligible Fishers and the Unit of Certification Eligible fishers are those that are authorized by license condition to fish for Pacific halibut with in the Pacific Canadian EEZ by hook and line gear as defined above. The Unit of Certification includes products originating from the Unit of Assessment defined above in Table 2 and that have a certificate sharing agreement with the client group. Please contact the client group, the Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA)2, for fishery certificate sharing arrangements. Please contact SCS3 directly if interested in maintaining the chain of custody to utilize the MSC blue eco- label for products originating from this fishery. Only halibut identified as being part of the Unit of Assessment as well as purchased from those that are identified as being in the client group will be eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel under this certificate.

3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

The fishery is based on wild capture Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis).

3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) Pacific halibut are not an introduced species to this area.

3.2 Overview of the fishery

The Pacific commercial halibut fishery started in the late 1880s. As the halibut fleet grew and overfishing became apparent, the industry asked the Canadian and US governments for international management of the halibut resource. In 1924, under a signed convention, the Canadian and U.S.

2 The PHMA may be reached by email at the following address: [email protected] 3 SCS may be reached by email at the following address: [email protected]

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 11 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 governments formed the International Fisheries Commission (IFC) to manage the Pacific halibut resource. In 1953, the Convention was modified and the IFC became the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). Today, the IPHC performs assessments and basic research on the Pacific halibut stocks, sets total allowable catches (TACs) by fishing area, and determines regulatory measures almost exclusively related to conservation issues.

In 1977, both Canada and the U.S. extended their coastal jurisdiction to 200 miles. As a result, in 1979, the 1953 Halibut Convention was modified to prevent Canadian halibut vessels from fishing in U.S. waters and U.S. vessels from fishing in Canadian waters. The 1979, Convention modification also empowered the individual governments to impose fishing regulations on their own halibut fleets. In the same year, Canada imposed limited entry on the halibut fleet and 435 vessels qualified to receive a commercial halibut (or Category “L”) license.

In 1989, a small group of halibut vessel owners approached Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for assistance in developing an individual quota (IQ) program. As a result, an Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) system was implemented in the halibut fishery in 1991 on a two-year trial basis with extensive input from industry participants. During the trial period the IVQ system proved very successful at meeting conservation objectives and improving the economic viability of the fleet. The IVQ program remains in place today. The industry contracts with third-party service providers for an industry-funded dockside monitoring program (100% of landings) and an industry-funded at-sea monitoring program (100% of sea days). The industry also helps fund various rockfish science initiatives. Halibut vessel owners pay license access fees to DFO for the privilege of accessing the halibut resource. Total license access fees vary with the size of the TAC. Each license holder fee is based on how much IVQ is associated with the license.

The halibut fishery is managed as a multi-species fishery. In 2006, a three-year pilot program was implemented in Canada’s Pacific commercial groundfish fisheries, commonly referred to as groundfish integration. In 2010, the pilot program was adopted as the long-term management regime. This management regime requires 100% at-sea monitoring, 100% dockside monitoring, individual vessel accountability for all catch (both retained and released), individual vessel quotas and reallocation of these quotas between vessels and fisheries to cover catches of non-directed species (retained and released). There are seven distinct commercial groundfish sector groups: Halibut (L), Sablefish (category “K” licence), Inside Rockfish (category “ZN” licence), Outside Rockfish (category “ZN” license), Lingcod (Schedule II license), Dogfish (Schedule II license) and Groundfish Trawl (category “T” license) are managed as distinct fisheries but are considered to be integrated as they must reallocate IVQ between vessels and fisheries to cover catches of retained and released non-directed species.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada– Pacific Region. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish. For more information on the IFMP, refer to: www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/ground-fond-2011- 13-eng.pdf

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 12 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 The Target Species

The fishery targets Pacific Halibut, (Hippoglossus stenolepis), a flatfish which inhabits the continental shelf of the United States and Canada, ranging from California to the Bering Sea, and extends into Russia and Japan. Because halibut can grow to be as much as 500 pounds, is firm textured, and has relatively few bones compared to other fishes, it is a popular food fish. Pacific halibut is not a low trophic level (LTL) species, and therefore MSC LTL fishery considerations are not addressed in this report.

3.3.2 Life History

Pacific halibut are among the largest teleost fishes in the world with lengths reported up to 9 feet (2.7 m) and growth to weights of several hundred pounds. Although the average age taken in the fishery is from about 10 to 13 years, halibut are known to live to an age exceeding 50 years.

Mature halibut collect on spawning grounds during the period from November to March and normally spawn along the continental slope at depths from 200 to over 450 meters. A 50 pound female will spawn close to a half a million eggs while a female over 200 pounds will spawn several million eggs. The eggs and larvae are heavier than the surface seawater and drift passively in deep ocean currents. The larva grow and transform into adult form at about 6 months, at which time they settle to the bottom and join the community of demersal fin fish. The adults undertake considerable spawning migrations moving north and south and from shallow to deepwater, depending on the season. Juvenile halibut, those under 7 years of age, also migrate long distances apparently counter balancing the northwesterly drift of the eggs and larva in the Northeast Pacific.

Maturity varies with sex, age, and size of the fish. Females grow faster but mature slower than males reaching maturity at about 12 years. Most males mature around eight years old. Fecundity is size dependent with a 50-pound female producing about 500,000 eggs; while a female over 250 pounds may produce as much as 4 million eggs.

Eggs are about 3 mm in diameter when released and fertilization takes place externally. Developing ova are typically found at depths of 300 to 600 feet, but have been known to occur at depths as great as 1,500 feet. Egg hatching is moderated by temperature occurring around 15 to 20 days at 5-6 degrees Celsius, and 12 to 14 days at 7-8 degrees Celsius. The eggs and larvae drift passively in deep ocean currents. As the larvae grow, they decrease in specific gravity, gradually moving towards the surface and drifting to shallower waters on the continental shelf. Larval transport can occur over many hundreds of miles by the Alaskan Stream which flows counter-clockwise in the Gulf of Alaska and westward along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands. Some larvae are carried into the Bering Sea. At about 6 months old, young fish have the characteristic adult form and settle to the bottom in shallow inshore areas.

Halibut are occasionally eaten by marine mammals but seem to be rarely found as prey for other fish.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 13 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.3.3 Distribution and Migration

Pacific halibut have a wide distribution in the North Pacific Basin ranging from Southern California north to Nome, Alaska. They also occur along the Asiatic Coast from the Gulf of Anadyr, Russia to Hokkaido, Japan. Depending on life stage, they may occur from the shallow waters of the continental shelf and down the continental slope to depths of 1200 meters (IPHC, 1998).

Halibut are demersal, living on or near the bottom. Halibut are most often caught between 90 and 900 feet (27 and 274 meters), but have been caught as deep as 1,800 feet. Young halibut migrate in a clockwise direction to counter the effects of egg drift in ocean currents. One and two-year old Pacific halibut are commonly found in inshore areas, whereas 2 or 3-year olds tend to move further offshore. Pacific halibut enter the commercial fishery at about 8 years old, after most of the extensive counter-migration to balance egg and larval drift has apparently taken place. Adult halibut continue to migrate annually, moving to deeper waters on the edge of the continental shelf during the winter for spawning, and into shallow coastal waters in the summer months for feeding.

3.3.4 Food and Feeding

Halibut are carnivorous. Larval halibut feed on plankton, while halibut from 1 to 3 years old feed on small shrimp-like organisms and small fish. Larger halibut feed on fish, with the percent of the diet occupied by fish increasing with size and age. Species of fish found in the diet of halibut include cod, sablefish, pollock, rockfish, sculpins, turbot, and some flatfish. In addition, halibut have been found to consume a variety of crustaceans, or to leave the bottom to feed on other species of fish.

3.3.5 Stock Status

The IPHC conducts an annual coast wide stock assessment of Pacific halibut and sets the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for all Pacific halibut fisheries in US and Canadian waters. A biologically determined level for total removals from each regulatory area is calculated by applying a fixed harvest rate to the estimate of exploitable biomass. This level is called the “constant exploitation yield” or CEY. The IPHC jurisdiction encompasses waters from the coast out to the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nm. Coast wide exploitable biomass is apportioned based on survey weight-per-unit-effort (WPUE) and bottom area to each of the 10 IPHC management areas (Figure 1). The Unit of Certification is area 2B, British Columbia Canada. The Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Washington was initially MSC certified in 2006, and recently started its 2nd annual surveillance audit since is re-assessment in August of 2013. Relevant P1 issues in that audit have been harmonized with this re-assessment report.

The 2012 stock assessment indicated that the Pacific halibut stock has been declining over much of the last decade as a result of decreasing size-at-age and poor recruitment strengths (Stewart et al. 2013). The population decline is estimated to have slowed and the stock trajectory is now relatively flat at 35% of the reference level, just above the harvest policy threshold of 30% (Figure 2). Despite reductions in harvest levels in 2011 and 2012, the assessment estimates that, in hindsight, harvest rates have been well above the coastwide targets implied by the current harvest policy (Figure 3).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 14 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Age distributions in 2012 from both the fishery and the coastwide IPHC setline survey indicated a relatively stable stock, but no evidence of strong recruitments in recent years. Survey WPUE showed an increase (+12%) relative to 2011. Individual size-at-age continues to be low relative to the rest of the time-series (Stewart et al. 2013).

Trends by regulatory area in the set line survey in the Weight per Unit Effort (WPUE), the commercial fishery WPUE, and in a average fish weight observed in the commercial fishery (Figures 4, 5, and 6), all indicate that the British Columbia area management unit (2B) of Pacific halibut is in relatively good condition as compared to the US managed areas, perhaps an indication of the effectiveness of their overall integrated groundfish management strategy that accounts for bycatch of halibut in all fisheries.

During 2012, IPHC conducted a review of the data, assessment model, and the general approach used to assess the stock in recent years. It is now recognized that the retrospective bias seen in recent assessments had occurred because the model did not correctly account for variation in the availability of different sizes of fish in different areas. The assessment model results are now more consistent with observed fishery and survey data. As a result of changes to the assessment model in 2012, estimates of recent recruitment are much lower than previously thought (Stewart et al 2013).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 15 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.3.6 Target Species Catch Data

Figure 1. Pacific halibut management areas. IPHC.

The stock assessment and apportionment results estimate that about 13 percent of the coastwide exploitable biomass was off British Columbia in 2012, 2 percent off Oregon and Washington, and the remainder off Alaska. Of the US catch, 97% is harvested in Alaska.

All anticipated removals of halibut are taken into account when recommending the annual TAC including: 1) commercial fisheries, 2) recreational fisheries, 3) bycatch in the directed fishery (referred to as “wastage”), 4) bycatch in non-directed fisheries, and 5) personal use (Table 6). Unlike in most fisheries, “bycatch” terminology in IPHC publications for this fishery do not refer to catch and retention or discard of non-halibut species.

In 2012, wastage in the directed fishery comprised 3.0% of total removals, and bycatch in non- directed fisheries comprised 19.2% of the total removals (Table 3). Annual removals from British Columbia waters (all sources) were 8.75 M lbs. in 2011, and then decreased to 7.74 M lbs. in 2012, in response to management measures intended to stabilize declining trends in stock size (Table 4).

Coast-wide, IPHC catch limits (Canada and US combined) declined from 33.54 M lbs. in 2012, to 31.03 M lbs. in 2013 (Table 5). In British Columbia waters, catch limits were stable at 7.04 M lbs. in 2012, and 7,04 M lbs. in 2013 and constituted 21.9% and 22.7% of the coastwide limits for 2012 and 2013, respectively.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 16 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 For 2013, the IPHC staff prepared a risk-benefit decision table and recommended a coastwide fishery CEY of 22.7 M lbs. (total CEY = 40.2 million lbs., to include removals from all sources) (Stewart et al 2013). This advice is illustrated with a blue line on the decision table, and corresponds to fishing at a level consistent with a 50% probability of overfishing (Table 9). The IPHC’s final recommendation to the governments of Canada and the US for the 2013 fishery CEY was 31.028 M lbs. (IPHC 2013). This level of fishery removals is 8.3 M lbs. in excess of the 50% overfishing probability level, and puts the targeted catch between the lines indicating 75% and 84% probabilities of overfishing on the decision table (Table 9).

The Assessment Team held a productive and informative meeting with IPHC staff on July 10th, 2013. Ian Stewart described progress on improving the characterization of uncertainty in model estimates, and the move toward the decision table framework for providing scientific advice to managers. Executive Director Bruce Leaman gave an update on implementation of the Scientific Review Board (SRB), a key element of the new stock assessment peer-review process. Steve Martell described current activities including 1) evaluation of the influence of changes in size-at-age with respect to harvest control rules, 2) progress on development of a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), 3) and investigations to better understand causes for the observed declines in Pacific halibut size-at- age.

Figure 2. Time-series of spawning biomass relative to harvest policy reference points. Source: Stewart et al. (2013) http:/www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012093_assessment.pdf

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 17 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Figure 3. Time series of realized coastwide harvest rates (bars) and hindcast harvest rate targets (horizontal dashes). Note that hindcast harvest rate targets represent the current perception of exploitable biomass, not the perception in that year. Source: Stewart et al. (2013) http:/www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012093_assessment.pdf

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 18 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Figure 1. Trends in setline survey WPUE by regulatory area, percentages below the area labels indicate the percent change from 2011 to 2012 observations.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 19 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Figure 2. Trends in commercial fishery WPUE by regulatory area, percentages below the area labels indicate the percent change from 2011 to 2012 observations. The shaded portion in each panel indicates historical data not currently included in the stock assessment model.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 20 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Figure 3. Trends in average fish weight observed in the commercial fishery by regulatory area.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 21 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 3. Total removals of Pacific halibut by source, 2007-2012.

Total Removals by Source (thousands of pounds, net weight) Source: http:/www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012093_assessment.pdf Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent in 2012

Commercial Fishery 63030 58700 52180 49830 39610 31870 62.1% Commercial Wastage 2290 2340 2620 3040 2210 1540 3.0% Bycatch 12270 11890 11380 10630 9900 9870 19.2% Sport 11460 10670 8750 7800 7080 6850 13.3% Personal Use 1490 1340 1310 1240 1240 1240 2.4%

Total1 90530 84930 76240 72540 60040 51360 100% 1 Sum removals by source for all regulatory areas (Canada and US combined)

Table 4. Total removals of Pacific halibut by regulatory area, 2007-2012.

Total Removals (thousands of pounds, net weight)

Source: http:/www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012093_assessment.pdf Regulatory Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2A 1730 1630 1500 1180 1070 1150 2B 12520 10120 8600 8710 8750 7740 2C 12690 10500 8410 7480 4320 4610 3A 36960 34230 30730 29070 23200 18730 3B 10880 12850 12920 12220 9300 7210 4A 4710 4740 4200 3910 3710 3450 4B 2240 2510 2300 2540 2660 2370 4CDE 8810 8350 7570 7450 7030 6110

Total1 90530 84930 76240 72540 60040 51360 BC total 12520 10120 8600 8710 8750 7740 1Sum of the area values may disagree due to rounding error

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 22 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 5. Catch limits set by IPHC by regulatory area, 2007-2013.

1. Source: http://www.iphc.int/commercial/184-comm-limits.html 2. Source: 2012 RARA 3. Source: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/D2b_NMFS_RPT_SEPT2013BB.pdf 4. Client submission Regulatory Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall Fishery Catch Limits, inclusive of commercial, sport and tribal treaty for 2A (thousands of pounds, net weight) Fishery Catch Limits, inclusive of commercial and sport 2B (thousands of pounds, net weight) 2A1 1,340 1,220 950 810 910 989 990 2B1 11,470 9,000 7,630 7,500 7,650 7,038 7,038 Commercial Catch Limits (thousands of pounds, net weight) 2A2 799 718 511 420 481 547 2253 2B2 10,089 7918 6712 6599 6702 5953 59584 2C1 8,510 6,210 5,020 4,400 2,330 2,624 2,970 3A1 26,200 24,220 21,700 19,990 14,360 11,918 11,030 3B1 9,220 10,900 10,900 9,900 7,510 5,070 4,290 4A1 2,890 3,100 2,550 2,330 2,410 1,567 1,330 4B1 1,440 1,860 1,870 2,160 2,180 1,869 1,450 4CDE1 4,100 3,890 3,460 3,580 3,720 2,465 1,930

Coastwide Commercial 63,248 58,816 52,723 49,379 39,693 32,013 29,183 Total Canadian Total Allocation 11,470 9,000 7,630 7,500 7,650 7,038 7,038

Canadian Commercial 10,089 7,918 6,712 6,599 6,702 5,953 5,958 Allocation Canadian commercial allocation as a percentage of 15.95% 13.46% 12.73% 13.36% 16.88% 18.60% 20.42% coastwide allocation

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 23 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 6. Fishery Removals: Fishery removals of Pacific halibut by regulatory area, 2007-2012. Light gray areas give combined limits for commercial, sport/recreational and tribal treaty fisheries (2A) and combined commercial, sport/recreational fisheries (2B). Dark gray areas give commercial catch limits only, by IPHC area.

Taken from commercial catch (including research catch) tables in 2012 RARA, pp 37: http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012.pdf

Regulatory Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2A 1,335 1,193 934 805 963 1032

2B 11,328 9,330 7,760 7,837 7,780 7,005

2A 789 682 490 418 541 592

2B 9,772 7,756 6,637 6,729 6,692 5,920

2C 8,473 6,206 4,955 4,486 2,454 2,687

3A 26,493 24,521 21,755 20,502 14,669 11,946

3B 9,249 10,748 10,781 10,114 7,321 5,066

4A 2,828 3,015 2,528 2,325 2,351 1,568

4B 2,416 1,763 1,593 1,829 2,054 1,702

4CDE 3,850 3,876 3,310 3,315 3,429 2,307

Coastwide Total 63,870 58,567 52,049 49,718 39,511 31,788 Removals Canadian 9,772 7,756 6,637 6,729 6,692 5,920 Removals

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 24 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 7. Management Performance: Removals as a Percentage of Catch Limits. Light gray areas give performance for combined: commercial, sport/recreational and tribal treaty/first nations fisheries (2A) and commercial and sport/recreational fisheries (2B). Dark gray areas give commercial fishery performance by IPHC area. Data drawn from Tables 5 &6.

Regulatory 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Area

2A 99.63% 97.79% 98.32% 99.38% 105.82% 104.35% 2B 98.76% 103.67% 101.70% 104.49% 101.70% 99.53%

2A 98.75% 94.99% 95.89% 99.52% 112.47% 108.23% 2B 96.86% 97.95% 98.88% 101.97% 99.85% 99.45% 2C 99.57% 99.94% 98.71% 101.95% 105.32% 102.40% 3A 101.12% 101.24% 100.25% 102.56% 102.15% 100.23% 3B 100.31% 98.61% 98.91% 102.16% 97.48% 99.92% 4A 97.85% 97.26% 99.14% 99.79% 97.55% 100.06% 4B 167.78% 94.78% 85.19% 84.68% 94.22% 91.06% 4CDE 93.90% 99.64% 95.66% 92.60% 92.18% 93.59%

Total 100.98% 99.58% 98.72% 100.69% 99.54% 99.30% CAN Commercial 96.86% 97.95% 98.88% 101.97% 99.85% 99.45% Fishery US Commercial 101.77% 99.83% 98.70% 100.49% 99.48% 99.26% Fishery

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 25 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 8. Risk-benefit decision table. Values indicate the probability of the outcome in each column given the level of removals for that row. Source: Stewart et al. 2013.

Fishing Catch

intensity Stock status Stock trend trend Effective Fishery

coastwide CEY HR Spawning biomass

Coastwide 2013 2014 2016 2014 Fishery CEY is is is is is 5% is is (total greater less less less less less less removals) than than than than than than than millions lb target 30% 20% 2013 2013 2013 2013 0.0 (0.0) 0% 25% <1% 23% <1% 41% 0% 0.0 (16.5) <1% 25% <1% 76% 2% 95% 0% 3.4 (20.0) <1% 25% <1% 77% 2% 96% <1% 12.9 (30.0) 1% 25% <1% 79% 2% 97% 1% 17.7 (35.0) 23% 25% <1% 80% 2% 97% 19% 22.7 (40.2) 50% 25% <1% 82% 3% 97% 48% 27.3 (45.0) 75% 25% <1% 83% 3% 98% 75% 32.1 (50.0) 84% 25% <1% 84% 3% 98% 85% 36.2 (54.3) 97% 25% <1% 85% 4% 98% 97% 41.6 (60.0) >99% 25% <1% 86% 4% 99% >99% a b c d e f g

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

The fishery occurs in the waters off the coast of the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, where deep, cold, nutrient-rich ocean currents reach the surface through upwelling. Some species are unique to the BC region (e.g. hydro-corals), some to the Pacific coastal areas (e.g. lingcod), while others traverse the entire Pacific (e.g. cetaceans). The population status of non-target species, the impact of the fishery on habitat and the ecosystem implications of removals are considered under Principle 2 in an MSC assessment.

3.4.1 Overarching Stock Assessment Policies and Procedures

Stock assessments (stock status reports) for groundfish species in Canadian Pacific waters are undertaken by members of Groundfish Science for Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Pacific Region or by hired contractors. Research is guided by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework and the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan. The results of research findings feed into management plans. DFO’s harvest strategy methodology does not use a formalized tiered system based on the amount of information available about a stock, although such a system (used in US Pacific groundfish fisheries) is being considered.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 26 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) coordinates the peer review of products from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The different regions of Fisheries and Oceans Canada conduct their assessment reviews independently, using methods that vary by region, tailored to local needs. In the Pacific Region, the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific (CSAP) peer reviews DFO stock assessments. In additional to traditional stock status reports, CSAS also creates “Science Advisory Reports” or SARs which address issues that may be broader or more specific than stock status reports. These include ecosystem status reports, habitat status reports, reports on management strategies, frameworks, and guidelines, impacts of human activities on ecosystems and recovery assessments.

Results of groundfish related research are published on the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice-Pacific website4. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Policy on the distribution of publications assures that all publications are available in electronic format. CSAS clients can also be informed of their release of new publication by email upon request to the CSAS Secretariat. CSAS has clear timelines on submission and publication for various types of documents outlined in part 4 of their Policy Statement5 and the rationale for timely publication explains that:

“Products from science peer review processes need to be published in a timely manner. Delays in producing Science Advisory Reports, Science Response Reports, Proceedings and Research Documents can result in delayed management decisions and create the impression that advice is either being withheld, massaged or otherwise influenced. These delays can, in turn, undermine the credibility of the science peer review process.”

3.4.2 Catch Accounting

The catch accounting system for fisheries in BC is one of the most rigorous in the world. To meet catch monitoring objectives, vessels in the groundfish fleets use four monitoring tools: 1.) hails, 2.) logbooks, 3.) at-sea monitoring (100% coverage provided by an independent at-sea observer, or electronic monitoring (EM) with global positioning system (GPS) sensors and video imagery, and 4.) 100% coverage of catch landings with dockside validation.

Vessels are required to hail out as they leave port and hail in as they are returning. Logbooks must be completed during each trip and identify the location, time and gear used on each trip. The number of all individuals caught, both retained and discarded, must be recorded in the logbook. This record must include all species, both quota and non-quota managed, utilized at-sea, and incidental catches of birds and marine mammals. Both discards and retained catches are recorded as “pieces” meaning the number of individuals. Any retained fish that is not eventually landed (i.e. discarded or used for bait) is also recorded in logbooks.

At the dock, monitors validate that landings are sorted to species, providing weights and number of individuals for all species landed (quota managed and non-quota managed). If the landed weight is greater than 2,500 pounds of a species (with the exception of halibut and lingcod), a subsample of not less than 225 pieces must be counted and weighed, and all halibut landed are tagged with a

4 Available at http://www.pac/dfo-mpo.gc/science/psarc-ceesp/index-eng.html 5 Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/process-processus/timelines-delais-eng.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 27 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 unique serial number. A licence’s quota shares are managed using both the landed weight recorded by the dockside validator and discarded weights calculated from logbooks and at-sea observation data.

The fleet employs 100% at-sea observation. A vessel may use either an at-sea observer or electronic video monitoring. Electronic video monitoring equipment generates imagery from up to four cameras that record as gear is being set and hauled. This is linked to a GPS unit that documents vessel location, speed, heading, date and time. Sensors on gear are also used to distinguish different activities, such as when vessels are travelling, setting and hauling. Sensor data is recorded throughout trips and gear setting triggers imagery data collection. If the EM system breaks down during a trip (e.g. power failure), harvesters are required to return to port. Where an EM system is used in place of an at-sea observer, the logbook is considered to be the official record of catch at- sea. To validate the logbook, EM data are used to audit the logbook. The logbook audit is completed at the end of each trip by a contracted monitoring service. If a vessel is unable to maintain an operational EM system, or if the audit of the logbook indicates that the logbook is inaccurate, the vessel is required to use an at-sea observer to provide at-sea monitoring coverage. Moreover, a vessel with a failed audit is prohibited from fishing until the audit is resolved.

Logbook auditing occurs in four steps: 1. Fishing set information recorded in the logbook is audited with EM sensor data to verify the number of sets, set times and set locations. 2. Catch (retained and released pieces by location) recorded in the logbook is audited with the EM sensor and imagery data. The catch audit compares a 10% random sample of fishing sets (at least 1 per trip) to the logbook records for the same sample of sets. 3. Landed catch is counted and weighed by the dockside observer and compared to retained piece counts from the logbook. 4. The three verification processes, (1) logbook to EM sensor location data, (2) logbook to EM imagery for retained and released species piece counts, and (3) logbook retained to dockside landed piece counts, are combined into an audit report that assesses the overall quality of the logbook data. If a vessel’s logbook fails to meet data quality standards for both directed and non-directed species, there are three consequences that may result: (1) a vessel with a failed audit is prohibited from fishing until the audit is resolved, (2) all EM data will be reviewed at additional cost to the vessel; all data from the EM will replace logbook data, and (3) the vessel may be required to use an at-sea observer to provide at-sea monitoring coverage.

The three classes of information (logbook, EM, dockside) are then verified at the catch-level, through a “catch audit” approach that confers a high level of certainty in the accounting of all testable species.

EM imagery from a 10% random sample of fishing events (at least 1 per trip) is compared with logbook data for the same species.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 28 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Logbook counts of retained species are totalled for the trip and compared with dockside counts for all the bycatch (non-quota for halibut-licensed vessels, retained) and some target species. Counts between the three types of comparisons are then scored for discrepancies. The magnitude of discrepancies is categorized against test criteria which translate into a series of potential decisions given in Stanley et al. (2011).

Using sensor and sub-sampled image data in combination with logbooks and dockside monitoring allow validation of logbook self-reporting by harvesters. This catch audit approach is important because catch estimates are based on harvesters’ logbook records and offload records at dockside. Therefore harvesters perceive the catch–estimation process as intuitive, transparent and immediate because it is based on their own records (unless the audit fails). This would not be the case if catch accounting were done via 100% counts based on imagery (census approach), away from harvesters and without the use of their numbers (Stanley et al., 2011).

Catch auditing processes deter fishers from fishing in areas or using fishing methods that increase the likelihood of interactions considered by the auditing process (the ‘testable’ species). For harvesters where one or more catch tests do not meet the standards, and as audit Category scores increase, vessels are subject to additional monitoring which have cost consequences (e.g. charges for additional viewing expenses).

To minimize costs and audit complexity, not all species receive the same level of catch auditing. A “testable” species is a species that must meet the existing audit standards if a vessel wishes to continue to use EM for at-sea observation. Testable species in 2013 included: halibut, sablefish, rockfish (individuals species must be identified, but scores are aggregates for all rockfish species), lingcod, spiny dogfish, big skate, and longnose skate.

Non-testable species are less frequently encountered, and have not been determined by DFO to be a conservation concern. Information from logbooks for non-testable species must be treated with greater uncertainty because harvesters that mis-record catches for these species currently face no consequences for these species through the catch auditing process.

3.4.1.1 Species of Interest and Catch Audits

Species of Interest are reviewed in the audit process to the same standard as testable species. However, logbooks that fail to meet standards for species of interest are not necessarily prohibited from fishing, nor may they be required to use an at-sea observer to provide at-sea monitoring coverage. Instead, a Species of Interest audit that fails to meet standards will result in a call by the Review Board to discuss concerns. The intention of this process is to inform harvesters of monitoring requirements rather than to take punitive measures. Over time, a Species of Interest may become a testable species.

In 2013, Longnose and big skate were added to the testable species list. Any new testable species or species of interest require additional review of the EM imagery (and additional costs) so there is consideration of the relative risk to species versus the value of additional monitoring expenses in catch auditing protocols.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 29 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Current Species of Interest are: other skates, sharks (excluding dogfish), seabirds, and marine mammals.

3.4.2 First Nations Fishing

In the 1990 Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for FSC purposes, it takes priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. Implications of this ruling included the necessity to consult with Aboriginal groups in cases where management of the fishery infringes on established Aboriginal fishing rights.

As a follow-up to this ruling, the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) put into effect in 1992, provides a framework for drafting resource access agreements between the aboriginal communities and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These agreements may spell out the terms and conditions of communal licences, including regulations on catch amounts and reporting. Currently, 53 First Nations have communal FSC licences for groundfish; however only 14 First Nations in the Pacific region have AFS agreements for groundfish. Currently in Canada, adherence to terms of the AFS agreements are managed through self-reported creel survey data. At the 2013 surveillance, DFO reported FSC catch coast-wide at 405,000 lbs for the most recent season. Catch reporting for First Nations does not currently have a verification mechanism and the IPHC noted to the audit team that the accuracy of First Nation catch accounting remains uncertain (but is also believed to be minor relative to overall removals).

DFO has identified improvement of the catch accounting process as a priority in the 2013 groundfish IFMP: “By the outset of 2015, identify and initiate implementation of improvements to catch monitoring and reporting of groundfish species in recreational and First Nations fisheries” (DFO 2013a).

3.4.3 Recreational/Sport Fishing

The recreational fishing sector in the Canadian Pacific halibut fishery is allocated 15% of the fishery- wide quota. In 2012, Area 2B harvested an estimated 1.156 million pounds (dressed), exceeding quota by about 5.5% (Stewart et al., 2013). In 2013, the recreational fishery caught approximately 0.83 million pounds (dressed), under their allocation by 28%. Since 2011, recreational harvesters have been allowed to apply for an experimental licence and lease quota from the commercial sector and fish beyond the limits of the standard recreational fishing licence or to fish when the recreational fishery is closed. Experimental licence holders are held to higher catch reporting standards and must hail their catch electronically. In 2013 approximately 8,000 pounds (dressed) were landed under this experimental program, higher than the 2,100 pounds (dressed) landed in 2012.

The IPHC expressed concerns that there is not a standardized reporting mechanism for sub-areas of the BC halibut recreational catch. Harvest estimates for the Canadian sport fishery are based on a combination of self-reporting by some lodges by logbooks, overflights and on-water vessel counts conducted by DFO, and creel surveys by DFO (Stewart et al., 2013).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 30 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.4.4 DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) incorporating the Precautionary Approach

Management of the Canadian halibut fishery is guided by DFO's Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF). The SFF provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada and contains a suite of policies for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which support conservation and sustainable use. The DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework was initiated in 2009, with the intent to be implemented progressively over time. Phase-in will proceed according to the priorities identified through fishery planning sessions held across DFO regions: these began in 2009. Implementation, including changes to harvest arrangements, will also involve engagement with Aboriginal groups. The SFF will also continue to evolve as new policies and tools are created.

The SFF comprises two main elements: (1) Conservation and sustainable use policies, and (2) Planning and monitoring tools. The Conservation and Sustainable Use policies incorporate precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management decisions and include the following key policy elements:

1. A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (2009) 2. Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone (2013) 3. Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species (2009) 4. Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities (2013) 5. Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species (2009) 6. Policy on Managing Bycatch (2013) 7. Guidance on Implementation of the Policy on Managing Bycatch (2013)

SFF has recently added items 2, 4, 6, and 7, summarized in more detail below. There is the intent for these policies and tools to be linked to broader integrated management processes, such as the planning forums for managing sections of Canada’s oceans known as Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMA). There is the intent that DFO will also “review implementation progress after three years and use ‘lessons learned’ to make any necessary adjustments” (DFO 2009c).6

Recent policy elements within the framework of the SFF include:

The Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013)

The Policy on Managing Bycatch is national in scope and applies to all commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries licensed and/or managed by DFO under the Fisheries Act, fishing in domestic or international waters. The policy applies to any species that the harvester was not licensed to direct

6 More Information about the SFF can be found at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish- ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 31 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 for (non-target retained and non-retained). Management of the retained, targeted catch is guided by A Fishery Decision-making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (Precautionary Approach Framework Policy, DFO 2009a), another policy under the SFF. This policy does not cover bycatch of coral, sponges, marine plants and other benthic organisms which are covered by the Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (DFO 2009b).

The policy also recognizes that other management plans may exist such as for species listed under SARA (e.g. recovery strategies, action plans and SARA management plans for species of concern), or action plans such as Canada’s National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (DFO, 2007a) and for Conservation and Management of Sharks (DFO 2007b).

This policy will be implemented over time, according to national and regional priorities and resource availability. It will be implemented through Integrated Management Plans. Priorities will be informed by assessments of the risk that bycatch in the various fisheries presents to conservation of aquatic resources, as well as other considerations.

Guidance on Implementation of the Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013)

Guidance to the Policy on Managing Bycatch explains to managers strategies to implement the policy and achieve objectives. Guidance provides analytical steps, explains categories of catch, and gives practical tools and measures for managing bycatch.

Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone (April 2013)

A key component of the Precautionary Approach Framework requires that when a stock has declined to the Critical Zone, a rebuilding plan must be in place with the aim of having a high probability of the stock growing out of the Critical Zone within a reasonable timeframe. The requirement for rebuilding plans for depleted stocks has therefore become departmental policy via the Precautionary Approach framework. Guidance reviews key factors that may affect rebuilding success, as well as best management practices which have been demonstrated to be successful in promoting stock rebuilding. The need for regular performance reviews to ensure the rebuilding process is on track is also identified. Ideally, a reasonable timeframe would normally represent the time for a cohort to recruit to the spawning biomass and then contribute to rebuilding the productive capacity of the stock. This period will vary among species. For many species it will correspond to a period of 1.5 –2 generations.”

Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities (April 2013)

In 2009, DFO published the Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas, under Canada’s Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas within the SFF. The key tool for implementing this policy is the ERAF. The framework was developed specifically for use in managing cold water corals and sponge-dominated communities.

The ERAF identifies the risk of impact via: 1. Consequence (degree of impact, determined by overlap with gear) and 2. Likelihood (probability of overlap with gear). Both 1 & 2 are scored from low/none

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 32 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 (score of 1) to high (score of 4). Both scores are multiplied to determine final overall ecological risk scores which are divided into low, moderate and high categories.

Management options are then developed based on the ecological risk level. Where the fishing presents low risk to the benthic habitat, no additional management may be required. At moderate risk, additional management options may be required such as changes to the fishing methods. Where the risk has been determined to be high, additional management will usually be required such as closures or gear modifications and/or restrictions.

The implementation of the Policy through the ERAF will take a phased-in approach for Canadian fisheries, depending on regional priorities. Once the ERAF has been applied to a specific fishery (or geographic area), it is recommended that the objectives and results of the ecological risk assessment be reviewed at the start of all subsequent planning cycles for the fishery (or geographic area) and incorporated into associated fisheries management documents (e.g. IFMPs). Risk analyses will be reviewed collectively on a regular basis to ensure consistent use.

3.4.4.1 Sustainable Fisheries Framework strategies for species management

The groundfish fisheries employ several strategic policies to mitigate risks to both target and non- target species by using an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management incorporating the Precautionary Approach. The current management regime uses TACs and Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) for several species (output controls). Each vessel is allocated quota for the target species stipulated in their license condition as well as some additional quota for non-target species. Vessel owners can transfer additional quota from other quota holders if they are over their limit. All catch is accounted for whether the catch is landed, discarded at-sea or utilized at-sea; all of which counts against that vessel’s allocation.

Management decisions use the “Fishery Decision-Making Framework incorporating the Precautionary Approach,” a policy that accounts for risk and uncertainty when developing stock reference points. Stock status is categorized into status zones of “healthy,” “cautious,” and “critical.”

Upper and lower limit reference points are by default defined as 0.8BMSY and 0.4BMSY respectively. In addition to stock status, ecosystem indicators are incorporated into the framework. The SFF is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries7 and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions.8 The IFMP reiterates this and stipulates that “stock assessments will be written in a manner consistent with the Departments’ Precautionary Approach” (DFO, 2013a).

3.4.5 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Groundfish

Integrated Groundfish Management: Pacific halibut are managed as part of the multi-species groundfish fishery with harvest control rules mandated in an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP). The IFMP is reviewed and updated every two years: the most recent IFMP is effective February 21, 2013 through February 20, 2015 (DFO, 2013a). The purpose of the IFMP is “to identify the main objectives and requirements for the Groundfish fishery in the Pacific Region, as well as the

7 Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm 8 Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3592e/w3592e00.htm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 33 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 management measures that will be used to achieve these objectives. The document also serves to communicate the basic information on the fishery and its management to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) staff, legislated co-management boards and other stakeholders. The IFMP provides a common understanding of the basic “rules” for the sustainable management of the fisheries resource.” (DFO, 2013a).9

The original short-term objectives of the 2011-2013 IFMP were updated following review and input from the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) for 2013-2015. Completed objectives were removed from the list, and those with work underway have been updated or left on the list and new short-term objectives have been added. Current short-term objectives for the 2013-2015 IFMP are:

1. By the outset of 2015, evaluate different approaches to assessing data limited species and assess the applicability of these approaches to the BC groundfish context. 2. By the outset of 2015, identify information sources that can be used to define and describe the cultural importance of the groundfish fisheries. 3. By the outset of 2015, identify and initiate implementation of improvements to catch monitoring and reporting of groundfish species in recreational and First Nations fisheries.

3.4.5.1 Input versus Output controlled Non-Target Species

Output controls: Species managed by measures that control the total removals are output controlled. In the integrated groundfish fishery, output control measures include Total Allowable Catches (TAC) and setting Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQ) within the constraints of the TAC for each vessel. The IFMP stipulates that reallocation of quota between vessels (Individual Transferable Quota or ITQ) and fisheries will cover the catch, whether landed, discarded at-sea or utilized at-sea of all non-directed species so that the TAC (for both retained and released) is not exceeded and that wastage does not occur.

Catch accounting for output controlled species occurs in-season and catch statistics may be downloaded from the DFO website in the form of year-to-date sector catch summaries10.

Input Controls: Species caught in the groundfish fisheries that do not have a TAC and IVQ associated with them are managed by the input control of trip limits. Trip limits are based on historical catches and the best science available on the species stock for the area. Similarly to species managed with output controls, input control managed species are subject to the same requirement to use the Precautionary Approach as described in the Food and Agriculture of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995).

Catch accounting for input controlled species occurs via Electronic Monitoring (EM), logbooks and dockside validation. Data are available on historical and current catch in “pieces” which are individual animals. Some weights are taken by on-board observers during survey sampling or

9 The most recent IFMP can be found at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/ifmp-eng.html#Groundfish 10 Available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/commercial/ground-fond/index-eng.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 34 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 recorded by dockside validators when a particular species happens to be landed with the commercial catch.

3.4.5.2 Prioritization and Scheduling of Groundfish Assessments

In 2011-2013 the Groundfish11 IFMP prioritized and scheduled stock assessments to be completed. In 2012, DFO Science created a discussion paper entitled “Prioritization and Scheduling of Groundfish Stock Assessments” outlining procedures for prioritization and a proposed assessment schedule for the 10 year period commencing in 2012. The document was intended to inform work-planning for the Science Branch Groundfish Section related to single species stock assessment. A review of the prioritization and schedule is planned for every five years (DFO 2013a).

The current schedule focuses on 39 “Type A” species including those of conservation concerns (i.e., bocaccio, basking sharks, etc.) or important to the First Nations, commercial and recreational fisheries. Type A species are assessed from yearly (i.e., Pacific hake), to every 2 years (sablefish and Pacific cod), to every 5 or 10 years depending upon biological characteristics, stock status, and priorities (DFO 2013b). Stock assessments are synchronized with evaluations undertaken by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The remaining 200+ non- commercial fish species that can be considered to lie within the Groundfish research mandate are classified as Type B species. These undergo a fast screening that examines abundance trends (from fishery independent surveys) and commercial CPUE for each of these species every five years. The fast screening is designed to provide a priority list of the 20-30 Type B species to be scheduled into the 10 year work plan (DFO 2013b).

The Groundfish stock assessment schedule goes through regular updates and represents a working “evergreen” document that will continue to change based on operational needs, priorities and budgets. See Table 10 below for the 2013/14 schedule. Efforts continue to reschedule assessments that were not achieved in 2013; the below does not represent a final determination of the 2014 schedule changes which are not complete at this time. Work priorities are set by the Groundfish Management Unit (GMU) and other clients, such that scope of advisory products may also include those besides items on the stock assessment schedule.

11 “Groundfish” are any vertebrate in marine waters that are not a salmon, pelagic forage species, or a marine mammal. This includes many commercially important species as well as non-commercial species. Groundfish also include cartilaginous species such as sharks, rays and skates. DFO indicates that there are about 250 species that fall into the groundfish category.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 35 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Table 9. Updated stock assessment schedule for DFO managed groundfish in British Columbia, Canada. Table provided by DFO, September 2013.

POP= Pacific Ocean Perch, Rf = Rockfish, Th = Thornyhead, O = Outside stock, I = Inside stock

All fisheries nation-wide are also assessed using DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Checklist. This process is completed in March on an annual basis to internally assess fisheries for agency purposes. The halibut fishery has been assessed through the SFF checklist for the past 4 years. Although, this is an internal tool used to help set national and regional priorities such as resourcing for stock assessments.12

For more background on the responsibilities of DFO Groundfish Science, see pages 17 and 18 of the Third Annual MSC Surveillance Audit for Canada Pacific Halibut Hook and Line fishery (Vincent and Turris, 2012)13.

3.4.5.3 Information and Monitoring

The current management regime (i.e., TACs, IVQs, trip limits, accountability for all mortalities) and comprehensive monitoring programs (i.e., mandatory logbooks, 100% at-sea monitoring, 100% dockside validation) discussed above are in place in part to allow DFO to mitigate the risks to any species associated with the directed hook and line fishery for Pacific halibut. The comprehensive monitoring programs in place provide DFO with accurate and almost real time removal data on all the species encountered. This allows DFO to closely monitor the fishery and respond in a timely fashion with any new management measures deemed necessary.

The fishery has significant sources of fishery dependent and fishery independent data that permit stock assessment for several species. Information used in managing this fishery is detailed below:

12 Results of the SFF process may also inform and set the agenda for the advisory process to assess how the fishery is making progress against public policy objectives.

13 Publically available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/pacific/Canada-Pacific-halibut-bc/assessment-downloads-1/20121218_SR_HAL26.pdf

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 36 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Fishery independent surveys: IPHC and DFO conduct annual longline and trawl surveys in the waters off British Columbia. This information is used directly in stock assessments. The synoptic rockfish survey conducted by DFO and PHMA did not occur in 2013 as new DFO policies for funding of science and fisheries management activities are being developed. Given inshore rockfish are long- lived species, DFO science staff do not believe a disruption of one or two data points in the survey will increase the risk to these species posed by the groundfish fisheries. The industry has indicated its interest in continuing to work with DFO on this research. See Section 6.5 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a) and the IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2012 (IPHC, 2013b) for details on the survey programs.

Catch accounting system: The logbook, 100% at-sea and 100% dockside monitoring programs ensure that all “directed species” and “retained species” mortalities (includes species kept, utilized at-sea or released at-sea) are verified and accurate. The information generated is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcomes and is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities.

3.4.6 Bycatch and Retained species

The integrated groundfish management system in BC makes use (retains and lands) most species encountered, with relatively few species (e.g. sharks with the exception of spiny dogfish, sub-legal groundfish, non-groundfish fish species, seabirds, corals and sponges) returned to the water.

MSC terminology is consistent with DFO’s current terminology which also defines (non-retained) bycatch in the Policy on Managing Bycatch (2013) as "non-retained catch, including catch released from gear and entanglements, whether alive, injured or dead, and whether of the target species or the non-target species” (DFO 2013e)14.

3.4.6.1 Determining the ‘Main’ and ‘Non-Main’ Species for this Assessment

As discussed above, catch accounting in British Columbia fisheries is excellent because of Electronic Monitoring (EM) and 100% dockside validation. Dockside samplers take information including weights for several non-targeted, but still retained species. DFO surveys also provide information on weights for individual fishes that are typically discarded. Catch accounting database records include the number of individuals (“pieces”) that are retained, released and used for bait for both quota- managed and non-quota managed species. Catch accounting database records include total weight for quota-managed species (includes retained, released and utilized at-sea) and validated dockside landed weights for non-quota managed species.

To determine the species to be considered for MSC scoring components, six most recent years of fishery data were evaluated (years 2008 to 2013). The weight of the fishery was estimated and included the all species retained, released or utilized at sea. The average annual catch from years 2008 to 2013 of each species was divided by the total average weight of the fishery to determine the average percent that each species contributed to the fishery. Species that are considered sensitive to fishing pressure due to life history traits were also included in the evaluation as minor species.

14 DFO does not include the bycatch of corals, sponges, marine plants and other benthic organisms in official bycatch policies, considering these species to be better protected under habitat-related policies, which, in Canada, is the Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (DFO 2009b).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 37 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery interacts and retains several species, but most are in very small quantities (less than 10 pieces). These were not considered as scoring components. The entire demersal long line halibut fishery itself is a relatively small proportion relative to other Canadian fisheries (<1% of total), so the volume was not considered so large to cause concern for those species infrequently encountered (<5% of the total catch). The only “main” species (>5% of the total catch) are therefore spiny dogfish.

Spiny dogfish were historically retained, but in years 2011 and 2012 the proportion of retained vs. released in the Pacific fishery dropped to less than 50%, thereby most are now released. Spiny dogfish are therefore considered a main bycatch species (see bycatch section). Other species considered as minor bycatch species include big skate and longnose skate.

Other minor species considered potentially relevant to scoring were lingcod, bocaccio and canary rockfish. The rockfish species were included due to their inherent vulnerable life histories as well as stakeholder concerns relating to bocaccio and canary rockfish initially cited in the 3rd annual surveillance audit report (See Page 57 CAB response to Stakeholder Comments15). Two species of rockfish are currently under SARA protections and are therefore considered under the ETP performance indicators.

Table 10. Summary of species considered in the scoring rationales (scoring components). See Appendix 4 for additional catch accounting statistics.

2011-2013 2010-2013 2009-2013 2008-2013 2008-2012 2009-2012 2010-2012 Comp- SPECIES (3-yr) (4-yr) (5-yr) (6-yr) (5-yr) (4-yr) (3-yr) onent average average average average average average average

Target PACIFIC Species 77.6% 76.6% 75.5% 75.0% 74.5% 74.8% 76.0% HALIBUT (P1)

Minor LINGCOD retained 4.5% 4.3% 4.0% 4.4% 4.3% 3.9% 4.2%

CANARY Minor 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% ROCKFISH retained

Minor BOCCACIO <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% retained

SPINY Main 3.4% 5.1% 6.1% 5.7% 6.3% 7.0% 6.0% DOGFISH bycatch

Minor BIG SKATE 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% bycatch

15 The 2012 3rd annual surveillance report is publically available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/Canada-Pacific-halibut-bc/assessment-downloads- 1/20121218_SR_HAL26.pdf

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 38 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 LONGNOSE Minor 4.0% 4.1% 4.6% 5.0% 5.2% 4.8% 4.2% SKATE bycatch

Minor SEA BIRDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA bycatch

YELLOWEYE ETP 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% ROCKFISH

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH ETP 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6%

3.4.6.2 Retained Species

In the MSC system, species not assessed under Principle 1 are evaluated relative to limits if they are considered “main” based on comprising >5% of the catch by weight or by particular vulnerability (GCB3.5.2). Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates)

Lingcod are about 4% of the fishery, so were considered a minor species. There are two discrete stocks of lingcod: “inshore,” within the Strait of Georgia; and “offshore,” outside of the Strait.

The offshore stock – which interacts with the halibut fishery - is considered to consist of four separate management units and occurs in the same area as the halibut fishery; 3C, 3D, 5AB and 5CDE. Management measures include a TAC, IVQ, ITQ, trip limits, winter closure (16 November to 31 March) and a minimum size limit of 65 cm was implemented in the 2009/10 fishing season. Lingcod may also not exceed 75% of the halibut catch (H+G) or 700 pounds landed round weight, whichever is greater, per trip by regulation.

Offshore lingcod was last assessed in 2010 (King et al, 2011). Four Bayesian surplus models were developed for the four management units. In all areas the model indicates that all four units are

most likely in the healthy zone (>0.8BMSY) with a high degree of confidence in two of the four areas (3D and 5CDE) (King et al., 2011). The other units are highly likely to be in the ‘healthy zone’ as well, but the model results had slightly lower confidence intervals (~70%). Information that would improve uncertainty in the models include better understanding of lingcod cannibalism rates, improved catch at age information, better understanding of natural mortality rates and, as with all models based on CPUE, a better understanding of changes in CPUE as technology improves in the fleets for catchability.

Lingcod are projected for assessment every 5 years. Inputs for the model include fishery independent surveys, life history information and commercial landings data.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 39 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis)

Bocaccio, one of the larger rockfishes (up to 36” TL), are found from Alaska, US to Baja California, Mexico at depths of 150 to 1,000 feet. Relative to other rockfish species bocaccio are shorter lived, to about 45 years (Phillips 1964), and are the most genetically dissimilar to other Sebastes species (Magnuson-Ford et al., 2009).

Bocaccio populations in B.C. waters have been in decline since the 1930s, “with the steepest decline occurring from 1985 to 1995.” The rate of decline slowed after 1995 (DFO 2012a).

Bocaccio were first designated by COSEWIC as threatened in 2002 (COSEWIC 2002). Bocaccio were considered for SARA schedule 1 listing in 2011 but were not added by decision of the Governor in Council. Instead, existing legislation such as the Fisheries Act has provisions to protect the species. In the 2014 COSEWIC annual report, COSEWIC designated bocaccio as endangered (COSEWIC 2014).

Stock status in BC was also reviewed in 2011 (DFO 2012a) using Bayesian methods. The median estimate of current abundance relative to Bmsy (biomass at maximum sustainable yield) is 7.0% with 90% confidence limits of 2.9% and 18.2% leaving little or no likelihood that the stock is currently above the lower Precautionary Approach reference point of 0.4Bmsy based on the reference case. The stock assessment update also notes that true uncertainty in the model is likely to be even greater than presented in the 2012 results. The possible impact of some of the sources of uncertainty was examined with sensitivity tests (runs with alternative model assumptions).

In order to assess how changes in removals would affect stock status, the assessment calculated the median estimate for the replacement yield to be 143 mt. Several projections of different levels of removals were also made. Within 60 years, bocaccio stocks would likely recover to about 0.5BMSY if

incidental harvests were 100mt/year, and >1.0BMSY if they were 50mt/y. At >150mt/y bocaccio may become completely absent from BC waters within 60 years (DFO 2012a): recent catch levels across the groundfish fishery remain at levels (120-150 mt/yr) which may pose a risk of extirpation, based on simulation modelling. The DFO stock assessment notes that the posterior median estimated exploitable biomass in 2012 was 1,879 mt.

Bocaccio are not targeted by the halibut fleet and the commercial trawl fishery voluntarily stopped targeting Bocaccio in 2005. As a result, incidental catch decreased from 200-300 mt/y to 120-150 mt/y for all sectors. Fishers are attempting to reduce incidental catch by avoiding areas with known densities of Bocaccio. The adoption of the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program ensures all Bocaccio mortalities (retained, released, utilized at-sea) catch in the commercial groundfish sectors are closely monitored. The trawl sector accounts for 90% of the total non-directed catch of this species. The directed hook and line halibut fishery has caught between 750 to 2,000 individuals/year since 2008 (small proportion of overall catches relative to other sectors) (Vincent and Turris, 2012).

Changes to the management of bocaccio rockfish were introduced in all Canada Pacific commercial groundfish fisheries for 2013, as DFO began implementation of the bocaccio Rebuilding Strategy developed collaboratively with industry. These changes are based on a stepped reduction of total bocaccio catches over 3 years (2013/2014 – 2015/2016) to 74 metric tonnes. For halibut, the fishery will be subject to trip limits for boccacio (IFMP 2013, Appendix VI). In the trawl fishery, proceeds

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 40 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 from catching bocaccio are directed to research and management programs, thus removing any financial incentive to deliberately target bocaccio. The Department plans to review the efficacy of these pilot measures at the end of each fishing season and consider any additional measures as necessary to support stock rebuilding. Bocaccio remains included in the “Other Rockfish” trip limit and is now subject the following limits:

Table 11. Bocaccio trip limits in British Columbia fisheries Bocaccio Landings (round weight) per trip may not exceed: 200 lbs if /= 15,000 lbs but 30,000 lbs of Halibut* are landed lbs of Halibut* are landed Halibut* are landed *Fresh, dressed, head-off weight

Table 12. Catch of Bocaccio in the halibut fishery with number of pieces, weight and as a percent of the fishery.

Information provided by DFO in 2014.

Bocaccio account for <1% of the total catch in the directed hook and line halibut fishery.

Canary Rockfish (Sebastes pinniger)

Canary rockfish range from the Gulf of Alaska to northern Baja California, Mexico in dense and patchy schools. They are usually found near rocky reefs and pinnacles at 160 to 820 ft depth. They live up to 95 years but more commonly live to age 50 (Wallace and Cope 2011).

All rockfish are required to be retained in the commercial groundfish hook-and-line fisheries. There is also 100% at-sea video and 100% dockside validation in place. An overall TAC is set for canary rockfish which is divided between the trawl and hook-and-line sectors at an 88:12 ratio (88% going to trawl).

All commercial halibut vessels are subject to annual ITQ caps for directed and non-directed species. Temporary reallocations of ITQ, up to the ITQ caps listed below, are permitted. No vessel may hold quota holdings in excess of the annual ITQ caps. In the directed hook and line fishery for halibut, the present annual ITQ cap for canary rockfish is 3,500 pounds (Source: DFO IFMP, Appendix 6, Section 6.3.1). Canary rockfish are <0.5% of the total catch in the directed hook and line halibut fishery.

COSEWIC assessed the Canadian population to be Threatened in 2007 (COSEWIC 2007). In response to the 2007 COSEWIC assessment, further catch limits were placed on canary rockfish in both the commercial and recreational fisheries and are set so that the species has the potential to recover. The management objective for canary rockfish is to keep the population in the healthy zone as described by the Precautionary Approach. DFO will be implementing improved catch accounting in the salmon troll, First Nations and recreational fisheries to get a more accurate picture of total mortality for this species and to ensure that the TAC is not exceeded across all sectors.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 41 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 An update to the 2007 stock assessment was published in 2009 (Stanley and Starr 2009) and included aging information and also conducted a meta-analysis of the stock-recruitment relationship. Stanley and Starr found that the canary rockfish population is in the healthy zone (using the Precautionary Approach criteria) and calculated that the PA-compliant harvest estimate over the long term is <900 mt/y for all fisheries (trawl and H+L combined).

The species was considered for SARA Schedule 1 listing in 2011. The species was not added based on a decision by the Minister of the Environment. Through the SARA process, it was determined that current management measures will achieve the management objective and that improvement in catch accounting in the salmon troll, recreational and First Nations would be implemented to ensure that the TAC is not exceeded. Any increases in incidental catch will be monitored and addressed by DFO.

Table 13. Catch of canary rockfish in the halibut fishery with number of pieces, weight and as a percent of the fishery.

Information provided by DFO in 2014.

Bait

Hook and line fishing utilizes bait pieces to attract the target species to the gear. There are significantly fewer vessels active in the hook & line fishery than there were 15 years ago and the commercial halibut CPUE is at record levels, resulting in significantly less gear being deployed and less bait being used in the fishery than in recent history.

According to a survey conducted by the Pacific Halibut Management Association of BC (PHMA) of the halibut buyers who purchase the majority of the halibut landed in BC, the main bait types used in the hook and line fishery for halibut are pink salmon, chum salmon, Alaskan pollock and Illex squid from Argentina. Pink salmon, one of the main bait species used in the fishery, is sourced from BC and Alaskan commercial fisheries. These fisheries are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council or have been successful when evaluated by the “Responsible Fisheries Management” (RFM) criteria. Chum salmon is also used, although to a lesser degree, and it is also sourced from BC and Alaska commercial salmon fisheries. Three of the four BC chum salmon fisheries are MSC certified and the fourth chum fishery is in the certification process.

Pollock sourced from Alaska are also used as bait in the fishery. The pollock fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Illex squid from Argentina is also used, more so by vessels that also fish for rockfish. The Illex squid fishery is given a “Good Alternative” rating by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program and a “Green” rating by the Blue Ocean Institute16.

16 See Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch website : http://www.montereybayaquarium.org//cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=102 See Blue Ocean Institute website: http://blueocean.org/?s=illex

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 42 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Vessels may use licensed catch as bait, but must follow the regulations outlined in Appendix 2, Section 6 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2013a).

The management plan notes:

Commercial fishers wishing to use licensed catch as bait may do so (with the exception of rockfish). All such catch must be accurately recorded in the Integrated Groundfish Fishing Log. Rockfish may not be used as bait but must be retained and landed. Pacific cod landings are subject to a trip limit, (refer to licence conditions for details), however, any amount of Pacific cod caught can be used for bait provided that the fish is recorded in the logbook.

Octopus caught incidentally may be retained and used for bait but cannot be landed and sold.

If a quota species is used as bait, the vessel will be assessed the average weight for that species.

The main licenced to catch species utilized for bait is arrowtooth flounder, which is assessed and managed by DFO in a manner consistent with the Sustainable Fisheries Framework.

Species used for bait were considered in this assessment, but no appreciable risk was found due to impacts from the halibut fishery.

3.4.6.3 Bycatch Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013)

“This policy will be implemented over time, according to national and regional priorities and resource availability. It will be implemented through Integrated Management Plans. Priorities will be informed by assessments of the risk that bycatch in the various fisheries presents to conservation of aquatic resources, as well as other considerations.”

―DFO Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Groundfish; 2013

Guidance on Implementation of the Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013)

“As stated in the Policy on Managing Bycatch, implementation will be done overtime, according to national and regional priorities and resource availability.”

―DFO Integrated Fishery Management Plan, Groundfish; 2013

Longnose Skate (Raja rhina)

Longnose skates range from the Bering Sea in Alaska south to Baja California, Mexico and are typically found at depths of 50 to 150m, but can be found much deeper to 675m (Gburski, 2005). The maximum reported size is 140 cm TL with males being generally smaller than females at age. They most likely mature at 6 to 9 years.

Discards appear to have been decreasing over the last 5 years (33,693 in 2008; 14,715 in 2011; and 7,715 Jan-Sept 2013).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 43 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Longnose skate underwent stock assessment along with big skate in 2013 for groundfish management areas 4B, 3CD, 5AB, 5CDE. SCS received a Science Advisory Report (DFO, 2014) that summarizes the King et al, 2014 methods and findings. Commercial landings and fishery independent indices of relative abundance derived from research studies were used for guidance. Commercial catch data are accompanied by verified logbook data including discard rates. Ranges for MSY were explored using a Catch-MSY approach recently developed (Martell and Froese, 2012) and a Bayesian Surplus Production Model.

Results were found to be very sensitive to assumptions in the data used. The results of the assessment are therefore provided as guidance instead of advice for harvest levels. Results for longnose skate survey analysis showed a declining trend in the trawl survey and no trend in the line surveys. Catch MSY ranges were developed for the proposed skate management areas coastwide. Average historical catches were found to be above the maximum MSY estimate from the catch-MSY results for all areas.

There is currently a trip limit of 6,000 lbs round weight for all skates combined in place for the halibut fishery.

For 2013, longnose skate was incorporated into the testable portion of logbook audits (i.e. reporting of this species will now impact audit trip scores and could result in 100% review of fishing trips if misreported).

In 2015, DFO will introduce TACs and new management measures for longnose skate in all commercial groundfish fisheries (including the directed hook & line fishery for halibut) to ensure harvests stay within scientifically-determined sustainable levels.

Big Skate (Raja binoculata)

Big skates range from the Bering Sea in Alaska to Baja California, Mexico. They are generally found in very shallow intertidal areas to depths of 120 m. Big skates are the largest skate in North America, and maximum reported size is 240 cm TL. Females mature at about 130 cm TL corresponding with an age of 12 or 13 years.

Discards also appear to have been decreasing over the last 5 years (8,331 pieces in 2008; 4,399 pieces in 2011; and 1,979 pieces Jan-Sept 2013).

Big skates underwent stock assessment along with longnose skate in 2013 for groundfish management areas 4B, 3CD, 5AB, 5CDE (King et al, 2014). The report has been peer-reviewed and is currently being finalized. The methods used in the longnose skate assessment were also used for the big skate assessment. Ranges for MSY were also explored using a Catch-MSY approach recently developed (Martell and Froese, 2012) and a Bayesian Surplus Production Model. As with longnose skates, results were found to be very sensitive to assumptions in the data used and the results are provided as guidance instead of advice for harvest levels. Results for big skate survey analysis showed no trend in either the trawl or line surveys. Catch-MSY ranges were developed for the proposed skate management areas except 4B, where there was not enough information. Average historical catches were below the maximum MSY estimate from the catch-MSY results for all areas.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 44 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is currently a trip limit of 6,000 lbs round weight for all skates combined which remains in place for the halibut fishery.

Additionally, for 2013, big skate was incorporated into the testable portion of logbook audits (i.e. reporting of these two species of interest will impact audit trip scores and could results in 100% review of fishing trips if misreported).

In 2015, DFO will introduce TACs and new management measures for big skate in all commercial groundfish fisheries (including the directed hook & line fishery for halibut) to ensure harvests stay within scientifically-determined sustainable levels.

Spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi)

There are two discrete stocks of spiny dogfish in British Columbia: an outside stock that extends from Baja California, Mexico north to Alaska, US; and another that resides within the Strait of Georgia in British Columbia. Both stocks were MSC certified in 201117. A tagging study found that although there is some mixing, the rate of exchange between the stocks is low (McFarlane and King, 2009). Only the outside stock is affected by the halibut fishery as halibut fishers target halibut outside the strait. The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2010 (Gallucci et al., 2011).

Management of the stocks employs the Precautionary Approach where reference points are defined as a function of BMSY. In the 2011 assessment, the outside stock which interacts with the halibut

fishery was estimated to be in the healthy zone, >0.8 BMSY (Gallucci et al., 2011). Spiny dogfish are on the recommended schedule for groundfish assessments at least once every five years, with the next stock assessment scheduled for 2015 in the most recent assessment schedule.

In November 2011, COSEWIC recommended that spiny dogfish be listed as a species of “Special Concern.” DFO held regional consultations on the recommendation from Nov. 28 2012 – Jan 14 2013. Information and feedback from consultation participants is currently being considered, but a decision has not been reached by the time of writing this report (re-confirmed that no decision was reached by March, 2014).

Dogfish-Unmarketable: Dogfish less than 66 cm in length may be released at sea and are not deducted from IVQ holdings. Dogfish-Unmarketable releases must be recorded in logbooks and are monitored by the 100% at-sea monitoring program. This mortality data is considered in the stock assessment and science advice process as well as fisheries management decisions.

Shark finning, described as retaining only shark fins and discarding the shark carcass at sea is prohibited in BC fisheries. By license condition, no person shall remove and retain the fins of any shark, including spiny dogfish without retaining the remainder of the carcass for validation upon landing. The number of fins landed must correspond to the number of carcasses landed (DFO, 2013a).

17 Spiny dogfish MSC information available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british- columbia-spiny-dogfish

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 45 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Seabirds

The halibut fishery has very few interactions with seabirds. None were found to be outside acceptable limits affected by halibut fishing. In 2007, DFO released Canada’s National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (NPOA – Seabirds), developed jointly with the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). The management of migratory birds is the responsibility of Environment Canada through CWS.

The NPOA – Seabirds report was developed in accordance with the principles and provisions of the UN FAO International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Seabirds (DFO, 2007). The report provides an assessment of bycatch levels of seabirds within Canada’s longline fisheries, identifies priorities for the NPOA - Seabirds, highlights Canada’s current legislative framework, and presents a series of actions for better identifying bycatch levels and further enhancing efforts to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds.

The DFO NPOA – Seabirds report notes that the impact of Canada’s longline fisheries on the global incidental catch of seabirds tends to be low. The report presents data between 2002 and 2006, when fisheries observers monitored about 20% of longline fishing trips (Pacific halibut, spiny dogfish, rockfish and sablefish) in British Columbia and collected data on seabird catches. The report comments on the electronic monitoring system implemented in 2006 and notes a pilot program comparing both at-sea observers and electronic monitoring showed catch estimates were within 2%.

The NPOA ― Seabirds also notes that although uncertainty exists concerning the seasonal variability in the numbers and distribution of seabirds along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, a 20+ year data set of seabird abundance and distribution at sea within the Pacific Canadian EEZ was used to examine spatial temporal overlap between the commercial fisheries and bird species such as the Black-footed albatross.

Canada’s NPOA – Seabirds created a National Working Group to oversee the implementation of the plan. There is also a Pacific Region working group that includes participants from DFO and CWS that meet to discuss seabird encounters in Canada’s Pacific fisheries. The DFO Pacific Region Groundfish Management Unit and CWS have also signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure that seabird bycatch data would be shared with CWS for ongoing research.

Under the Canada Wildlife Act, Environment Canada may establish marine National Wildlife Areas (NWAs). The Canada Wildlife Act allows important marine wildlife habitats, particularly for migratory birds and endangered species, to be set aside as National Wildlife Areas for the purposes of wildlife conservation, research and interpretation.

The Scott Islands Marine NWA18, located off the northern tip of Vancouver Island, has been proposed for designation through amendment to the Wildlife Area Regulations (DFO, 2013). The islands support approximately 2.2 million breeding seabirds between March and September. The management of a Marine Wildlife Area provides for authorities to permit specific activities that can

18 More information on NWAs may be found at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ap- pa/default.asp?lang=En&n=A269062B-1

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 46 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 be shown to be compatible with the conservation objectives established for the area. DFO would continue to regulate and administer fisheries within the proposed area. Environment Canada and DFO are planning to develop a collaborative approach and agreement regarding management of fisheries in the area. The area has the potential to protect marine seabird feeding areas for species such as the Cassin’s Auklet, Rhinoceros Auklet, Tufted Puffin, and Common Murre.

In July, 2012, DFO released a progress report on the implementation of the National Plan of Action on Seabirds (DFO, 2012). This report begins with an outline of mitigation of incidental catches of seabirds in Canada and then shifts focus to actions to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds that have been completed, planned or are ongoing. The report concludes with an outlook of future initiatives and notes the incidence of seabird bycatch in Canada continues to be low, with recent estimates remaining consistent with estimates reported in the Seabird National Plan of Action.

Today, the conditions of licence for the Canada Pacific halibut fishery also stipulate that all birds caught must be recorded in fishing logs. The fishing logs, combined with the 100% at-sea monitoring program, provide DFO timely data on seabird bycatch in the fishery. A full description of the seabird avoidance requirements in the directed hook & line fishery for halibut are available from DFO. Further, the amount of gear deployed in the fishery is at a record low compared to the last 15 years due to the reduction in active vessels, which reduces the potential for interactions with seabirds and other bycatch species. Today, approximately 155 of the 435 licenced vessels are active in the fishery, compared to an average of 274 active vessels in the late 1990s. In addition, the total amount of gear (i.e., number of skates) in the fishery is presently at record low levels (compared to data from the mid-1970s to the present).

Data suggest there may be fewer seabird encounters in Canada (IPHC Area 2B) compared to the other IPHC regulatory areas. Smith and Morgan (2005) use 1998 and 1999 data from an IPHC research paper and show that seabird bycatch rates on IPHC standardized stock assessment survey in Area 2B (Canada) were substantially lower than the other IPHC regulatory areas. All IPHC survey vessels are required to use seabird avoidance devices.

Longline sink rate data was collected on the IPHC survey off Oregon during 2012. These data may be useful in designing additional methods for reducing seabird bycatch. Seabirds can only access baited hooks to a certain depth and distance from the vessel. Knowing the sink rates of baited hooks, vessel speed and the maximum attack depth of the seabird present allows estimation of their vulnerable zone. The vulnerable zone is where the streamer lines should be flying to prevent seabirds from becoming hooked. DFO and the industry will continue to monitor this initiative, and other seabird avoidance studies, to see if there are outcomes that may be useful in the Canada Pacific hook & line fishery for halibut.

The halibut fleet voluntarily started using seabird avoidance devices in 2000. Seabird avoidance devices have been shown to be effective in reducing seabird mortality (Melvin et al, 2001) and have reduced seabird bycatch in the halibut fishery. Smith and Morgan (2005) estimated the extrapolated total seabird bycatch to be 128 birds in 1999 and only 10 in 2002 when avoidance devices became mandatory. It is unknown whether threats occurring outside of Canadian Pacific waters have an impact on migratory seabird populations that interact with the halibut fishery.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 47 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Some of the scavenging seabirds breed outside of Canada’s Pacific coast regions in other areas of the world and only transit through or feed off of Canada’s Pacific coast (DFO, 2007). Laysan and Black- footed albatross population trends are monitored through nest surveys on breeding colonies, principally on three islands in the Hawaiian archipelago that account for 97% and 77% of the total breeding population for Laysan and Black-footed albatross, respectively (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). Both Layson and Black-footed albatross were heavily depleted in the late 1800’s / early 1900s by feather hunting (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). For both species, the current primary threat is incidental catch in pelagic longlining (Naughton et al. 2007), taking 5,000 black- footed and 2,000 Laysan albatrosses annually. The rate of albatross kills in demersal longline fisheries represents a much smaller threat (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b).

For Blackfooted Albatross, in a 2012 update the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) noted it has downlisted the species to “Vulnerable” from “Endangered” because the model used to project a future population decline due to incidental mortality in longline fisheries has been criticised and it is implied that the rate of decline has been overestimated . The IUCN also notes that the species is expected to decline rapidly over a period of three generations (2009-2065) owing primarily to mortality caused by longline fishing fleets, assuming that overall mitigation measures are inadequate. However, as noted above, the current primary threat is incidental catch in pelagic, not demersal, longlining.

3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species (ETP)

Under the MSC system, endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are those listed on CITES Appendix I, or are under federal endangered species legislation. In Canada this includes those species listed on the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) schedule 119.

CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Species listed in Appendix I are illegal to trade internationally. Canada is compliant in adhering to the CITES international agreements.

Additionally in Canada, species listed on SARA schedule 1 are those on the national list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened and of special concern (Table 18). Some species are widely distributed and are only listed in schedule 1 for a particular area. Only those species that may occur in the Pacific are considered in this assessment. As a consequence of listing, draft management plans must be created within three years of a species being added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. A period of five years was allowed for those species that were initially listed when SARA came into force in 2002.

Once listed, all SARA schedule 1 species have recovery strategies developed that include short-term and long-term goals for protection and recovery.

SARA recovery strategies aim to:

19 The searchable registry may be accessed online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 48 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

. Describe the particular species and its needs; . identify threats to survival; . classify the species’ critical habitat, where possible; . provide examples of activities that are likely to result in destruction of the critical habitat; . set goals, objectives and approaches for species recovery; . identify information gaps that should be addressed; and . state when one or more action plans relating to the strategy will be completed

Action plans are also developed within a year of listing for endangered species and two years for threatened or extirpated species. Management plans may also be developed that set goals and objectives for maintaining sustainable population levels for species that are particularly vulnerable to environmental factors and incorporate an ecosystem management approach. A major consideration is therefore habitat protection.

Canadian vessels are required to fill out a special logbook for SARA listed species if they are encountered during fishing operations. DFO has increased efforts by Conservation and Protection officers to enforce compliance. The logbook was also recently modified to make compliance easier for fishers by, for example, including the option to provide a nil report on the regular log book rather than filling out a separate SARA log when no SARA species were encountered on the trip. Specific to the fishery, at the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB) and the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) stakeholders are updated about the consultation process and invited to provide feedback (online). All consultations regarding SARA listed species go through an established advisory board processes.

Another source of information is DFO’s fishery observer database. Most of the species identified on CITES appendix I are also listed on the SARA schedule 1. The loggerhead sea turtle, common minke whale, humpback whale, sperm whale and giant beaked whale are on CITES but are not SARA species. As discussed above in section 3.4.2, catch accounting in the BC fisheries is monitored in great detailed and audited by third party independent contractors. The direct impacts on ETP species from fishing activities is therefore known in great detail. There remains some difficulty in understanding on exact indirect population impacts due to data gaps in understanding total population numbers for some ETP species rather than the level of interaction with the fishery. A brief description of ETP species and current recovery efforts may be found below.

3.4.7.1 ETP Quota-Managed Species

Changes that are occurring in DFO policies for funding of science and fisheries management meant that in 2013 synoptic rockfish surveys normally conducted by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and PHMA did not occur. The industry has indicated it is still interested in collaborating with DFO on this research, which bears on scientific knowledge of a number of retained and ETP rockfish species that are at various levels of risk. In the 2012 audit, stakeholders raised concerns over the impacts of the halibut fishery on yelloweye rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish are listed as a species of Special Concern, under SARA. In the 2013 audit, stakeholders re-iterated concerns they raised in 2007 related to Rougheye rockfish Types I and II, citing a truncated age structure, suggesting doubling of total mortality (Z), and that stock assessments have not been conducted for either species. Stakeholders

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 49 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 also were concerned that catches are above the original PSARC-reviewed yield window of 950 tonnes set in 1999. Both Yelloweye and Rougheye rockfish have stock assessments scheduled under the DFO Groundfish Science Strategic Plan schedule. Yelloweye rockfish and Rougheye rockfish are both currently fished within their scientifically-defensible TACs for the directed halibut fishery at 75% and 82%, respectively.

Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus)

Unique to the Pacific Northwest nearshore areas, yelloweye rockfish inhabit rocky reefs, ridges, overhangs, crevices, caves, cobble and boulder fields from 19 to 251 m depth. They are one of the largest rockfish species with a maximum length of 91 cm and weighing up to 11.3 kg (DFO, 2011b), though the maximum size in B.C. is 88 cm (Yamanaka et al., 2006). They have been aged to 115 years (Yamanaka et al., 2006).

There are both “inside” and “outside” stocks. The “inside” stock extends from Malcolm Island to Victoria in the waters east of Vancouver Island. The “outside” population resides to the west of Vancouver Island and extends both north and south beyond the US borders (Yamanaka et al, 2006). As the vast majority of the halibut fishing takes place in the outside waters, the outside yelloweye rockfish stocks are most likely to interact with the fishery.

Fishing effort for yelloweye is controlled by via TAC, IVQ, quota landings caps and trip limits. The round weight of yelloweye rockfish may not exceed 30% of the halibut (H+G) weight per trip by regulation. Fishing is also prohibited in Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) which protect 20% of rockfish habitat in the outside waters and up to 30% of inside habitat.

Both yelloweye rockfish stocks were reviewed by the National Advisory Process (NAP) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2006. COSEWIC reviewed the status of yelloweye rockfish in November 2008 and recommended that both stocks be given Special Concern status. Yelloweye was listed in 2011 as a species of Special Concern under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), which by national requirement will require the development of a management plan within 5 years.

The inside population underwent a stock assessment in 2011 (Yamanaka et al., 2011). There is a 5% probability that the inside yelloweye rockfish population in 2009 was greater than the fisheries LRP, making it likely that the population is within the Critical Zone (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2012). However, very little commercial halibut fishing takes place in the inside area. The hook and line fishery for halibut has more interaction with the outside offshore yelloweye rockfish population, which was scheduled to undergo stock assessment in 2013 with a management plan to be developed by 2016. The stock assessment was re-scheduled because the DFO lead was acting in another position and contractors who had previously consulted for this species were unavailable. Data is available and has been compiled in preparation for the assessment. An updated stock assessment is expected in 2015.

Rougheye Rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 50 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Rougheye rockfish inhabit the North Pacific, occupying coastlines in North America from Alaska, south to San Diego and from northern Japan in the Western Pacific up to the Bering Sea in the north. They are normally found at depths from 25-900 m, and in BC from 170-660 m. The species is long lived and has been recorded to reach 205 years. Rougheye rockfish are densest on the sea floor associated with soft substrate and complex areas with frequent boulders, or on slopes > 20 degrees. Rougheye rockfish are therefore vulnerable to trawl and hook and line fishing associated with the seafloor. The current 1140 t TAC is allocated with 504 t to Hook and line and 636 t to trawl.

It has recently been discovered that rougheye probably comprise two distinct sub-species with possibly different depth distributions: these are currently called Types I and II. The difficulty of distinguishing these species without genetic analysis currently presents a challenge for independent and accurate accounting of the two separate species.

In the BC groundfish fishery, rougheye rockfish are managed by TAC, but overall population estimates are not available for Canadian waters based on stock assessment, nor estimates for Type I and Type II species separately.

No quotas were in effect for slope rockfish prior to 1977. Quotas were first introduced in 1982 for rougheye rockfish. In 1998, analysis extending previous work included coastal bathymetry and biological data for estimating reference points (Schnute et al. 1999). The authors of the report noted that “together with the analytical framework in section 5.3, the biological data help define “safely” in question 2 (“How many fish can safely be caught”).

Table 14. Coastwide mean yield recommendations, quotas, kept catch and total catch (tonnes) of rougheye rockfish for 1997 and 1998 fishing years. Source: Schnute et al. 1999 Coastwide Fishery 1997 1998 Rougheye Yield Quota Kept Total Yield Quota Kept Total 700 380 484 486 735 549 596 597

The work resulted in a table summarizing coastwide mean yield recommendations, quotas, kept catch and total catch (tonnes) for 1997 and 1998 (above) This report (Table 2.1, p. 35) cited yield options for 1998-2000 from 520-950 metric tonnes, based on the historical information available at the time and perspective solicited from members of industry.

During the integration process, these limits were raised to 1,140 tonnes.

Catches in the halibut fishery have decreased relative to levels prior to groundfish integration which, in 2005, were 131 tonnes (landed weight only), versus an average annual total mortality (retained plus released) of 74 tonnes over the period for 2009-2012. Rockfish, including rougheye, may not be used for bait.

Rougheye rockfish (Types I and II) were recommended for listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC in April of 2007, and were listed on SARA Schedule 1, Special concern in March of 2009. A management plan was published in April 2012. The SARA management plan “is an action-oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 51 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 threatened or endangered” (DFO 2012b)20. The Rougheye rockfish management plan’s goal is to maintain sustainable populations of these species, within each species’ known range in Canadian Pacific waters. The plan’s management actions, relevant to the commercial groundfish fisheries, to achieve this goal include:

1. Continue the current management regime of the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish complex and Longspine Thornyhead, including 100% catch monitoring and other management tools (where necessary and applicable) in the commercial groundfish fishery, while working to develop methods to obtain catch estimates for Rougheye and Blackspotted Rockfish. 2. Work with other commercial fishing sectors to develop methodologies to account for bycatch of the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish complex and Longspine Thornyhead in commercial non-groundfish fisheries. 3. Incorporate all catch on research surveys into future DFO Science Rougheye Rockfish, Blackspotted rockfish and Longspine Thornyhead stock assessments.

3.4.7.2 ETP Non Quota-Managed Species

There are several other species to consider ETP in Canada that are not managed with quota. Several of those listed on SARA schedule 1 do not overlap with the halibut fishery or have had no recorded interactions in the last 5 years. SCS was provided with observed trip data for years 2008 to 2013 to determine the number of interactions the fishery may have had with non-quota ETP species. Information provided is considered verified and accurate due to the rigorous monitoring in place. Below are short descriptions of the non-quota managed ETP species and any interactions with the hook and line fisheries21.

ETP Fishes

Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

Green sturgeon are a slow growing long lived species usually found in saltwater, though they enter freshwater systems to spawn. They tend to be demersal, and are associated with brackish water near river mouths. Population trends are still not well understood. Limiting factors to green sturgeon are reported to be mostly related to habitat availability and industrial activities in freshwater systems instead of fishing (COSEWIC, 2004). Green sturgeon were first designated a species of special concern in 1987 and reconfirmed in 2004. The species is also protected by the federal Fisheries Act which prohibits destruction of fish habitat. It is illegal to keep any green sturgeon caught while sport fishing in Canada. The green sturgeon species worldwide is also protected by international law under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). A management plan for

20 Additional management actions and research activities may be found in the management plan at: http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_sebastes_sebastolobe_rockfish_thornyhead_0412_eng.pdf 21 SCS took a conservative approach to identifying the level of interaction with ETP and the units of certification. This assessment covers all halibut caught by hook and line, including halibut that are caught in the other integrated groundfish fisheries

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 52 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 the green sturgeon is currently being developed. They are not a commercial species, though they are sometimes intercepted in white sturgeon and salmon fishing nets. Due to their distribution being near shore, it is unlikely that the fishery would interact with green sturgeon. No interactions with the hook and line fisheries were reported from logbook reporting (2008-2013).

Longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis)

Longspine thornyhead are adapted to deep low oxygen waters where their slow metabolism gives them an advantage in the deep water environment. They are in the scorpionfish family and grow to 35cm TL and may live to 75 years. They are designated a species of special concern through SARA. The last assessment was in 2007 (COSEWIC 2007). A management plan was developed in 2012 (DFO 2011e). Limits to recovery success include fishing pressure and changes to their environment, potentially from climate change. Objectives identified in the management plan for longspine thornyhead include improved catch accounting across all sectors, improved information in fishery independent surveys by conducting more deep tows/sets and to assess and review longspine thornyhead stock status trends in a timely manner. In 2008, 197 longspine thornyheads were intercepted in the halibut fishery, since then, numbers have been greatly reduced with following years reporting 0 to 13 individuals intercepted per year.

ETP Sharks

Sharks are rarely encountered in the fishery except spiny dogfish (see bycatch section). They occur in the “species of interest” portion of the logbook and must be released (except spiny dogfish). Sharks are not a “testable” species (which may trigger additional logbook auditing), but are monitored at the same level of rigor as other species in the logbook auditing process. Shark encounter codes-of- conduct are currently being developed for the three species of ETP sharks as a further action to complete management and recovery plan objectives. The codes of conduct will be available to all Pacific Region harvesters and marine environment users to provide guidelines for reducing detrimental effects of encounters (e.g., vessel proximity and how to handle entanglements) with these species. A “Sharks of British Columbia” identification guide was created in 2011 to increase proper identification and enhance awareness of shark species in Canadian Pacific waters. This guide was distributed to all groundfish commercial harvesters as part of their 2011/2012 licences, and is available for distribution to commercial and recreational harvesters as well as for communication and outreach purposes. No shark, other than spiny dogfish are allowed to be taken by the commercial fisheries. The practice of shark-finning is also prohibited.

Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)

Basking sharks are very large (12.2 m) planktivors that may be found in both Pacific and Atlantic waters. They are usually found “basking” in shallow waters, but may be found deeper. Reproduction rates are estimated to be the lowest of all the sharks with gestation times between 2.6 and 3.5 years and time between litters of 2 to 4 years. In the past, basking sharks were the target of a shark liver fishery (livers can weigh 1 mt) and were subject to an eradication program in the 1940s to 1970. Currently, mortality incurred from

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 53 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 fishing operations and vessel collisions are thought to be the largest threats to basking shark populations (COSEWIC, 2007). The Pacific population is estimated at between 320 and 550 individuals. A recovery strategy is in place that prohibits take of basking shark and vessels must actively avoid them if they are sighted near fishing operations (DFO 2011a). DFO maintains a public sighting registry where fishers and others can record basking shark sightings. Basking sharks were listed as “Endangered” in 2010 under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. An assessment of Basking shark was conducted by COSEWIC as part of it is listing recommendation process and a recovery strategy was finalized in 2011.

As a condition of licence, halibut vessels masters must ensure:

(a) that while the fishing activities are conducted, every measure is taken to avoid the incidental capture of Basking Shark;

(b) that while the fishing activities are conducted, fishing gear is not set or hauled when Basking Sharks are within 10 m of the fishing vessel, and/or are visible at the water’s surface; and

(c) that while the fishing activities are conducted, any Basking Shark incidentally caught and live is released in a manner that causes them the least harm.

Because of the presence of 100% at-sea monitoring in the directed halibut fishery, the encounters with basking sharks can be enumerated and the effects of the fishery known. Catch data from 2008-2013 show four basking shark encounters in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery in total.

Bluntnose six gill shark (Hexanchus griseus)

Bluntnose Six-gill sharks are a large (4.8m) predatory type of cow shark easily identified by having a single dorsal fin, six gill slits on each side and bright green eyes. They are generally nocturnal feeders. Gestation times ranges from 12 to 24 months for this ovoviviparous shark. They may live up to 80 years (unconfirmed). Age at first maturity for females is reported to be between 18 and 35 years. The Bluntnose Sixgill Shark was the focus in at least three directed fisheries in Canadian waters, most recently in the late 1980s and early 1990s (COSEWIC 2007b).

A management plan for Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and Tope Shark was finalized in 2012 (DFO 2012f). The management plan notes that bluntnose sixgill shark and tope shark are limited by bottom-up and top-down processes that affect their intrinsic rate of increase, prey availability, recruitment success, and mortality rates. The primary threats identified for these species are entanglement and bycatch. Other threats identified include pollution, habitat loss or degradation, climate and oceanographic change, and harassment. Historic threats included directed fisheries and entanglement/bycatch. The management goal for the bluntnose sixgill shark is to maintain their abundance within Canadian Pacific waters at current or higher levels. Management objectives and resulting actions have been identified in this plan to support the management goal including a zero retention rule for all sectors

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 54 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 (including recreational) where the animal must be released in a manner that poses the least amount of harm. Tagging and genetics studies have also been initiated to better understand the dynamics of this shark species. Interactions with the directed hook and line fishery for halibut are usually rare (16-27 individuals/year), except in 2008 when 73 individuals were encountered; however, interactions have been on the decline since 2008. In the discussion of the current threat from fishing entanglement/bycatch the management plan notes, “At current minimum estimates of biomass for the west coast of North America (a minimum of 7,900 individuals of Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and 1,500 t of Tope Shark), it is unlikely present mortality levels are having a significant impact on the populations.”

Bluntnose six gill shark are scheduled for assessment in 2017 under the DFO Groundfish Science Strategic Plan schedule.

Tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus)

Tope sharks are widely distributed temperate coastal shark and the only representative of the Triakidae family on Canada’s Pacific coast. The population in Canadian waters is believed to be part of a highly migratory population. They are slow growing, late maturing and live to about 45 years. Age at first maturity is between 12 and 17 years for females. These ovoviviparous sharks have a gestation time reported to be 1 year with a reproductive cycle of 1 to 3 years (COSEWIC, 2007b). Tope sharks were harvested during World War II for their high concentration of liver Vitamin A which led to a large fishery that quickly collapsed due to over-exploitation. It is currently prohibited to retain any shark other than spiny dogfish, including tope sharks.

The management plan (DFO, 2012f) notes that tope shark are limited by bottom-up and top- down processes that affect their intrinsic rate of increase, prey availability, recruitment success, and mortality rates. The primary threats identified for tope sharks are entanglement and bycatch. Other threats identified include pollution, habitat loss or degradation, climate and oceanographic change, and harassment. Historic threats included directed fisheries and entanglement/bycatch.

The management goal for tope shark is to maintain their abundance within Canadian Pacific waters at current or higher levels. Management objectives and resulting actions have been identified in this plan to support the management goal including zero retention from all sectors (including recreational) and improving population dynamics with tagging and genetics studies initiated in 2011. Interactions in the hook and line fishery for halibut are usually rare (1 to 10 individuals/year) except in 2012/13 when 105 individuals were released.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammal protections and rehabilitations are undertaken by several organizations working along-side DFO (DFO 2012c). Organizations such as the Vancouver aquarium maintain a marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation center that has successfully treated and released smaller marine mammals such as sea otters and stellar sea lions; they have also successfully rehabilitated and

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 55 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 released an orca back into the wild (2002).22 Parks Canada participates in marine mammal education events with the public and are often first responders for marine mammal strandings. BC Parks, another local organization, hosts the Michael Bigg Ecological Reserve to protect important whale foraging habitat.

The BC Marine Mammal Response Network23 works to monitor and investigate threats such as strikes, entanglements, disturbances (including high decibel activities from the military or industries) and disease outbreaks. They maintain a public registry for marine mammal sightings. The public can register sightings of marine mammals with the BC Cetaceans Sightings Network24. The data are useful in recovery planning/assessment. Marine mammal sightings are also recorded from large vessels conducting transects and recorded by on-board observers on fishing trips opportunistically. Straitwatch is another marine mammal monitoring and education program operated by Cetus Research and Conservation Society. The Robson Bight Warden program monitors the behaviour of whales in the presence and absence of vessels and keeps visitors informed of the no-entry policy of the Michael Bigg Ecological reserve.

Retention of marine mammals in the Pacific region is prohibited. There has been a general moratorium on whaling since 1986 from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) with some earlier moratoriums, for certain species such as the blue whale in 1966 (IWC, 2012). Information from observer reports and log books do not indicate that vessel strikes are common in the hook and line fisheries and no interactions have been recorded in the 2008 to 2013 dataset.

Fishery and whale interactions can take place. Vessel strikes and entanglements are concern for ETP whale and fishery interactions. Cetacean species are very susceptible to serious injury and mortality from vessel strikes. Areas of high marine traffic can pose a lethal threat to these animals, especially in “bottlenecks” where both whale and vessel densities are concentrated (Williams and O’Hara, 2010). Unfortunately, many incidents of ship strikes around the coast go unnoticed or unreported, and this makes it difficult to understand the scope of the problem. Jensen and Silber (2003) reported that fin whales are the most frequently struck large cetacean, at nearly twice that of the next most commonly struck species – humpback whales. Injury and death as a result of ship strikes are significant threats to recovering populations of marine mammals and also have the potential to damage smaller vessels and cause injury to passengers. Other interactions are also reported. Some anecdotal evidence exists regarding the potential of some toothed whales, notably sperm whales, being able to dislodge the catch from the line while it is underwater in other areas, but that this is rare and does not usually result in snagging.

Again, there were no reports of vessel strikes or entanglements from the relatively small halibut vessels in the last 5 years. In 2012, DFO issued an analysis of critical habitat for North Pacific right whales, blue, fin and sei whales in British Columbia (DFO 2012c). In 2013, DFO issued a Draft Partial Action Plan for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales in Pacific Canadian Waters (DFO 2013f). The plan outlines two general strategies for recovery:

22 http://killerwhale.vanaqua.org/page.aspx?pid=1523 23 Report sick, injured, dead or disturbed marine mammals & sea turtles in BC: 1-800-465-4336 24 BC Cetacean Sightings Network, a program of the Vancouver aquarium and partner with DFO may be accessed online at: http://wildwhales.org/

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 56 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 1. Determine the population identities, abundance, seasonal and inter-annual distribution, migration patterns, and current and potential habitat use of Blue, Fin and Sei Whales that occur in Pacific Canadian waters. Do the same for North Pacific Right Whales once their presence in Pacific Canadian waters has been confirmed25.

2. Mitigate threats so they do not significantly degrade or reduce current or potential habitat, or distribution of Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales in Pacific Canadian waters. This also serves to promote the re-occupation of historical habitat of these species in Pacific Canadian waters.

Although not all ETP whale species are described in the draft action plan, the protections for the four whale species named will also have benefits for other whale species as ocean use planning becomes more developed in considering all ocean users—including marine mammals. Brief descriptions of ETP marine mammals are below.

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

Blue whales are very large baleen whales that feed on plankton, notably euphausiids. They are reported to be the largest mammal known to have lived on earth, to 33.6m. There are three sub-species in the northern Hemisphere. In BC, Balaenoptera musculus musculus may be sighted. They produce usually a single calf after a 10 to 11 month gestation every 2 to 3 years. They live for 70 to 80 years. Information on population dynamics come from recorded sightings that identify individuals from unique cosmetic features and hydrophones designed to capture whale songs (Aroyan et al, 2000). Prior to whaling, an estimated 300,000 individuals existed world-wide. The healthiest population appears to be in the North Pacific where there is estimated to be 1,500 to 3,000 individuals (COSEWIC, 2002). The blue whales were hunted nearly to extinction until they were protected by international convention in 1966 (IWC, 2012). A moratorium on whaling exists today.

Blue whales in the Pacific are most common off the coast of California and Mexico and are rarely seen in British Columbia (COSEWIC, 2002). Population numbers remain low with perhaps 250 individuals migrating and feeding in around BC waters seasonally. Current threats to their recovery include vessel strikes, fishing gear entanglement, pollution and oceanographic changes that affect prey availability (Geraci, 1990, DFO 2013f).

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

Fin whales are the second largest animal in the world (behind blue whales) growing to 27.3m. They are also relatively fast, at 41km/hr. with bursts up to 46km/hr. They are baleen whales that feed on schooling fish, squid and euphausiids. Similar to blue whales, gestation is 11 to 12 months and a female may calve every 2 to 3 years. The IWC, in 1976, placed a moratorium on hunting fin whales, though countries such as Iceland and Norway are known to object to the agreement and have taken fin whales in several seasons since 2005. There are estimated to be between 100,000 and 119,000 world-wide today. Surveys in coastal

25 Two right whale sightings were reported in 2013 see DFO 2013d and Pynn 2013.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 57 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 waters of British Columbia in summers 2004 and 2005 produced abundance estimates of approximately 500 animals that migrate through BC waters on their way to feeding grounds in the Gulf of Alaska (Williams and Thomas, 2007).

Northern minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

Northern or common minke whales are the second smallest baleen whales (pygmy right whales are smaller) and may be distinguished from other baleen whales by a white band on each flipper. They measure to 10.7m and live typically to 50 years. Gestation periods are slightly shorter than in blue or fin whales at 10 months and calve every 2 years. Minke whales were not of much interest for whaling operations until about the 1930s when it was clear that other larger baleen whale populations such as the blue, sei and fin whales were in great decline. Whalers began targeting minke whales instead.

They were hunted legally until the 1986 general moratorium by the IWC. Illegal whaling continues to occur, though Canada, a ratifying party of the IWC, continues to adhere to the IWC moratorium. There are several populations of minke whale world-wide. The subspecies Balaenoptera acutrostrata scammonii occurs in the North Pacific where human caused mortality from vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglement were found to be below the natural replacement rate. COSEWIC designated them “not at risk” in 2006.

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica)

North Pacific right whales are robust baleen whale that can reach to 18m length. North Pacific right whales in the northeast Pacific are critically endangered according to the IUCN and by the Center for Biological Diversity, “they may be the most endangered whale on earth,” (Reilly et al, 2011). Prior to whaling, populations in the north Pacific were about 20,000 individuals. In 2010, National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimated that the population of North Pacific right whales in the south eastern Bering Sea was approximately 30 animals (NMFS, 2006). Recordings of whale songs indicate their presence in the Sea of Okhotsk, Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea as well as coastal California. North Pacific right whales have been protected from whaling since the IWC moratorium. As an example of how critical individuals are to the recovery of the species, in defiance of the moratorium in the 1960s, 514 whales were killed by Russian fleets. Populations still have not rebounded. Threats to their recovery include an unsustainably small population (inbreeding depression), seismic disturbances from oil and gas exploration as well as oil spills, vessel strikes and changes is oceanography that affect food source densities (NMFS, 2006). In Canada, some right whales had been caught in the early 20th century from whaling stations off northern Vancouver Island. However, there had been no sightings of right whales in Canadian waters since the large illegal Russian kill in the 1960s with one exception of two large whales seen off Strait of Juan de Fuca in 1983 though their species was unconfirmed. There were no officially-confirmed records until the encouraging sighting of a single right whale on June 9 and 13, 2013 south of Langara Island at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii). This was followed by a second sighting of a different individual at the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca four months later (DFO 2013d).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 58 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 In 2003, DFO issued a National Recovery Strategy for E. japonica in Pacific Canadian Waters. In 2012, DFO issued an analysis of critical habitat for North Pacific right whales, and blue, fin and sei whales in British Columbia. In 2013, DFO issued a Draft Partial Action Plan based on the recovery strategy for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales in Pacific Canadian Waters (DFO 2012c and DFO 2013). The strategy includes collecting more information about population movements and dynamics and reductions in harmful interactions with humans and our many outputs (noise, pollution, fishing gear, etc.).

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

Sei whales are the third largest baleen whale (after blue and fin whales) reaching 19.5m, but averaging around 16m in length. They are relatively fast reaching speeds of 50km/hr. They feed primarily on euphausiids. Gestation time is between 10 and 12 months with time between calving of 2 to 3 years (Lockyer and Martin, 1983). Sei whales were also the subject of whaling efforts. Once stocks of more profitable right whales, blue whales, fin whales, and humpback whales became depleted, sei whales were hunted in earnest, particularly from 1950 to 1980 (Perry et al, 1999). Commercial sei whaling ended in the eastern North Pacific, however, in 1971. The sei whale did not have meaningful international protection until 1970, when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) first set catch quotas for the North Pacific for individual species. Before quotas, there were no legal limits. Complete protection from commercial whaling in the North Pacific came in 1976 (Allen, 1980). Prior to commercial whaling, the North Pacific hosted an estimated 42,000 sei whales. By the end of whaling, the population was down to between 7,260 and 12,620 (Tillman, 1977). Estimates based on sightings indicate there are 46 individuals that utilize BC’s waters at least periodically (DFO, 2013f).

Grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus)

Grey whales are baleen whales that reach a total length of 19.9m. They are reported to live between 55 and 70 years (DFO, 2007). Females usually give birth every two years after a gestation period of about 13 months. Grey whales feed on benthic invertebrates by delving into the seafloor and filtering out sand to ingest small benthic animals. Grey whales have also been subject to whaling and are sensitive to exploitation. As an example, the north populations in the Atlantic may have been extirpated as early as 500 A.D and certainly by about 1900 due to hunting (Perrin et al, 2009). More recently and in the Pacific, there is estimated to be a very small population of 130 individuals in the Sea of Okhotsk and a much larger population of 20,000 to 22,000 individuals in the Pacific from Mexico to Alaska (IWC, 2011). Most grey whales migrate past BC between the feeding grounds in the Gulf of Alaska and calving grounds in the Sea of Cortéz, Mexico. About 80 grey whales stay on for the summer in BC before migrating back down to calve.

Grey whales have been granted protection from commercial hunting by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) since 1949 and are no longer hunted on a large scale. Limited hunting of grey whales has continued since that time, however, primarily in the Chukotka region of northeastern Russia, where large numbers of grey whales spend the summer months. This hunt has been allowed under an "aboriginal/subsistence whaling" exception to

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 59 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 the commercial-hunting ban. The Management Plan (DFO 2013f) finds several threats to grey whale recovery which are common to the recovery of all whale species that traverse BC waters including: . Increased human activities in their breeding lagoons in Mexico . Climate change . Acute noise . The threat of toxic spills . Aboriginal and illegal whaling . Entanglement with fishing gear . Boat collisions . Impacts from fossil fuel exploration and extraction

Since the moratorium, the population does seem to have increased, though there was a decline from 1998 to 2002, possibly due to reduced prey availability on the feeding grounds. Since the cessation of whaling, the populations have increased 2.5% per year (COESWIC, 2004).

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Humpback whales are also baleen whales than can reach 16m in length. They filter feed on fish and euphausiids in the summer and fast in the winter when they live off their fat reserves. Humpback gestation is about 11 months and females may calve every 2 to 3 years once they reach maturity. They live 50 to 100 years (Clapham, 2008). They have longer pectoral fins than the other baleen whales and have been known to work in concert with other pod members to “bubble fish” (Allen, 2013). Humpback whales were also the subject of whaling. Populations declined. To prevent extinction, the International Whaling Commission banned commercial humpback whaling in 1966. By then, the population had been reduced to around 5,000 individuals. That ban is still in force. The worldwide population is at least 80,000 humpback whales, with 18,000–20,000 in the North Pacific (IWC, 2011). Today, individuals are vulnerable to collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear, and noise or other pollution (DFO, 2013f).

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

Sperm whales are in the toothed whale family. They grow to and average 16m, though some have been reported to be much larger (24-26m). They typically live to about 60 or 70 years. Calving is seldom, occurring every 4 to 20 years, with calves staying with their mothers for an average of 10 years and demonstrate complex social behaviour within the pods where females and young work together for prey and protect each other from threats such as aggressive orca (Perrin et al 2009). They feed primarily on squid in deep waters. The spermaceti found in the anterior of the skull and giving sperm whales their distinct shape, is used for ecolocation and communication (Zimmer et al, 2005). Sperm whales were heavily hunted for the waxy spermaceti and other organs until about 1988. In 2002, Whitehead

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 60 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 estimated that world-wide populations are more than 100,000, but with the long period between births, that their populations are estimated to increase by only 1% per year in the absence of whaling (Whitehead, 2002). Sperm whales are not well documented off the coast of Canada, but have been reported by fishers in the Gulf of Alaska (Woodford, 2003).

Giant beaked whale (Berardius bairdii)

The giant beaked whale is another toothed whale found in northern latitudes. They are also known as Baird’s beaked whale. They grow 13 to 14m in length. They have a large melon and long beak which makes them rather distinctive from other whale species. They prey on both fish and squid and can dive for more than an hour. Although most countries accept the moratorium on giant beaked whales, Japan argues that they are a ‘small cetacean’ species and therefore not protected by the moratorium—although it is notable they giant beaked whales are typically larger than minke whales, which are protected. The Japanese quota is 62/year. Giant beaked whales were hunted off the British Columbian coast, but hunting operations ceased with the moratorium. There are an estimated 1,100 individuals in the Pacific and about 7,000 in the coastal waters of Japan (Taylor et al, 2008), but absolute estimates are difficult as this species spends most of its time at depth and is not very noticeable at the surface during brief breathing periods between dives.

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

The Steller Sea Lion is the biggest sea lion. Sea lions are often confused with seals, but can be distinguished by the presence of external ears. The males of this species are noticeably larger than the females: adult females are 2.1 to 2.4 m long and weigh 200 to 300 kg, while adult males reach a length of 2.7 to 3.1 m and a weight of 400 to 800 kg, the biggest of them weighing nearly a ton. The animals living in Canada are part of the Eastern population extending from southern California to southeastern Alaska, in the United States.

They are only present in British Columbia on three main breeding areas. 1.) Scott Islands, 2.) Cape St. James, off the coast of the southern Queen Charlotte Islands. 3.) offshore from the Banks Islands, in the northern portion of the continental coast.

In addition to these breeding sites, there are about 21 year-round haul out sites, and many irregularly used winter haul out sites.

Since the Steller Sea Lion first received protection in 1970, the size of the adult population has practically doubled. In 2002, about 3,400 pups were born in British Columbia. The total population of animals living in the coastal waters during the breeding season is between 18,400 and 19,700 individuals (DFO 2010a)

Management of marine mammals in Canadian waters is the Federal Government’s responsibility. Additionally, various regulations of the Fisheries Act are applied by DFO. The Oceans Act, which came into force in 1996, protects the habitats of marine mammals. Certain breeding grounds in British Columbia also benefit from additional protection: the

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 61 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Cape St. James rookery is protected under the Canada National Parks Act and the Scott Islands rookeries are part of a provincial ecological reserve (DFO, 2010a).

Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris)

The Sea Otter is one of the smallest marine mammals. Males typically weigh about 45 kg, and reach 150 cm in length. The females are slightly smaller. Sea Otters have dense and soft fur. They were hunted for their pelts prior to their collapse and then protection. The sea otter formerly occurred across the Pacific Rim, from northern Japan to Baja California, Mexico. The worldwide population was 150,000 to 300,000 animals before commercial exploitation for fur in the 18th and 19th centuries. Sea otters were extirpated from much of their range. Fewer than 2,000 animals remained by the early 1900s. Protective measures taken in 1911 came too late for British Columbia otters but saved the small California population and larger Alaskan one. The species now occupies about half its historic range, but is back up to 150,000 individuals worldwide. Large areas to the south of the Gulf of Alaska remain uninhabited by the species. Exceptions are in southeast Alaska, British Columbia and Washington, in areas where populations have been reintroduced. Eighty-nine otters were slowly reintroduced to British Columbia from 1969 to 1972; this population has grown by an average of 18.6 % per year, exceeding 1,500 otters by 1995. They now occur mainly off Vancouver Island but are also found 125 km north near Goose Island. Food limitation is a major cause of death, but oil spills are probably the greatest threat. Predators include Bald Eagles, Killer Whales and sharks. Bald Eagles are a significant cause of pup mortality. Human-related threats include environmental contamination, conflict with commercial fisheries and incidental takes, though not likely by the halibut fishery, as the fishing area and otter habitat do not overlap (DFO, 2014a).

Sea turtles

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

The Leatherback Sea Turtle is the largest of the seven extant species of marine turtles, and is the sole living member of the family Dermochelyidae. The leatherback has a shell covered by a leathery, slightly flexible, fibrous tissue embedded with tiny bones (osteoderms) (COSEWIC, 2013a). The Pacific population of this species has collapsed by over 90% in the last generation. Continuing threats include fisheries bycatch, marine debris, coastal and offshore resource development, illegal harvest of eggs and turtles, and climate change. When the species is found within national parks of Canada or other lands administered by the Parks Canada Agency, it is protected or managed under the Canada National Parks Act or through measures or management tools available to the Parks Canada Agency under other legislation. A Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtles in Pacific Canadian Waters was finalized and posted to the Species at Risk Public Registry in 2007, and the species remains protected under SARA. Efforts to identify critical habitat and develop an Action Plan for the Pacific Population are currently underway (COSEWIC 2013a).

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 62 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The loggerhead sea turtle may be found in nearly all of the worlds’ oceans. In the Pacific they prefer temperate to tropical regions. They may be found in the eastern Pacific near shore and although it is possible to find them off the coast in British Columbia, sightings are uncommon. Lethargy is induced at temperatures between 13 and 15°C (55 and 59°F) (Spotila, 2004). They are typically about 90 cm as adults, but have been found to at least 208cm (MarineBio, 2012). The loggerhead sea turtle has a low reproductive rate; females lay an average of four egg clutches and then become quiescent, producing no eggs for two to three years. The loggerhead reaches sexual maturity within 17–33 years and has a lifespan of 47–67 years (Ernst and Lovich, 2009). Greatest threats to their recovery outside of Canadian jurisdiction are degradation of nesting sites, exotic predators on young (including foxes in Australia) and poaching. The greatest threat to loggerhead sea turtles in Canadian waters is interactions with fishing gear. Other threats include ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris, and vessel strikes. On-going actions to promote the recovery of the loggerhead sea turtle are outlined in the 2010 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan, which was written for loggerheads in Atlantic Canada, but the same measures of protection apply in the Pacific region (DFO 2010. Actions outlined in this plan include: gear modifications, a review of at-sea observer requirements in order to improve data collection and identify appropriate levels of observer coverage in fisheries that interact with Loggerhead Sea Turtles, Facilitating international relations to protect sea turtles, and the formalization of protocols and Codes of Conduct for handling, de-hooking, and releasing turtles entangled in fishing gear. The feasibility of areas of avoidance will also be considered. Any habitat identified as critical to the recovery or survival of the species will be protected from activities that could lead to its destruction. DFO continues to implement the Conservation Action Plan under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act. The halibut hook and line fishery had not had any interactions with sea turtles for the period 2008-2013.

ETP Sea birds

ETP seabird species that may interact with the hook & line fishery for halibut are Short-tailed albatross and pink footed shear water. The recovery strategy notes “Both the Short-tailed Albatross and the Pinkfooted Shearwater face significant threats on the breeding grounds that cannot be addressed in Canada, but the intent of this strategy is to support international efforts to restore and increase populations by reducing potential mortalities while the birds are in Canadian territory.” To avoid capture or entanglement, bird avoidance devices are employed on the halibut hook and line fleet. Improvements in sink time of gear through the results in the recent IPHC seabird bycatch reduction study will further assist in preventing the hook and line fisheries from hindering sensitive sea bird population recovery.

Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus)

The short-tailed albatross is the largest of the North Pacific albatrosses with adult wingspans of 213 to 229cm. Adults are easily identified as being the only white bodied albatross in the region. The only known breeding colonies are on volcanic islands in southern Japan. One generation time is estimated to be 26 years with monogamous breeding pairs producing a

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 63 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 single egg when nesting. The global population is estimated to be 2,130 birds. Since 1996, 34 short-tailed albatross have been observed within the Canadian EEZ.

Throughout its range, the short-tailed albatross is vulnerable to becoming entangled in lost or abandoned fishing gear or caught incidentally in groundfish longline fisheries. Canadian threats include potential interactions with commercial longline or gillnet fisheries, oil pollution, the ingestion of plastics, and the bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other pollutants. The potential interactions with the commercial fishing industry include incidental take during fishing, and injury or entanglement in discarded nets and lines. Offshore oil and gas activities pose a potential threat, and proposed offshore wind farms potentially may degrade or prevent access to important foraging areas. Climate change also poses a potential threat (COSEWIC, 2003).

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

The recovery goal is to support and augment international efforts to restore and increase populations of short-tailed albatross. Recovery objectives for the species in Canada are to: minimize or remove threats under Canadian jurisdiction; identify and conserve Canadian marine habitats of importance; promote, support and augment international initiatives contributing to the recovery throughout their range; develop and implement educational activities that support recovery in Canada; and address knowledge gaps concerning threats understanding their ecology in Canada.

The recovery strategy notes in Canada the Pacific commercial longline fishing effort for Pacific halibut is concentrated along the continental shelf with additional effort along the coast of northern Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Sound (Smith and Morgan, 2005). It then states that most observations of Short-tailed Albatrosses are from the outer continental shelf and the upper slope regions (Figures 2-6) but acknowledges that no studies have been done to estimate the potential overlap between longline fisheries and Short- tailed Albatrosses in Canada. From 2002 to 2010 no Short-tailed albatross were observed on the IPHC setline surveys in Canadian waters In 2011, only one of the 24 Short-tailed albatross sighted on the IPHC surveys was seen in Area 2B (off the northern end of Haida Gwaii). In 2012, of the 17 Short-tailed albatross observed on the IPHC surveys, three were sighted in Queen Charlotte Sound in BC. For Short-tailed albatross, in a 2012 update, IUCN noted conservation efforts have resulted in a steady population increase, but cautions the short-tailed albatross still has a very small breeding range, limited to Torishima and Minami- kojima (Senkaku Islands), rendering it susceptible to stochastic events and human impacts.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 64 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The hook and line fishery for halibut takes on average 2.6 albatrosses per year. There were no confirmed cases of short-tailed albatross in the last three years. No Short-tailed Albatrosses were salvaged from a seabird bycatch salvage program between 2000 and 2005 either.

Pink footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus)

The pinkfooted shearwater is a broad-winged seabird with an adult wingspan of 109cm, and as the name might imply, pink feet. It is known to nest in only three sites world-wide. They are all in Chile. When not nesting, they forage the Pacific north to Alaska. Informational meetings have been conducted on the Chilean islands to foster nesting bird protections and promote education. Threats to species recovery include disturbance from domestic animals such as cats and dogs at nesting sites, poaching, feeding on plastics and other pollutants and entanglement in fishing gear. In 2011, meetings took place between Chilean and Canadian environmental sectors to discuss conservation methods, education for local populations and habitat protections that may be fostered by the two countries (Environment Canada, 2010).

It is estimated that about 21,000 individuals migrate to Canadian waters for foraging in the boreal spring through fall, though the total population (based on numbers of breeding burroughs) is thought to be about 60,000 individuals. In addition to protections afforded by SARA listing, this species is covered by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and Wild Animals. In addition, the Pink-footed Shearwater's breeding habitat in Chile benefits from the indirect protection provided by the various island statuses established specifically to preserve habitats in general. Pink footed shearwater and other sea birds are monitored by the Canadian Wildlife Service using coast guard vessels to monitor abundance and seasonal distribution.

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

The recovery strategy notes in Canada the Pacific commercial longline fishing effort for Pacific halibut is concentrated along the continental shelf with additional effort along the coast of northern Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Sound (Smith and Morgan, 2005). It then states that most observations of Pink footed shearwater are from the outer

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 65 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 continental shelf and the upper slope regions (Figures 2-6 in the strategy) but acknowledges that no studies have been done to estimate the potential overlap between longline fisheries and Pink footed shearwater in Canada.

The recovery strategy notes that although Pinkfooted Shearwaters have been observed in coastal BC as far north as the west side of Dixon Entrance, relatively few birds are encountered north of the southern tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands (K. Morgan, pers. comm. 2008). A significant portion of the commercial halibut catch is taken north of the southern tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii. Further, maps (Figures 4-6) in the recovery strategy show that most pinkfooted shearwater are observed off southern Vancouver Island in the summer months, and very little commercial halibut fishing takes place in this area.

According to the recovery strategy Canadian at-sea fishery observer programs have not reported bycatch of pinkfooted shearwaters in commercial longline fisheries and no pinkfooted shearwaters were salvaged from a seabird bycatch salvage program between 2000 and 2005. Similarly, between 2002 and 2013, few, if any, pink-footed shearwater were observed each year on the IPHC setline survey, which surveys the halibut fishing grounds in Canada.

Table 15. Species listed under SARA and CITES including any interactions that have occurred between the species and the BC halibut fleet in the 2012-13 fishing season (in alpha order). SARA SPECIES Interaction with BC halibut fleet in 2012-13 and SARA listing Basking Shark 2 released in 2012-2013. Endangered, SARA schedule 1. Black-footed Albatross One BFA retained in 2012-2013, and 6 released, not identified to species, 2012-2013. Testable. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Blue Whale None. Endangered, SARA schedule 1. Bluntnose Sixgill Shark 26 released in 2012-2013. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Fin Whale None. Threatened, SARA schedule 1. Giant Beaked Whale None. CITES Appendix I. Green Sturgeon None. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Grey Whale None. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Harbour Porpoise None. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Humpback Whale None. Threatened, SARA schedule 1. Orca (Killer Whale) None. Northern resident population, Threatened. Southern resident population, endangered. Offshore population, special concern. All in SARA schedule 1. Leatherback Sea Turtle None. Endangered, SARA schedule 1. Loggerhead sea turtle None. CITES Appendix I. Longspine Thornyhead 13 retained in 2012. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. North Pacific Right Whale None. Endangered, SARA schedule 1. Northern Abalone None. Threatened, SARA schedule 1. Northern minke whale None. CITES Appendix I. Olympia Oyster None. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Pink-footed Shearwater None, Threatened, SARA schedule 1 Rougheye Rockfish Type I and This species is managed by quota in the groundfish fisheries. Type I and Type II are not separated in Type II the commercial catch. The TAC is set for both sub-species combined. Special concern, schedule 1, 2009 2010 2011 2012 TAC (lbs) 193,086 186,962 201,334 260,141 Catch (lbs) 155,332 144,391 144,728 212,374 % of TAC 80% 77% 72% 82%

Sea Otter None. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Sei Whale None. Endangered, SARA schedule 1. Short Tailed Albatross None. CITES Appendix I. Sperm Whale None. CITES, Appendix I.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 66 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Steller Sea Lion 1 released in 2012-13. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Tope (Soupfin Shark) 1 retained, 105 released in 2012-13. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Yelloweye Rockfish Managed by TAC. Special concern, SARA schedule 1. Listed in 2011. 2009 2010 2011 2012 TAC (lbs) 419,784 389,812 397,000 407,415 Catch (lbs) 293,089 261,189 284,000 305,537 % of TAC 70% 67% 72% 75%

Source: DFO, 2008 through February 28, 2013 at-sea monitoring and dockside validation data

TERMS DEFINITIONS Appendix I Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Endangered a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction Extirpated a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. Extinct a wildlife species that no longer exists. Special Concern a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Schedule 1 is the official list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Schedule 2 species listed in Schedule 2 are species that had been designated as endangered or threatened, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re- assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Schedule 3 species listed in Schedule 3 are species that had been designated as special concern, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Threatened a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction.

3.4.8 Habitat Considerations

The vast majority of the commercial hook & line halibut catch (~88%) is taken in the central and north coast area of British Columbia. The marine habitats in these areas are discussed in Jamieson and Davis (2004). The paper identifies what is known about the principle marine habitats, biota, general trophic structure and fisheries in the area studied. Habitat types within the area studied vary in depth, substrate, relief, currents and exposure; range from nearshore to open ocean; and from sheltered inlets to high exposure sites. Habitat types that have been identified in the study area support a variety of communities including estuaries and salt marshes, intertidal mussel beds, kelp and eelgrass beds in the intertidal and shallow subtidal and hexactinellid sponge and coral communities in deep water habitats.

Longline fishing involves setting a line with hundreds of baited hooks along the ocean floor. It consists of lengths, or “skates,” to which shorter lines with baited hooks are attached. Average skate length is approximately 550 m and often two to six skates are linked. Following a certain “soak” time, the line is hauled back onto the vessel, fish are removed and gear is rebaited and reset (Hiller et al, 2007) (from the Atlas of Pacific North Coast Integrated management Area pg 72).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 67 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.4.8.1 Groundfish Fishery Habitat Initiatives

A number of management policies and guidelines were published in 2013 under the umbrella of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework that will improve habitat management in commercial and other fisheries.

The new 2013-2015 Pacific Groundfish IFMP also cites a number of habitat-based marine conservation initiatives.

. Marine Spatial Planning: The Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) is a spatial planning process that will aim to create shared understanding, objectives and frameworks for holistic management of multiple sectors along the BC coast (e.g. fishing, shipping, aquaculture, tourism, energy etc.).

. Marine Protected Area Network Planning: This nearly finalized initiative aims to achieve common marine protection and conservation goals and to identify new areas for protection by federal and provincial government agencies with the mandate to protect marine spaces.

. Marine Protected Area Designations: work is ongoing to achieve Marine Protected Area (MPA) status for Race Rocks which is currently designated as a Provincial Ecological Reserve. MPA designation is also being sought for the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs which are located from 140 – 200m depth. Scott Island national Marine Wildlife Area has also been proposed for designation and is currently moving through the regulatory process. Changes to existing IFMPs with respect to fishing activities may be required upon designation, as well as alignment of IFMPs and MPA management plans. DFO is assessing potential impacts of other gear types (besides trawling) to ensure current measures continue to provide the needed protection to sponge reef systems.

. Habitat-protection procedures - The trawl fleet has established a combined habitat bycatch conservation limit (HBCL) for coral and sponges which is allocated to groundfish trawl license holders and allows for transferability within specific vessels caps within the trawl fleet

. Habitat-protection protocols - An encounter protocol has been established for trawl tows where combined coral and sponge catch exceeds 20 kg.

. Habitat impact research – Two main studies have examined the impacts of fishing gear on benthic habitat. In 2013 CSAS published a report examining the effects of sedimentation caused by different types of fishing gear on glass sponge reefs. The report also modelled and discussed potential mitigation options. At the same time, Simon Fraser University, industry members of the BC Seafood Alliance and DFO have undertaken research on the interactions between different fixed and mobile fishing gear on habitat. The first part of the study (2009-2012) used remotely-operated vehicle surveys in the Hecate straight to examine how, for habitat-forming species, density and community composition are affected by trawling and oceanographic features. The intent is to understand and predict the extent of trawl, longline and trap gear on benthic habitat in British Columbian waters.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 68 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 3.4.8.2 Halibut Fishery Specific Initiatives

A number of management measures and initiatives have been introduced into the Canada Pacific hook & line fishery for halibut that mitigate the risk of impacts to bottom structure.

By regulation, only hook & line gear can be used in the directed halibut fishery on Canada’s Pacific coast.26 For the fishery, bottom longline gear is mainly used although a small number of licenced halibut vessels use troll gear or handline gear, these do not impact the habitat however as they do not make contact with the substrate. Longline gear is generally considered “fixed” gear because, compared to other gears such as trawling, it does not operate by moving along the seafloor.

It is generally acknowledged that the bottom impacts of fixed or passive gear types such as longlines are much less than mobile gear (Ardon and Jamieson, 2006; Fossa et al, 2002).

For the Canada Pacific hook & line fishery for halibut, the location and distribution of fishing operations is well documented. By condition of licence, fishing location must be reported through:

a) hail reporting requirements;

b) mandatory logbooks; and,

c) at-sea monitoring program (either by observers or video-based electronic monitoring systems that include GPS).

Figure 7 below shows the bathymetry of British Columbian waters. Halibut hook and line fishing effort and substrate type are incorporated in figures 8 and 9 below. Additional information on fishing location relative to protected areas or areas of protection interest may be found by exploring interactive maps27.

26 33 Department of Justice, Pacific (Fisheries) Regulations, 1993, Part IX, Section 76. It should be noted that since 2007 commercial sablefish vessels using trap gear have been able to keep incidentally-caught halibut as part of the groundfish integration initiative. 27 http://www.livingoceans.org/maps/interactive

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 69 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Figure 7. Substrate types in British Columbia, Canada. Source: DFO 2013.

Figure 8. Fishing effort of the halibut fleet in British Columbia, Canada. Source: DFO 2013.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 70 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

3.4.8.3 Protecting Habitats of Ecological or Biological Significance

DFO has developed criteria for identifying ecologically and biologically significant areas. These criteria serve as a tool for calling attention to an area that has particularly high Ecological or Biological Significance to facilitate provisions for risk aversion in management activities (DFO 2004, 2011). In 2012, using the criteria outlined, DFO identified proposed Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the marine waters of British Columbia and outlined next steps to improve identification (DFO, 2013b).

DFO has also produced a summary of the current knowledge of cold water corals in British Columbia (Jamieson et al., 2006). The paper summarizes the current state of knowledge about the cold water corals in British Columbia. The paper provides a list of Pacific Canada’s known coral species and potential species based on records from adjacent jurisdictions. It includes maps derived from existing records showing all currently known locations of corals in British Columbia. The report documents five Orders, 24 Families and 61 species of corals from British Columbian waters, but an additional Order, three Families and 50 species may also occur in British Columbia, as these species have been documented from areas adjacent to British Columbia, i.e., south-east Alaska, Gulf of Alaska sea mounts and Washington/Oregon.

Canada has already taken a number of steps to protect benthic ecosystems, primarily by restricting certain fishing practices and activities to eliminate, or limit as much as possible, the destruction of sensitive marine habitat and species. The most common measures used are area or time closures, gear restrictions and requirements for gear modification.

3.4.8.4 Current and Future Area Closures

Sections 8.1.3, 8.2, 8.4, and Appendix 6 (Section 10) of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a) outline the closures currently in place in the fishery. Some of the identified protected areas are currently in place in the fishery (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Protected Areas, Rockfish Conservation Areas, Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and Haida Heritage Site Fully Protected Areas) while others are in process of designation (e.g., Glass Sponge Reef Closures).

Section 8.1.3 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a) discusses the 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) in place in BC waters. These areas protect inshore rockfish species and their habitats. Based on GIS data, the total combined area within RCAs 1 to 200 m depth is 4,847 km2. RCAs comprise about 6% of the entire area of the BC coast with the same criteria (82,560 km2).

Section 8.2 of the groundfish management plan (DFO 2013a) also discusses the DFO Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) currently in place (the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents MPA and the SGaan Kinghlas-Bowie Seamount MPA) as well as work ongoing to designate other MPAs along the Pacific coast (Race Rocks and the Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 71 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Area of Interest is to be designated to protect the unique glass sponges.28 These sponge reefs, discovered only a decade ago, are some of the few known examples of living Hexactinellid sponge reefs in the world today. The reefs cover nearly 1,000 square kilometres of seabed in eastern Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait. The dense coverage of sponges provides habitat for a variety of invertebrate and fish species. These areas have been closed to bottom trawling for a number of years and, as part of the MPA designation process for this area, the Department is assessing potential impacts of other gear types to ensure current measures continue to provide the needed protection of the sponge reef ecosystems.

The Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area is also discussed in Sections 8.2 and 8.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a). This area includes closed zones. This section of the management plan also notes that the Scott Islands National Marine Wildlife Area has been proposed for designation and is moving through the regulatory process.

Section 8.2 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a) also describes the nearly finalized Marine Protected Area Network Planning initiative to achieve common marine protection and conservation goals and identify new areas of interest for protection by federal and provincial government agencies with the mandate for protecting marine spaces.

3.4.8.5 Managing Habitat through the Sustainable Fisheries Framework

As part of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, in 2009 DFO developed the Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas to provide a more systematic, transparent, and consistent approach to addressing these issues in Canadian fisheries. The policy applies to all commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal marine fishing activities that are licenced and/or managed by the Department both within and outside Canada’s 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

The policy includes guiding principles, processes for information gathering, risk analysis and management decision making and is consistent with several existing legislation pieces including the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act, Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Species at Risk Act and the Canadian National Marine Conservation Areas Act.

The Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas outlines separate processes for historically fished and frontier areas. A historically fished area is a marine ecosystem area where there is a history of fishing. This includes current ongoing fishing activity. A frontier area is a marine ecosystem area in deep water (deeper than 2000m) or in the Arctic where there is no history of fishing and little if any information available concerning the benthic features (habitat, communities and species) and the impacts of fishing on these features.

This two-fold approach was taken in response to the 2006 Science Advisory Report, Impacts of Trawl Gears and Dredges on Benthic Habitats, Populations and Communities, which concludes that there is a higher level of scientific uncertainty about benthic habitats communities and species in frontier areas (DFO 2006). The report also notes that the greatest impact to vulnerable benthic habitats, communities, and species in a given area can be caused by the first few fishing events. The policy

28 DFO is also considering areas closures in the southern Strait of Georgia to protect sponge reefs.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 72 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 thus requires greater precaution when fishing activities are being considered in frontier areas. It also gives special consideration to historically fished areas that have not been exposed to bottom-contact fishing. In particular, proposals for new bottom-contact fishing in historically fished areas will require risk assessments prior to proceeding.

The policy outlines the five key step process for both historically fished and frontier areas:

1. Assemble and map existing data and information that would help determine the extent and location of benthic habitat types, features, communities and species; including whether the benthic features (communities, species and habitat) situated in areas where fishing activities are occurring or being proposed are important from an ecological and biological perspective;

2. Assemble and map existing information and data on the fishing activity;

3. Based on all available information, and using the Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF)29, assess the risk that the activity is likely to cause harm to the benthic habitat, communities and species, and particularly if such harm is likely to be serious or irreversible;

4. Determine whether management measures are needed, and implement such management measures; and,

5. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the management measure and determine whether changes are required to the management measures following this evaluation. The policy provides that ongoing fishing activities and proposals to expand fishing activities in historically fished areas would be processed through existing management planning processes, including regional advisory processes for harvesting management plans and integrated fisheries management plans.

DFO Pacific Region has also developed a Cold-Water and Sponge Conservation Strategy30. The Strategy encompasses short and long-term goals and aims to promote the conservation, health and integrity of Canada’s Pacific Ocean cold-water coral and sponge species. It also takes into consideration the need to balance the protection of marine ecosystems with the maintenance of a prosperous economy. The document helps regional partners and stakeholders understand how DFO’s existing programs and activities tie into cold-water coral and sponge conservation.

3.4.8.6 Information and Monitoring Habitat Impacts

A Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) science advisory process to examine the impacts of trawl gears and scallop dredges on benthic habitats, populations and communities was held in March 2006 (DFO, 2006). An additional science advisory process was held in January 2010 to examine the impacts of other fishing gears (excluding bottom trawls and dredges), to assemble

29 More information on the DFO Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities is available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren- peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm 30 More information on the DFO Pacific Region Cold-Water and Sponge Conservation Strategy can be found at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/protection/oth-aut-eng.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 73 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 available information on their uses and to provide scientifically-based conclusions and advice regarding their potential impacts on marine habitats and biodiversity (DFO, 2010b).

The report concludes that if effort is reduced in a fishery, the scale of the impacts will likely be reduced as well, but for many case-specific reasons, the reduction in impacts may be proportionally greater or less than the reduction in effort (DFO, 2010b).

There are significantly fewer vessels active in the Canada Pacific hook & line fishery for halibut today than in the past and significantly less gear is also being used (Hare, 2012; IPHC, 2013). The use of significantly less gear likely reduces the level on impact on bottom habitat and reduces the risk created by the fishery. The fishery is also closed from mid-November to mid-March each year.

The 2010 CSAS (DFO, 2010b) report considered longline gear as part of its deliberations. The report notes that: . the current Canadian longline fisheries account for only a small portion of the total landed weight of catches for all Canadian fisheries; . although many of the available longline fishery impact studies are not from Canadian waters, experiences internationally are typically representative. . Many of the mitigation measures suggested in the discussion of longline gear have been implemented in the Canada Pacific hook & line fishery for halibut including

o catch or effort limits, o spatial and/or temporal closures and aspects of the fishery o rockfish conservation areas o groundfish integration o estimate of the impact of lost longline gear is included in the stock assessment of the directed species

The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish also discusses how Simon Fraser University (SFU) and DFO are collaborating with fishing industry members of the BC Seafood Alliance (which includes PHMA) on “An exposure-response methodology for assessing the impacts of bottom-fishing gear on benthic marine ecosystems”. The overall goal of this study is to determine the risks that bottom contact fisheries pose to sensitive benthic habitats on Canada's west coast.

The first part of the project (completed in 2013) used remotely-operated vehicle surveys in Hecate Strait to examine how habitat-forming species density and community composition are affected by bottom trawling and physical oceanographic features. Results from this study are currently in the scientific peer-review process (Marine Ecology Progress Series). The second phase of the project examines trade-offs between habitat-forming species protection and trawl fishery catch in Hecate Strait. Researchers at SFU developed species distribution models predicting the probability of presence of several coral and sponge species and used these to examine how levels of certainty in coral/sponge protection affected trawl catch. These results will also be submitted to a peer- reviewed scientific journal in fall 2014.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 74 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 According to the SFU project leader, the approach and databases used in the Hecate Strait project are being expanded and analysed for the entire B.C. coast and for all bottom contact fisheries. However, he also noted there are three main challenges involved in expanding this research:

(1) determining bottom substrate type (e.g., sand, mud, till),

(2) mapping habitat-forming species presence/absence, and

(3) assessing the potential impact of trap and longline gear on habitat-forming species.

SFU and Wild Canadian Sablefish, Ltd. have developed a novel deep-water camera and motion sensor system that addresses all three challenges. The cameras allow direct observations of the bottom substrate type and habitat-forming species presence/absence, while three types of tri-axial motion sensors provide information on gear movement and interaction with the bottom. This system has been successfully pilot-tested on the 2012 sablefish survey and two commercial sablefish trap fishing trips to Bowie Seamount.31

It is thought this technology will be able to be deployed on both trap and longline gear. The ability to deploy a motion-activated camera system during commercial fishing operations should allow researchers to directly estimate potential impacts on main habitat types contacted during by the fishery.

3.4.9 Ecosystem Considerations

The Pacific halibut as a species is managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, but the larger ecosystem context and management is overseen by DFO. Through the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program, the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, the measures introduced into the fishery to mitigate or reduce the impacts of the fishery (e.g., closed areas, seabird avoidance devices and techniques) and the mandatory logbook, 100% at-sea and 100% monitoring programs; DFO has incorporated ecosystem-based management considerations into the fishery. The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a) specifies the strategy to address, monitor and regulate ecosystem impacts of the fishery.

British Columbia, Canada Ecosystem Context

Halibut are high trophic level predators, and their feeding habits are well described. Halibut undergo ontongenetic shifts in feeding, consuming numerous small-bodied prey (fish, crustaceans and other invertebrates) when small, and consuming larger fish when they reach adulthood (Best and St. Pierre 1986). Primary fish prey include walleye pollock, sand lance and smaller flatfish species (Yang et al. 2001). Crabs may also be important components in halibut diets in some locations (Best and St. Pierre 1986). Accounts of halibut as prey are less frequent, but juveniles are occasionally consumed by larger –bodied halibut, and also Pacific cod (Best and St. Pierre 1986). Large sharks (e.g. sleeper sharks) may consume juvenile halibut and pinnipeds may also be predators on larger halibut.

31 Dr. Sean Cox (Simon Fraser University, pers. comm.)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 75 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Gaichas and Francis (2008) built food web models and applied network theory to identify potentially important species on the basis of their patterns of connectivity with other food web components. Halibut was identified as a potentially important species because of their high connectivity. Ecologists have struggled with linking these topographic network approaches and metrics to robust predictions of interaction strengths (Paine 1988). Indeed, the high connectivity of Pacific halibut may simply reflect their opportunistic feeding patterns.

3.4.9.1 Ecosystem Status

The DFO 2010 Marine Ecosystem Status and Trends Report discusses the status and trends of Canadian marine ecozones (DFO, 2010). The report identifies three ecozones on Canada’s Pacific coast: the North Coast and Hecate Strait, the West Coast Vancouver Island, and the Strait of Georgia (however, very little commercial halibut fishing occurs in the Strait of Georgia ecozone). The report also notes that the status and trends of Canadian marine ecozones are changing owing to a suite of different factors. Biological and ecological effects (e.g. increased natural species mortality, species range expansions and contractions, and changes in fish size, assemblages, and community structure) are occurring; however their impact on ecosystems is not always well understood. Climate change and oceanographic variability are also affecting most Canadian marine ecozones. In particular, ocean acidification is known to be impacting several ecozones and is an emerging issue in others although no “dead zones” have been reported.

The Canada Pacific halibut longline fishery does remove high trophic level piscivorous fishes and sharks from the ecosystem, but not to the extent where the ecosystem may not recover or is detrimentally impacted owing to management policies that limit take. In all cases, either the population status of the species affected by the fishery is in the healthy zone or take is limited or rare (in the case of non-quota ETP species, for example).

Fewer vessels (in part due to reduced TACs in the groundfish sector) reduce the ecological impacts of the fishery footprint and pressure on relevant non-target species. The fishery has significantly reduced its impact on the ecosystem; fewer vessels mean less fossil fuels are used reducing the carbon footprint of the fishery while less gear reduces the potential for interactions with bycatch species, the amount of bait utilized in the fishery and impacts on bottom habitat. There is no evidence of widespread ecological change caused by the hook & line fishery for halibut.

3.4.9.2 Ecosystem Management

The Sustainable Fisheries Framework, the fishery decision-making framework incorporating the precautionary approach, applies to key harvested species managed by DFO and takes into account risk and uncertainty to developing stock reference points and setting harvest levels. As noted in the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a), the framework requires that a harvest strategy be incorporated into respective fisheries management plans to keep the removal rate moderate when the stock is healthy, to promote rebuilding when stock status is low, and to ensure a low risk of serious or irreversible harm to the stock. It also requires a rebuilding plan when a stock reaches low levels.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 76 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada and contains a suite of policies for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which support conservation and sustainable use, including: . Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013); . Guidance on Implementation of the Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013); . A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (April 2009); . Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone (April 2013); . Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species (April 2009); . Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities (April 2013); and, . Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species (April 2009)

For example, the SFF fishery decision making policy requires the Precautionary Approach be taken into account when developing stock reference points. All stock assessments (which includes non- directed groundfish species in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery) are written in a manner consistent with the Department’s Precautionary Approach. Through the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program, DFO also takes an ecosystem based approach to the management of the Pacific commercial groundfish fisheries (which includes the hook & line fishery for halibut).

Closed areas to protect certain species and/or benthic habitat have been, or are being, introduced; and compliance is monitored through the use of 100% at-sea monitoring that includes GPS tracking and Sections 8.1.3 and 8.2 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013a).

PNCIMA (Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area)

As part of Canada’s Ocean Strategy, DFO in conjunction with the eNGO community and industry has supported and taken responsibility for developing an integrated management planning process for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). This process has drafted the framework for an integrated management plan with goals and objectives for achieving conservation, sustainable resource use and economic development for oceans and coastal areas. The intent is for the plan is to help coordinate various ocean management sectors (e.g. fishing, tourism, aquaculture, energy, transport etc.) and processes and to link together existing processes and tools, including IFMPs.

The PNCIMA stretches from Canada’s northern border with Alaska south to Bute Inlet on the mainland, across to Campbell River on the east side of Vancouver Island and the Brooks Peninsula on the west side of Vancouver Island. Its western boundary is the base of the shelf slope.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 77 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The process was initiated via a Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 with work ongoing since. A draft marine plan was released for public review May 27, 2013, public consultations were held in BC coastal communities. Implementation will take place once the final plan is approved.

3.4.9.3 Ecosystem Information and Monitoring

The Commercial Groundfish Management Plan and the mandatory logbook, 100% at-sea and 100% monitoring programs ensure that harvests are controlled and well monitored and kept within biologically determined limits. These measures are being implemented successfully. Evidence from the monitoring programs shows that groundfish harvests are within biologically determined TACs and/or trips limits, interactions with seabirds and marine mammals are monitored and found to be rare. Closed areas to protect species and/or benthic habitat have been, and are being, introduced; and, they are monitored through the use of 100% at-sea monitoring that includes GPS tracking to ensure halibut vessels adherence to closed area regulations.

Information on ecosystem structure and effects of halibut fishing therein derives from data collected as part of DFO trawl and longline surveys, mandatory logbooks, 100% at-sea and 100% dockside monitoring programs, assessment for all main retained species, closed areas to protect species and/or biologically and ecologically sensitive benthic habitat and monitoring of possible interactions with susceptible and vulnerable shark, marine mammal, turtle and seabird populations.

Ecosystem indicators are tracked and reported in Marine Ecosystem Status and Trends Reports (DFO 2010). Further, the presence of 100% at sea monitoring that provides almost real-time information to fisheries managers implies any increased risk due to changes in incidental catch or fishing location may be quickly noted and acted upon.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdictions it falls The fishery operates within the British Columbian Canadian EEZ which is also described as Area 2B of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) fishing areas.

The fishery management system evaluated in this report is a combination of the framework of the IPHC and framework of DFO. Consultations with indigenous peoples are conducted through the DFO consultation framework, but there is not a separate indigenous management jurisdiction. The IPHC Commissioners recommend to the Parties (Canada and the US) TACs for each country. The management authority for each country is then responsible for setting and managing the domestic TAC.

As discussed under Principle 1, the halibut stock is considered a single stock for the purposes of stock assessment. The model is sensitive enough to distinguish between IPHC fishing areas so that different amounts of quota allocation are recommended by fishing area. The coastwide assessment includes the stock that straddles US and Canada and is shared between the two countries. The IPHC as a management body mediates allocations between the two countries.

Pacific halibut are not considered a highly migratory species and are also not considered to be a discrete stock on the high seas.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 78 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) The Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea between Canada and the US established the International Fisheries Commission, now known as the International Pacific Halibut Commission, or IPHC (The United States and Canada, 1923).

In 1979, the Halibut Convention was modified to prevent Canadian halibut vessels from fishing in US waters and US vessels from fishing in Canadian waters. The 1979 Convention modification also empowered the individual governments to impose fishing regulations on their own halibut fleets (McCaughran and Hoag, 1992).

The Convention mandates the IPHC to conduct research on and “make recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut fishery of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea, which may seem desirable for its preservation and development.”32

The IPHC performs assessments and basic research on the Pacific halibut stocks, sets total allowable catches (TACs) in 10 areas of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Canada and the US, and determines regulatory measures almost exclusively related to conservation issues (Casey et al. 1995). Some of the IPHC regulations apply generally to all halibut fishers; and other regulations apply specifically to commercial fishers, sport fishers, US Treaty Indian Tribes, Canadian Aboriginal groups, and those engaged in customary and traditional fishing. The Commission submits its recommended regulatory measures to the two governments for approval and fishers of both nations are required to observe the approved regulations (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011).

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Canada has responsibility for managing halibut fisheries within its EEZ and addressing domestic issues, such as allocations between national user groups (First Nations food, social and ceremonial, commercial and recreational) and management and regulatory measures regarding the conduct of fishing and enforcement.

More Information on the Canada’s legal and regulatory framework governing the Canadian Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut can be found in Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013).

3.5.2 Fleet types for the Fishery During 2012, 154 vessels participated in the Commercial Halibut fishery. These vessels made 543 fishing trips. A limited entry commercial halibut licence (Category ‘L’ or ‘FL’33) is required to target Pacific halibut.

3.5.3 Particulars of and Consultations with the Recognised Groups with Interests in the Fishery Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish outlines the consultation processes currently in place in Canada for Pacific halibut (DFO 2013).

32 IPHC webpage (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom/about.htm) 33 FL licenses are communal commercial First Nations licenses and are provided under the PICFI and ATP programs and operate under the same rules and regulations as the L licences (L and FL licences combined total the 435 limited entry commercial halibut licences).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 79 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 DFO seeks and accepts advice from stakeholders regarding the management of the halibut fisheries through the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB). HAB is a multi-interest advisory process that includes commercial, recreational, First Nations, union, provincial government, IPHC and DFO participants. HAB provides wide ranging advice to the Department to assist in the overall planning, management and enforcement of the halibut fisheries. HAB meets at least once a year. Meetings are open to the public and, as noted on the DFO webpage, meeting material is available from the DFO Halibut Coordinator. DFO has also formed the HAB Strategic Working Group, a subcommittee of HAB that focuses on international issues at a more technical level. The Strategic Working Group meets at least 3-4 times per year and reports to HAB.

The Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC) provides formal advice and makes recommendations on policy and operational matters that impact across commercial groundfish fisheries and/or between commercial groundfish fisheries – it is the advisory process where groundfish issues (including halibut issues) common to all seven (7) commercial groundfish sectors are discussed. The commercial harvester advisors on HAB elect two of their own to participate in the CIC process.

Science Advice is developed by Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS). The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) coordinates the peer review of scientific issues for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The different Regions of Canada conduct their resource assessment reviews independently, tailored to regional characteristics and stakeholder needs. CSAS facilitates these regional processes, fostering national standards of excellence, and exchange and innovation in methodology, interpretation, and insight. Scientific assessments and advice respecting the assessment and management of this fishery is peer reviewed annually in Regional Peer Review meetings. Government and non-government individuals with knowledge and technical expertise pertaining to each peer review meeting are invited to contribute to the peer review and development of advice. Science advice, proceedings and stock assessments/scientific evaluations resulting from of CSAS meetings are available online at: http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/Publications/index-eng.asp. The following types of documents are published by CSAS. . Science Advisory Reports (SAR): Summarizes the technical considerations and documents the conclusions and advice developed during a CSAS science peer review process. SAR include traditional Stock Status Reports, Ecosystem Status Reports, and Habitat Status Reports, as well as advice pertaining to management strategies, frameworks and guidelines on the assessment or evaluation on specific issues, impacts of human activities on ecosystem components. Recovery assessments for species or populations are also included in this series.

. Research Documents: Peer-reviewed technical publications that document the scientific evidence and evaluation taken into consideration in the development of science conclusions and advice presented in Science Advisory Reports.

. Proceedings: Records the activities at CSAS peer review meetings or workshops. The Proceedings generally record decisions, recommendations, and major points of discussion at these meetings and workshops. Proceedings capture the diversity of opinion present at the meeting or workshop.

. The Science Responses: Documents information and advice provided by DFO Science for issues handled via the Science Special Response Processes (SSRPs). SSRP is a streamlined peer review process that deals with urgent and unforeseen requests for advice, for situations where the timelines for providing the advice do not allow for a full peer review

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 80 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 process, in cases where there is a clear and valid framework to provide advice or for cases where DFO is not the final decision-making body. In the Pacific Region, the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific (CSAP)34 provides a rigorous peer review of DFO stock assessments. CSAP provides advice about fish stock and habitat status as well as potential biological consequences of fisheries management actions and natural events.

Canada’s management regime for Pacific halibut explicitly recognizes and accounts for First Nations food, social and ceremonial rights. In the 1990 Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for FSC purposes, it takes priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. First Nation fisheries are authorized via a Communal Licence issued by the DFO under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations (DFO 2013). As well, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the form of observations and comments provided by First Nations is considered in management decisions when provided. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may also issue a communal fishing licence to a group to fish for FSC purposes. There are currently 53 coastal First Nations that have communal FSC licences that include groundfish species (DFO 2013). DFO engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations. As noted in Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish, these exchanges and involvement may include bilateral consultations, advisory processes, management boards, technical groups and other roundtable forums. Canada has statutory, contractual and common law obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups.

DFO consults on recreational halibut issues through the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB), the DFO advisory body for the recreational fishery. SFAB consists of the following groups: SFAB Main Board, SFAB North Coast Advisory Board, North Coast Local Sport Fishing Advisory Committee, SFAB South Coast Advisory Board, South Coast Local Fishing Advisory Committee, and SFAB Working Groups. The membership, terms of reference and meeting schedule can be found on DFO's website. Meeting minutes can be obtained by contacting DFO's Regional Recreational Fishing Coordinator.

The IPHC also has a comprehensive open and transparent consultation process, as stakeholders participate through a number of advisory bodies, including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the relatively new Management Strategy Advisory Board. 35 IPHC also recently formed a Scientific Review Board to obtain an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs.

The IPHC seeks advice annually from the Conference Board, Processors Advisory Group (PAG), Research Advisory Board (RAB), Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB), and Scientific Review Board (SRB).

The Conference Board is a panel representing Canadian and American commercial and sport halibut fishers and First Nations. Created in 1931 by the Commission, the Board gives the IPHC the fishers' perspective on Commission proposals presented at Annual Meetings in January. Members are designated by union and vessel owner organizations from both nations. The Processor Advisory Group (PAG) represents halibut processors. Like the Conference Board, PAG lends its opinion regarding Commission proposals and offers recommendations at IPHC Annual Meetings. The group was formed in 1996. The Research Advisory Board (RAB), which formed in 1999, consists of both fishers and processors who offer suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission

34 More information about CSAP -- as well as a description of the processes, policies and guidelines -- can be obtained at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarc-ceesp/index-eng.html# 35 These advisory bodies are discussed on the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 81 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 research should focus. RAB generally meets in November, prior to the IPHC Interim Meeting. The Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) is a panel formed of harvesters, fisheries managers, processors, IPHC Staff, Commissioners, science advisors, and academics created in 2013 to oversee and advise on the IPHC’s Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). MSE is an ongoing process to define fishery objectives, articulate and examine management procedures, and define performance measures in order to recommend fishery management measures for Commission consideration. The Scientific Review Board (SRB), a small group of fisheries science experts, was also formed in 2013. The SRB provides an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and supports and strengthens the stock assessment process.36

The IPHC advisory processes include representation from First Nations, commercial and recreational harvesters, processors, and academia. The number of First Nations, commercial, recreational and processing representatives on the Conference Board and PAG is significant. There are regular meetings of the groups and the IPHC continually posts meeting notifications, schedules, agendas and times on their website and sends out information notices by mail to any participants wishing to register with the IPHC office. In response to growing interest, and as a clear indication that the IPHC is seeking and providing greater opportunity for the provision of external advice, the IPHC has expanded its advisory processes in recent years. The MSAB and SRB were established in 2013 inviting greater participation by commercial and recreational harvesters, processors, academia and other interest groups to help establish fishery objectives, articulate and define management procedures and evaluate performance measures and science advice. While there is no formal representation on any of the committees from the environmental community, they and the public can submit their views and advice directly to the IPHC Executive Director, as well as submit requests for regulatory changes and comments on proposed catch limits prior to each IPHC Annual Meeting.37 The IPHC has also extended the invitation to environmental organizations in the past to sit in as observers to the various processes.

3.5.4 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan

In Canada, DFO continually seeks and accepts advice from all stakeholders through the various advisory forums described in the IFMP (DFO 2013). The annual management plan is reviewed by the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) and Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). DFO may also solicit advice on the plan in other consultative processes (e.g., bilateral consultations with First Nations). The advisory boards include commercial fishery participants (including union) in addition to First Nations, recreational, environmental and coastal community representatives. Meetings are generally open to the public and minutes of all meetings are posted on the DFO Consultation website.

Annually, in preparing the IFMP for the following fishing year, DFO reviews all management current and proposed measures with the various advisory processes (HAB, CIC, GIAB). HAB and CIC will review in detail the operational results of the existing management measures and recommend changes to DFO to improve efficiency and better achieve the stated objectives. GIAB will consider management plan measures at an overarching level to ensure that activities are consistent with conservation objectives and actions of one sector do not impair access of another. CIC provides ongoing in-season advice to DFO that frequently results in changes to the management plan regarding monitoring requirements, sector rules and sector access. Changes to the management

36 Results of these processes, including advice provided and how it was used by IPHC staff or Commissioners is provided in various IPHC reports provided annually and available on line at: http://www.iphc.int/library.html 37 http://www.iphc.int/news-releases/384-nr20140918b.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 82 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 plan in-season are generally enacted through license conditions attached to a commercial halibut fishing license and communicated by Fishery Notice.

3.5.5 Consultations with Non-Fishery Users and Activities that may Affect the Fishery The Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) is the multi-interest forum for providing advice to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on management and policy issues relating to the groundfish fisheries in the Pacific Region. The GIAB addresses issues that affect multiple interests and is not intended to interfere with operational matters within any specific interest group. Membership on GIAB includes commercial fishing, First Nations, union, seafood processor, environmental non- government organizations, recreational fishing, provincial government and community interests.

3.5.6 Decision Making Process Under Article III of the Halibut Convention, the Commissioners of the IPHC are authorized to submit fishery management regulations to the two governments for approval. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may accept or reject the Commission’s recommendations. However, the Minister has a legal obligation to carry out the terms of the Convention.

The Commissioners annually review the regulatory proposals made by the scientific staff and stakeholders participate in the IPHC process through a number of advisory bodies, including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC also recently formed the Scientific Review Board to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs.38

Since 2013, IPHC advice on harvest levels is presented in the form of a risk-benefit decision table, wherein risks of negative impacts on stock and fishery performance are associated with the benefits of particular choices of harvest level. This format for decision making more fully reflects uncertainty and allows the Commission to weigh the risks and benefits of management choices, as well as overall harvest policy, when deciding on catch limits. A significant aspect of this advice table is that it is structured at the coastwide level, rather than at the level of individual regulatory areas. This orientation results from the necessary definition of harvest policy reference points (threshold and limit) at the coastwide level. The existing harvest policy is under review as part of the Commission’s ongoing Management Strategy Evaluation. In particular, the harvest policy will be revised over the next year to incorporate alternative fishery objectives, arising through the MSE process, and revised understanding of halibut distribution and population dynamics, arising through the assessment process.

Since March of 2009, DFO has been guided by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, which includes "A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach". In the policy document, DFO notes the decision framework is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. Decision-making processes in the Canadian halibut fishery use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

The following are the primary components of the generalized framework:

38 Information regarding membership and the purposes and roles of these advisory bodies are available on the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors ).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 83 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 1. Reference points and stock status zones (Healthy, Cautious and Critical). 2. Harvest strategy and harvest decision rules. 3. The need to take into account uncertainty and risk when developing reference points and developing and implementing decision rules.

The stock status zones are created by defining the Limit Reference Point (LRP) at the Critical/Cautious zone boundary, and an Upper Stock Reference Point (USR) at the Cautious/Healthy zone boundary and the Removal Reference for each of the three zones. The three-zoned diagram below shows these different elements.

The harvest rate strategy is the approach taken to manage the harvest of a stock and is a necessary element of any fishery plan. In order to implement the PA in a fishery, pre-agreed harvest decision rules and management actions for each zone, are essential components of a harvest rate strategy. An important aspect of the DFO decision framework is the treatment of uncertainty and risk when estimating stock status, reference points and in making and implementing management decisions. Both scientific uncertainty and uncertainty related to the implementation of a management approach must be explicitly considered and the management decisions taken must be tempered when necessary to give effect to the Precautionary Approach. Uncertainty should be incorporated in the calculation of stock status and biological reference points. Furthermore, scientific uncertainty should be quantified to the extent possible and used to assess the probability of achieving a target or of a stock falling to a certain level under a specific management approach

In DFO, science is the basis for sound decision making and DFO Science Sector provides information on the consequences of management and policy options, and the likelihood of achieving policy objectives under alternative management strategies and tactics. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) oversees the provision of all scientific advice required by operational client sectors within the Department (Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Oceans and Habitat Management, and Policy). In the Pacific Region, science advisory processes are managed by the Centre for Science Advice Pacific (CSAP).

Issues raised through research, program monitoring and evaluation within Canada regarding the management of the Canadian halibut fishery are addressed at one (or numerous) established advisory processes, including the HAB, CIC, and GIAB. Detailed science issues will also be addressed by the Canadian Science Advice Secretariat (CSAS). These processes are ongoing and meet regularly throughout the year. The proceedings from these meetings are published on DFO's website under Consultations or under the Science and Research page . The various levels of consultation ensure that issues and the associated implications are considered by all user and interest groups throughout British Columbia.

3.5.7 Objectives for the Fishery The IPHC was created to conserve, manage, and rebuild the halibut stocks in the Convention Area to those levels that would achieve and maintain the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery. The yield definition was changed to optimum sustainable yield by the amending 1979 Protocol. The IPHC was charged with studying the life history of halibut and with recommending regulations for the preservation and development of the halibut fishery. This includes keeping the spawning stock biomass above 30% of the unfished state 80% of the time each year. The IPHC uses a limit reference point of B₂₀ (20% relative spawning biomass) target reference point of B₃₀ (30% relative spawning biomass). The current harvest policy for Pacific halibut recommends ramping down the target harvest rate to no fishing as fishery moves from B₃₀ to B₂₀. The current target harvest rate for Area 2B (British Columbia) is 21.5%.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 84 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the International Pacific Halibut Commission advanced the development of a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) program for the halibut resource. The Commission approved the formation of a Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) to oversee the MSE process and to advise the Commission and Staff on the development and evaluation of candidate objectives and strategies for managing the fishery. Some of the preliminary overarching objectives identified by the MSAB in 2013 were:

. Biological sustainability - identify stock conservation objectives

. Fishery sustainability (all directed) - identify harvest minimum and acceptable variability

. Assurance of access - minimize probability of fisheries closures

. Minimize bycatch mortality

. Serve consumer needs

These overarching objectives were further refined to specific objectives that could be directly related to performance measures generated from an operating model. In 2013, the Preliminary MSAB management objectives were written as follows:

. Maintain a minimum number of mature female halibut coast-wide (level to be determined) in each year with a probability of 0.99

. Maintain a minimum female spawning stock biomass above 20% of the unfished biomass in each year in 95 out of 100 trials (spawning biomass limit)

. Maintain a minimum female spawning stock biomass above 30% of the unfished biomass in each year in 75 out of 100 trials (spawning biomass threshold)

. Maintain an economically viable directed fishing opportunity each year for all user groups in each regulatory area, conditional on satisfying objectives 1 and 2, in 95 out of 100 trials

. Maximize yield in each regulatory area each year without exceeding the target harvest rate in 50 out of 100 trials

. Limit annual changes in the coast-wide total CEY to a tuned percentage that is consistent with objectives 4 and 5, conditional on satisfying objectives 1 and 2

. Reduce bycatch mortality to the extent possible in both directed and non-directed fisheries.

To address the stated preliminary MSAB objectives, the following performance metrics were suggested:

. Absolute number of sexually mature female halibut (re: objective 1)

. Ratio of current SSB relative to unfished SSBo (where SSBo is based on current size-at- age (re: objectives 2 and 3)

. Total catch and directed catch from each regulatory area (re: objectives 4, 5, 6,)

. Legal biomass in each regulatory area in each year (re: objective 5)

. Bycatch from each regulatory area in each year (re: objective 7).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 85 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

The DFO National webpage lists three broad objectives under the DFO Fisheries Renewal initiative:

1. Long-Term Sustainability: By enabling DFO and resource users to achieve strong conservation outcomes through risk management frameworks incorporating the ecosystem and precautionary approaches. 2. Economic Prosperity: By aligning fisheries policies and decision-making processes to support economically prosperous fisheries for Canadians. 3. Improved Governance: By increasing stability, transparency and accountability in fisheries management and by promoting shared stewardship.

The DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework is the vehicle for delivering these three objectives. The DFO National webpage and Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2013) discuss the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) and how it provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada.

The SFF contains a suite of policies for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which support conservation and sustainable use; in particular the policy, “A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach” that describes a general fishery decision- making framework for implementing a harvest strategy that incorporates the Precautionary Approach. In the policy document, DFO notes the decision framework is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. Sections 4 and 5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish also outlines the long term and short term objectives specific to Canada’s Pacific groundfish fisheries (DFO, 2013). The long term objectives were developed for the 2011-2013 Groundfish IFMP and are supported by short term objectives. The plan states that the "Objectives must be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART)". The long term objectives are as follows:

. By 2017, identify and begin to acquire the necessary data required to provide science advice for all groundfish species identified in the DFO groundfish stock assessment strategic plan

. By 2017, pursue accountability for total groundfish mortality (retained and released catch) for all user groups supported by scientifically defensible (accurate and precise) catch monitoring programs

. By 2017, have an agreed upon process to aid in the development of allocation arrangements between user groups for groundfish species in the future

. By 2017, develop the infrastructure to collect and analyse data to determine economic viability and social impacts of the various groundfish fisheries.

Short term objectives were developed with input from GIAB. This does not preclude additional short term objectives to be included in subsequent iterations of the IFMP. Current short-term objectives are as follows:

. By the spring of 2014, work with groundfish users to identify and pursue funding mechanisms that support groundfish science and fisheries management (e.g., joint project agreements consistent with the emerging use-of-fish policy, user fee amendments)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 86 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 . By the outset of 2015, evaluate different approaches to assessing data limited species and assess the applicability of these approaches to the BC groundfish context

. By the dates below, develop and formalize catch monitoring standards that are consistent with DFO’s strategic catch monitoring framework for each of the groundfish fisheries:

. By the outset of the 2013 fishing season, implement new delivery models for existing catch monitoring standards for commercial groundfish fisheries;

. By the outset of 2014, develop recreational fishing effort profiles that can inform catch monitoring standards for recreational fisheries;

. By spring 2014, develop a pilot catch monitoring risk assessment for a FSC groundfish fishery that can inform catch monitoring standards for FSC fisheries.

. By the summer of 2014, use the GIAB to develop the appropriate consultative approach that would support achieving the long term objective #3.

. By the outset of 2015, identify information sources that can be used to define and describe the cultural importance of the groundfish fisheries.

. By the outset of 2015, identify and initiate implementation of improvements to catch monitoring and reporting of groundfish species in recreational and First Nations fisheries.

The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was implemented in 1992 by DFO to address several objectives related to First Nations and their access to the resource. These included:

. To provide a framework for the management of fishing by Aboriginal groups for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

. To provide Aboriginal groups with an opportunity to participate in the management of fisheries, thereby improving conservation, management and enhancement of the resource.

. To contribute to the economic self-sufficiency of Aboriginal communities.

. To provide a foundation for the development of self-government agreements and treaties.

. To improve the fisheries management skills and capacity of Aboriginal groups.

3.5.8 Acts and Management Measures The Canadian halibut fishery is managed with Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQ) and comprehensive at- sea and dockside monitoring requirements within a management framework that integrates all commercial groundfish fisheries. The management plan includes rules that prohibits excessive overages (more than 10% over the vessel's halibut quota or more than 30% over the vessel's holdings on other groundfish quota species). All overages must be covered either by the transfer of equivalent quota onto the license or by the deduction of equivalent quota from the vessel's allocation in the following year. The IFMP also provides incentives for halibut licensed vessels to under-harvest their halibut and groundfish IVQ by permitting up to 10% of the vessel's uncaught halibut quota and 30% of the uncaught groundfish quotas to be carried forward and added to the vessel's allocations for the following fishing year. The historical annual year end catch data has shown that net result of the carryover of quota underages and overages has been that the halibut TAC (and other groundfish TACs) is not exceeded.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 87 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 On Canada’s Pacific coast, the fisheries management system has implemented measures to manage the ecological impacts of all longline fishing operations (including halibut) on seabirds. To minimize the impacts on seabirds, the use of seabird avoidance devices (e.g., tori lines) and best practices (e.g., discharge of old bait and offal) are required by hook & line halibut vessels by condition of license. Canada implemented a National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries in 2007 that applies management measure to mitigate the incidental catch of seabirds.

The Canadian laws and policies are consistent with and supportive of several international laws and agreements related to fisheries management. Several national acts are relevant to the halibut fishery.

The Constitution Act, 1867, gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of fisheries and fish habitat management (i.e., management, enforcement and monitoring).

The Oceans Act provides a foundation for an integrated and balanced national oceans policy framework supported by regional management and implementation strategies.

Through the Fisheries Act, 1985, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) administers all laws relating to fisheries. DFO then makes regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Fisheries Act. For example, the Fishery (General) Regulations, 1993 apply at the national level and Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993 apply at the regional level. There are also regulations for First Nations food, social and ceremonial fisheries (Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, 1993) and recreational fishing (British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, 1996).

The purposes of the Species at Risk Act are “to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, and to provide for the recovery of a wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.”

The Canadian National Marine Conservation Area Act, the Canada Wildlife Act and other treaties, laws and policies are critical elements of the framework that governs the management system for the Canada Pacific halibut fishery. As noted in Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish, the Sustainable Fisheries Framework contains policies for adopting ecosystem-based and precautionary approaches to fisheries management (DFO, 2013).

3.5.9 Monitoring and Enforcement Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is a resource management organization with an infrastructure necessary to support professional law enforcement activities. The enforcement policies and activities of DFO, with respect to regulatory compliance of commercial fisheries, are the responsibility of the Conservation and Protection (C&P) Directorate. The program is delivered through balanced regulatory management and a three pillar enforcement approach including:

. Promotion of compliance through education and shared stewardship;

. Monitoring, control and surveillance activities; and,

. Management of major cases / special investigations in relation to complex compliance issues.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 88 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

The Conservation and Protection program in DFO’s Pacific Region promotes and maintains compliance with legislation, regulations, and management measures implemented to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of Canada’s aquatic resources, and the protection of species at risk, fish habitat and oceans. Indeed, one of the key roles of C&P is to educate resource users, act as a deterrent to illegal activities, and enforce legal requirements.

DFO's Conservation and Protection Branch is in charge of all surveillance and enforcement activities in the Canadian halibut fishery. The C&P program, part of the DFO's Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, has a large role in facilitating compliance with the acts and regulations associated with Canada’s aquatic resources. Through modern community policing practices, C&P uses education, partnering, enforcement and problem solving to assist in the conservation and protection of the fishery resources. There are approximately 155 fishery officers stationed in the Pacific Region, which encompasses the province of British Columbia and Yukon Territory. They are designated as “fishery officers” under Section 5 of the Fisheries Act and have full enforcement powers and responsibilities outlined in the Fisheries Act, Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Oceans Act, Species at Risk Act, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Constitution Act.

DFO’s C&P Program pursues violations of fisheries law and regulations in three ways.

1. For violations that are considered minor, an officer may issue warning letters that will form part of the fisher’s compliance history and will be considered when investigating future occurrences. 2. Restorative Justice (RJ), a community based approach, can be used to help meet the needs of people faced with fisheries offences and conflict in an inclusive and meaningful way. RJ practices provide voluntary opportunities for those who have been harmed and those who have caused harm to be active participants in their journey for justice, accountability, and reparation. DFO supports the advancement of RJ as it contributes to the C&P mandate and they aid in developing collaborative partnerships, addressing conflict, and assisting offenders in the exploration of values and principles. 3. Finally, serious or repeat offenders are dealt with through the provincial and federal courts where sentencing can include significant fines (some recent examples have been in excess of $50,000), license suspensions, and in some cases jail time.

The Halibut fishery is extensively monitored through the use of sophisticated electronic and human monitoring programs. Combined with the significant penalties which can be sanctioned by the court system, the compliance rate in general for this fishery remains high. This allows enforcement staff to focus resources on individuals and vessels that are flagged in the monitoring process.

Observer Program are maintained in the service provider’s database, and occurrences that warrant additional review or investigation are further recorded in the Department’s Violation System.

2013 C&P Fishery Officer Halibut patrols commercial, aboriginal, and recreational groundfish fisheries. Fishery occurrence reporting procedures have been established with the objective of ensuring that Fishery Officers are able to provide prompt responses to significant enforcement issues. Fishery occurrence reports are generated by At-Sea Observers, Dockside Fisheries Observers, and through an audit of the EM data, allowing Fishery Officers to be made aware of possible fishing infractions and focus their attention on targeted violations, thus enhancing the effective use of C&P resources.

The 2013 Groundfish IFMP identified the following C&P priorities:

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 89 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

. investigate all incidents of Closed Area fishing such as RCAs, sponge reef protection areas, and other Closed Areas;

. continue to enforce compliance with hail-out, hail-in and other elements of the DMP and at- sea observer program;

. conduct investigations and enforcement actions in response to the retention of groundfish caught, retained or possessed without licence authority. Priority will be placed on occurrences where retention for the purpose of sale is indicated;

. investigate incidents of unauthorized dual fishing; and

. take greater concern for compliance with Electronic Monitoring (EM) Licence Conditions, especially Time Gaps that are reported.

Fishery officers are tasked with the responsibility of responding coast-wide to calls from the general public, other agencies, observers and other industry users reporting occurrences. Fishery officers inspect and investigate groundfish vessels for compliance with terms and Conditions of Licences, Fisheries Act and related Regulations and Variation Orders. Due to the complexity of transferable Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) and the related dynamic licence amendment system, tracking of catch quantities under the ITQ system is primarily performed administratively under the dockside monitoring program. (DFO 2013)

DFO also conducts at-sea enforcement using a combination of small craft (program vessels, mostly 7.33 metre and 9.2 metre rigid hull inflatable boats) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessels, and Air Surveillance Patrols using chartered aircraft with a fishery officer onboard to identify concentrations and distribution of fishing vessels. Aerial surveillance resources are utilized throughout the year to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act, Regulations and Licence Conditions. Flight reports, photographs and other data collected from the surveillance flights are readily available to departmental managers and fishery officers through an Internet-based flight information system. (DFO 2013)

Commercial Halibut fishing in British Columbia is monitored in part through EM and DMP. These monitoring systems are provided by a contracted service provider. When the collected information suggests that fishing activity breached a condition of licence (e.g., fishing in a closed area, misreported catch, illegal gear), an occurrence report is generated. Observers (which includes At-Sea Observers and Dockside Monitors) perform duties best described as “Observe, Record and Report.” Duties are related to monitoring of fishing activities, examination and measurement of fishing gear, collection of biological samples, recording scientific data, monitoring the landing of fish and verification of the weight and species of fish caught and retained. Observers, while performing a vital role contributing to regulatory compliance, are not enforcement officers. Observers must carry proof of their designation by DFO as an Observer (laminated card). Observers monitor and document weigh-out inspections at all approved landing locations, interview the fisher, assigning catch to the appropriate stock area, spot-check harvest logs for consistency with verbal reports and notify the Department of any occurrences observed during the interview, logbook review and offload process. Observers perform a key role in observing, documenting and reporting to DFO fishing related occurrences. Occurrence reporting procedures are reviewed with the objective of ensuring that fishery officers coast-wide are able to provide prompt response to significant enforcement issues (DFO 2013) and to assist in deterring illegal activity. DFO Fishery Officers access occurrence reports through a database maintained by the contracted monitoring service provider in

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 90 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 order to conduct investigations. Fishery Officers also create occurrence reports from other EM (electronic monitoring) and Observer data, as well as other sources. C&P maintains an additional database, the Departmental Violations System (DVS), for managing occurrences, violations and all case files which combines Fishery Officer-generated occurrences with occurrences reported by the monitoring service provider that are under investigation.

Monitoring and fishery reporting standards for Pacific groundfish fisheries require both dockside and at-sea monitoring. At-sea observation may be provided by either at-sea certified observers, or a fishing logbook audited with data from an electronic monitoring (EM) system. Electronic monitoring systems use global positions system (GPS) sensor, fishing gear sensors, and video monitoring, and are provided by third-party, independent service providers. These monitoring tools perform a key role in observing, documenting, and reporting fishing related occurrences to C&P and Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Branch. Fishery occurrence reporting procedures have been established with the objective of ensuring that Fishery Officers are able to provide prompt responses to significant enforcement issues.

Currently, all halibut harvesters choose to use EM over at-sea observers because of the cost savings offered by EM. The conditions of licence outline the operating requirements of an EM system (e.g. how and when the system must operate to ensure all fishing activity is recorded). If a harvester is not able to maintain an EM system as required by the conditions of licence, the harvester is required to use an at-sea observer. Where an EM system is used for at-sea monitoring, ten percent of the captured video data, and one hundred percent of the sensor data is reviewed for each trip to audit the fishing logbook. If an audit of the fishing logbook indicates that the logbook is inaccurate, all EM data is reviewed and this data becomes the official at-sea fishing record. The audit process provides high quality data needed for sustainable management of the resource (Stanley et al., 2011).

Comprehensive at-sea (observers and electronic monitoring) and dockside monitoring support the Integrated Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) requirement that each vessel is accountable and responsible for all fish mortality incurred during fishing operations. Mandatory 100 percent monitoring on all commercial groundfish hook and line, trap and trawl fishing trips is required and provides a full and reliable accounting of all catches in these fisheries, both retained and released, and also records fishing activity, location, date and time. The 100% requirement may be met either through at-sea observer coverage or through the use of an Electronic Monitoring (EM) system on each trip. In addition, all landings must be validated through a dockside monitoring program. The primary tool for monitoring compliance in the halibut fishery is the use of EM data to audit the accuracy of fishermen's logbook entries. Failure of a logbook audit results in a higher level of scrutiny with potential for increased monitoring costs to the fisher (the monitor pays for 100% of the monitoring program requirements, including the audit by a government certified service provider), thereby creating an economic incentive to accurately report catches (both retained and released).

3.5.10 Fishery Research Plan

Article III of the Convention between Canada and the United States directs the IPHC to conduct and coordinate scientific studies relating to the Pacific halibut fishery. Nearly all of the research done by the IPHC is directed toward one of three continued objectives of the Commission: improving the annual stock assessment and information available to provide catch recommendations, developing information on current management issues and adding to the knowledge of the biology and life history of halibut (IPHC staff, 2013c).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 91 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Each year the IPHC staff develops a series of annual research objectives which it recommends to the Commission for adoption through this Annual Research Plan. The research studies contribute towards greater understanding issues facing the Commission and industry stakeholders. For 2014, the IPHC has identified four research objectives:

Objective 1: Stock identification, monitoring and assessment. A field study to examine the selectivity of large halibut on circle hooks by monitoring hooking success.

Objective 2: Harvest policy and management Research by IPHC staff and stakeholders on the harvest policy through the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE).

Objective 3: Biology, physiology, and migration Studies will continue into the declining trend in size at age, taking advantage of IPHC’s extensive historical otolith archives dating to the 1920s.

Objective 4: Ecosystem interactions and environmental influences. Three studies are proposed which are continuations of studies currently underway: oceanographic monitoring with the profilers from the survey platforms, mercury and contaminant assessment, and assessment of Ichthyophonus (a parasite) prevalence.

Previously, the IPHC would publish the research program report in the annual IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities; reporting on the projects for the past year and proposals for the upcoming year (IPHC Staff, 2012). The 2012 IPHC Performance Review recommended the creation of a Five Year Research Plan and an Annual Research Plan (ARP). The plans are intended to provide linkages to Commission objectives, with an accompanying process for input and periodic reviews by the Commission, interested stakeholders, the Research Advisory Board, and independent peer reviewers. In May 2012 the Commission held a science and assessment strategic planning meeting at which four areas of priority science-related activity for the Commission and its staff were identified: peer review of the existing stock assessment, development of a long-term peer review process for stock assessments, development of a five-year research plan, and development of a public engagement strategy for the Commission’s Management Strategy Evaluation. The IPHC 2013 Annual Research Plan is published in the IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities (IPHC, 2013c).

IPHC also utilizes the Research Advisory Board (RAB), formed in 1999 and consisting of both fishers and processors, that offers suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission research should focus.

DFO operates an active research program on groundfish (which includes the halibut fishery) and related issues, such as stock assessments on groundfish species caught in the halibut fishery. Much of the research is guided by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework and the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan.

Since 2003, DFO has had a comprehensive research survey and biological sampling program. In cooperation with user groups, fishery independent surveys are conducted annually by government and chartered industry vessels. Across a 2 year period all areas of the coast are surveyed. Surveys include: multi-species synoptic bottom trawl surveys; longline trap survey; longline hook surveys;

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 92 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 offshore hake hydroacoustic survey; Strait of Georgia hydroacoustic survey; and small mesh multi- species bottom trawl (shrimp) survey.

Survey outputs include abundance indices (index of relative biomass by species each year), measures of variability (CV) about those indices, spatial distribution of species, biological samples (length, sex, weight, maturity, genetics, age structures), and environmental data (temperature, salinity, DO, PH, etc.). Many of the survey outputs are inputs in the stock assessment models.

DFO's research strategy includes the use of simulations to assess how well different survey configurations detect changes in a population. This is done by pooling the survey observations for each survey, imposing a trend on those observations, resampling the observations at time intervals as the trend is imposed, and recalculating the indices and their relative errors.

Consistent with the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan, in 2012 DFO went through a process prioritizing groundfish stocks and putting in place an assessment schedule through 2021 (DFO 2012). Specifically, the prioritization considered more than 200 species that fall within the research mandate of DFO's Groundfish Science Branch, Pacific Region and then recommends separation into higher priority or “Type A” and lower priority or “Type B” species. A screening of the Type B species is done to identify a short list which should receive more assessment work within the coming decade (2012-2021). A draft assessment schedule of the Type A and selected Type B species for the 2012- 2021 period is then put together following consultation. The intent is to conduct the review every five years, although yearly adjustments can be made as-needed. The prioritization and assessment schedule inform work-planning for DFO and its research collaborators and interested parties.

The process attempts to satisfy essential timing commitments resulting from, for example, treaty (i.e. offshore hake), Species at Risk (SARA) legislation, and Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) timelines. Additional benefits included efficient and early notice of time commitments for DFO and collaborators; advanced warning of the funding required for contract support; more efficient staging of ageing requests; and enhanced opportunity to conduct preparatory studies to augment the quality of future assessments. The prioritization is risk-based in that the scheduling attempts to prioritize those species in most immediate need of assessment because of high fishery importance, a demonstrated conservation concern, or declining trends in abundance. The process attempts to be flexible by proposing an iterative review process that keeps all species in play.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 93 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment The Pacific halibut fishery prosecuted by hook and line is the only Pacific halibut fishery in British Columbia, Canada. The stock is considered a single stock across national boundaries with the United States. The US Pacific halibut hook and line fishery is also MSC certified. An effort to harmonize assessments based on outcome status of the stock was made between the US and BC assessments.

4.2 Previous Assessments This fishery has been MSC certified since 2009. It was originally assessed using the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (v6) that were in use at the start of the fishery assessment. The fishery entered assessment for the first time prior to the development of the MSC Default Assessment Tree, so unique assessment criteria were developed by the assessment team. In the initial certification, two conditions were placed on the fishery with regard to Principle 2. These were closed out in the initial certification cycle by the 2nd annual audit of the fishery.

This re-assessment utilizes the MSC-developed Default Assessment Tree (v1.3), which is different from the original assessment criteria, though is no more or less rigorous than the original assessment. Although both conditions from the 2009 assessment were closed out in the original assessment cycle, because of changes to the criteria, additional conditions were identified in this re- assessment cycle.

Table 16. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions Condition from Original Closed? Justification Assessment (Y/N) PI 2.1.4.1 Y Closed in 2nd annual surveillance audit (2011) PI 2.1.5.3 Y Closed in 2nd annual surveillance audit (2011)

4.3 Assessment Methodologies This re-assessment utilized MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 as well as reporting template v1.3. Stakeholder comments regarding the amount of information available to score the information performance indicator (PI) for habitat were received during the comment period, but upon clarification from the stakeholder, no amendments to the default tree were made.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits The start of the re-assessment of this fishery occurred concurrently with the 4th annual surveillance audit. A preliminary information gathering meeting occurred in Seattle, WA with the IPHC and the client representative 9th and 10th July, 2013. Site visits also took place at DFO headquarters in Vancouver, BC over the dates of 18 to 20th October, 2013.Stakeholders were invited to meet with the assessment team in person over those dates and were also encouraged to submit comments in writing or during tele-conference over the course of the assessment. Onsite meetings consisted of interviews with client representatives, DFO and IPHC science staff, as well as DFO and IPHC management staff. In addition to interviews, the team reviewed published documents from the IPHC and DFO. The SCS team also received summary reports from the client representatives. SCS engaged with stakeholders who expressed interest in providing comments on the assessment of the fishery. Their comments and team responses may be found in Appendix III.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 94 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

4.4.2 Consultations Meeting Attendees and stakeholders that were engaged in the process throughout the assessment may be found in Table 20 below. Most technical information used for scoring was obtained through document review with clarifications provided by IPHC and DFO staff during interviews and by email correspondence. Stakeholders expressed concern over the stock status of some non-target species, the availability of information on habitat impacts as well as recent changes to the stock assessment methodology and the management response to subsequent model results. Details of stakeholder comments and team responses may be found in Appendix 3. MSC support staff were contacted periodically to provide clarification or guidance on the MSC standards.

Table 17: Fishery assessment site visit attendees and interested parties 4th Annual Assessment Meeting Organization Role Attendees – Sept. 18-20th 2013

Dr. Sian Morgan SCS Lead Auditor (P2, Canada) Dr. Joe DeAlteris Team Member (P1, Canada) Mr. Tom Jagielo Team Member (P1, US) Mr. Bruce Turris Team Member (P3, Canada) Mr. Chris Sporer PHMA Client/Executive Director Ms. Christina Burridge BCSA Client/Executive Director Ms. Chantelle Caron DFO Halibut and Sablefish Coordinator Mr. Murray Gilchrist DFO Enforcement Mr. Mike Fraser DFO Fishery Officer IPHC P1 update meeting – July Organization Role 10th 2013 Dr. Bruce Leaman IPHC Executive Director Mr. Stephen Keith IPHC Assistant Director Dr. Ian Stewart IPHC Assessment scientist Dr. Steve Martell IPHC Harvest policy and quantitative scientist Dr. Ray Webster IPHC Quantitative scientist Mr. Gregg Williams IPHC Biological research and fisheries management agencies head Ms. Heather Gilroy IPHC Data collection and regulations head Stakeholders Engaged in Organization Role Assessment Process Mr. Charlie Twaddle Ministry of Policy and Legislation Branch; Fisheries Policy Agriculture Mr. Scott Wallace David Suzuki Fisheries Analyst Foundation Mr. Gerry Kristianson DFO Sport Fishing SFAB Chair Advisory Board Mr. Aaron Hill Watershed Watch Ecologist Salmon Society MSC Staff Engaged in Assessment Organization Role Process Ms. Megan Atcheson MSC Fishery Assessment Manager Mr. Dan Averill MSC Fisheries Outreach

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 95 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques The public was informed of the reassessment of the fishery by way of public announcements on the MSC website and through direct mailings from SCS lead auditor and SCS support staff. Direct mailings were sent to interested parties based on the stakeholder list for this fishery and any parties previously engaged in the assessment process.

Information gathering was based on publically available science and management documents. Clarifications were provided during onsite interviews by science and management staff.

Scoring was completed by consensus with each Principle expert leading the deliberations. In Principle 2, scores for each element (species) of the component (retained, bycatch, ETP, habitat or ecosystem) were considered in aggregate for determining the PI scores in accordance with MSC scoring methodology. See Table 22 for a list of scoring elements in Principle 2. None of the scoring elements were considered data deficient. The certification recommendation was based on the fact that the fishery met the minimum requirements for all performance indicators (60 or greater score) as well as an aggregate category level score of greater than 80 for all three principles.

Table 18. Principle 2 Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/not Data-deficient or not main Retained lingcod Minor Not Data Deficient Retained canary rockfish Minor Not Data Deficient Retained bocaccio Minor Not Data Deficient Bycatch spiny dogfish Main Not Data Deficient Bycatch big skate Minor Not Data Deficient Bycatch longnose skate Minor Not Data Deficient ETP Quota managed fishes (2 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP Non-Quota managed fishes (2 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP sharks (3 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP whales (9 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP Other Marine Mammals (2 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP sea turtles (2 sp) NA Not Data Deficient ETP Sea birds (2 sp) NA Not Data Deficient Habitat Corals/Sponges NA Not Data Deficient Habitat Seamounts NA Not Data Deficient Habitat Continental Slope Features NA Not Data Deficient Habitat Abyssal Features NA Not Data Deficient Ecosystem linkages to prey NA Not Data Deficient Ecosystem linkages to predators NA Not Data Deficient

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 96 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 5 Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date for this fishery is July 1, 2015. This date was chosen because it is the day after the previous certificate expires (after approved certificate extensions from the MSC via variance request). There is therefore no lapse in certification. The eligibility date does not have any effect on Chain of Custody traceability.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery Chain of Custody begins at the point of landing and is restricted to those entities with an approved certificate sharing agreement with the Pacific Halibut Management Association. Traceability mechanisms covered by the fishery certificate include valid fish tickets or landing receipts. Fish tickets include information on the landing location, catch date, location caught, gear type used, vessel and captain information. This is sufficient for traceability to start at the point of landing.

Risk is considered low for unregistered vessels from outside the EEZ to fish halibut and land in a Canadian port. Sufficient enforcement and 100% dockside monitoring and the tagging of each halibut with a unique serial number at the point of landing ensure that this type of poaching does not occur. Risk of substitution is also considered low as Pacific halibut are very distinctive and readily identified even with some at-sea processing. Catch originating from outside the Canadian EEZ is prohibited from being landed in Canadian ports. Some at sea processing may occur and is generally limited to heading and gutting (H+G). No trans-shipping occurs prior to the point of landing.

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody In order to be eligible to carry the MSC eco-label Pacific halibut must be caught by hook-and-line gear types, have a valid fish ticket associated with the landing and purchased from an approved certificate sharing entity. To pass forward the MSC claim, companies must also have their own chain of custody certificate.

An MSC fishery certificate sharing arrangement has been reached between these approved fish buyers and the clients for this fishery (Pacific Halibut Management Association). If you are a fish buyer and are interested in joining the fisheries certificate in order to pass forward the MSC claim, please contact the PHMA39 for certificate sharing arrangements. If you are interested in pursuing a chain of custody certificate for your business, please contact SCS40 directly (see below).

39 The PHMA may be contacted at [email protected] 40 SCS Global Services may be contacted at [email protected]

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 97 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 See the MSC website for this fishery to find the most recent version of the fishery certificate which will have the most up to date information on which companies are included in the fishery certificate sharing arrangement41, 42. As of the publication of this report, the current members in alphabetical order are:

1. Aero Trading Co. Ltd. 2. Albion Fisheries Ltd. 3. Canadian Fishing Company 4. CB Island Fisheries Ltd. 5. Cold Fish Seafoods Co. Inc. 6. French Creek Seafood Ltd. 7. North Delta Seafoods Ltd. 8. Organic Ocean Seafood Inc. 9. Scarlet Point Seafood Ltd. 10. Seven Seas Fish Company Ltd. 11. SM Products (BC) Ltd. 12. Ten Point Enterprises Ltd.

Approved Point of Landing Locations in Canada from the most recent halibut license conditions may be found in Table 19.

Table 19. Approved Canadian Points of Landing for British Columbia Ahousat Greater Victoria Prince Rupert Alert Bay Kelsey Bay Quadra Island Beaver Cove Kyuquot Queen Charlotte City Bella Bella Ladysmith Sayward Bella Coola Lund Shearwater Campbell River Masset Sidney Chemainus Metro Vancouver Skidgate Coal Harbour Nanaimo Sointula Comox Port Alberni Sooke Courtenay Port Edward Tofino Cowichan Bay Port Hardy Ucluelet Fair Harbour Port McNeil Winter Harbour French Creek Port Renfrew Zeballos Gold River Powell River

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody Pacific halibut are not considered an inseparable or practically inseparable stock (IPI).

41 A copy of the original certification certificate may be found prior to the surveillance reports at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/Canada-Pacific-halibut- bc/assessment-downloads 42 A copy of the re-assessment certificate is available at the re-assessment downloads page at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/Canada-Pacific-halibut- bc/reassessment-downloads

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 98 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 20. Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 88.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 87.3 Principle 3 – Management System 97.8

6.2 Summary of Scores

Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Principl e Contri Score bution

One 1 Outcome 0.5 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 90 22.50 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 90 22.50 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA Management 0.5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 85 10.63 1.2. Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 1.2. Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 1.2. Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 95 11.88 Two 1 Retained 0.2 2.1. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 95 6.33 species 2.1. Management 0.333 0.0667 95 6.33 2.1. Information 0.333 0.0667 95 6.33 Bycatch 0.2 2.2. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 species 2.2. Management 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 2.2. Information 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 ETP species 0.2 2.3. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.3. Management 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 2.3. Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 Habitats 0.2 2.4. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 2.4. Management 0.333 0.0667 95 6.33 2.4. Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 2.5. Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.5. Information 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 Three 1 Governance 0.5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 Fishery specific 0.5 3.2. Fishery specific objectives 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 management 3.2. Decision making processes 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 system 3.2. Compliance & enforcement 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 90 9.00 3.2.5 Management performance 0.2 0.1 100 10.00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Principle 1 - Target species 88.8 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3 Principle 3 - Management 97.8

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 99 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 21. Summary of Conditions Related to previously Scoring # Condition PI raised Issue condition? (Y/N/N/A) The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for yelloweye and rougheye 1 2.3.2 b N rockfishes will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

The assessment team recommended that the fishery be re-certified. The SCS Certification Board found that the Pacific halibut fishery in British Columbia undertaken by hook and line gear continues to meet the MSC Principles and Criteria of a sustainable fishery. This is based on the fact that no performance indicator falls below the required SG60 and also that the average score for each Principle is above 80. It is the determination of the SCS Certification Board that the Pacific halibut fishery be re-certified based on MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. No objections to this decision were received and the fishery is no re-certified.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 100 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 7 References

Allen, K.R. 1980. Conservation and Management of Whales. Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington Press. ISBN 0-295-95706-9.

Allen, J; M Weinrich, W Hoppitt, L Rendell. 2013. "Network-Based Diffusion Analysis Reveals Cultural Transmission of Lobtail Feeding in Humpback Whales". Science 340 (6131): 485–188

Ardon, J.A and Jamieson, 2006. Reducing Bycatch of Corals and Sponges in British Columbia's Groundfish Trawl Fishery through Trawl Fishery Closures, Research Document. 2006/061. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2006/2006_061_e.htm

Aroyan, J.L., M.A. McDonald, S.C. Webb, J.A. Hildebrrand, D. Clark, J.T. Laitman, and J.S. Reidenberg. 2000. Acoutic models of sound production and propagation. pages 409-469 In Hearing by Whales and Dolphins (W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.N. Fay, Eds.). Springer, New York.

Clark WG and Hare SR. 2006. Assessment and management of Pacific halibut: data, methods, and policy: IPHC Scientific Report, No. 83. http://www.iphc.washington.edu/library/scirep.html

Best, E.A. and St-Pierre. 1986. IPHC Technical Report No. 21 - Pacific halibut as predator and prey.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC Status Report-Bocaccio. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_bocaccio_e.pdf

COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 32 pp. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_blue_whale_e.pdf

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status Report-Short-tailed Albatross, Phoebastria albatrus, COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada.

COSEWIC. 2003a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 27 pp.

COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the green sturgeon Acipenser medirostirs in Canda. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 31 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm )

COSEWIC. 2004a. Annual Report to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. 16 Sept 2004. 127pp.

COSEWIC. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 37 pp.

COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus, in Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 101 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger in Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_canary_rockfish_0808_e.pdf

COSEWIC. 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and update on status Report for Basking Shark, Cetorhinus maximus, in Canada. COSEWIC Secreatariat, Environment Canada.

COSEWIC. 2007b. Status Report-Bluntnose Sixgill Shark in Canada. COSEWIC Secreatariat, Environment Canada.

COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC Wildlife Species Assessments (detailed version), November 2013. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Detailed_Species_Assessments_e.html

COSEWIC. 2013a. Wildlife Species Assessment Response Statement. Leatherback Sea Turtle, Pacific population. 3 Jan 2013. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=2535

COSEWIC. 2014. Annual Report 2013-2013 Presented to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The Committee on the Status of endangered Wildlife in Canada. September 2014. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/CESCC_1014_e.pdf

Clapham, P. 2008. "Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae". In Perrin, William F.; Würsig, Bernd; Thewissen, J.G.M. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed.). pp. 582–84.

DFO. 2004. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Ecosystem Status Rep. 2004/006. http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/result- eng.asp?params=0&series=1&year=2004

DFO. 2006. Department of Fisheries and Oceans – Pacific Region. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish, 2006/07. (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/ifmp-eng.html#Groundfish

DFO. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. iv + 8 pp. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/ec/En3-4-36-2007E.pdf

DFO. 2007a. National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Ottawa. March. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa-seabirds-eng.htm

DFO. 2007b. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa-sharks_e.pdf

DFO. 2007c. Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. Web site: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic- sismique/pdf/statement-enonce_e.pdf

DFO. 2009a. A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the Precautionary Approach Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution- eng.htm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 102 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

DFO. 2009b. Policy for Managing the Impact of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi-back-fiche- eng.htm

DFO. 2009c. “Sustainable Fisheries Framework”. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

DFO. 2010. 2010 Canadian Marine Ecosystem Status and Trends Report. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/030(Revised).

DFO. 2010a. 2010. Management Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) in Canada [Final]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi + 69 pp.

DFO. 2010b. Potential Impacts of Fishing Gears (Excluding Mobile Bottom Contacting Gears) on Marine Habitats and Communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/003.

DFO. 2010c. Atlantic Canadian Loggerhead Turtle Conservation Plan. Marintimes Region. October 2010. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/policies-politiques/log-turtle-tortue-caouane/index- eng.htm

DFO. 2011. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas – Lessons Learned. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/049. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_049-eng.html

DFO. 2011a. Gentle Giants: In Search of Basking Sharks in Canada's Pacific Waters. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2011/10-25-11-eng.html

DFO. 2011b. Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan v1.2, Updated 23 August, 2011. Available at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/MPLANS/plans11/2011_Groundfish_IFMP_Complete_Amendment_3.pdf

DFO. 2011c. Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 51 pp.

DFO. 2011e. Management Plan for the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish Complex (Sebastes aleutianus and S. melanostictus) and Longspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi+ 49 pp. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_sebastes_sebastolobe_rockfish_thornyh ead_0212_eng.pdf

DFO. 2012. Canada’s Progress Report on the Implementation of Key Actions Taken Pursuant to the National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Ottawa. July. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/seabirds-oiseauxmer-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012a. Stock assessment update for Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 103 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Report 2012/059. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_059-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012b. Management Plan for the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish Complex (Sebastes aleutianus and S. Melanostictus) and Longspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus Altivelis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Available at: http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_sebastes_sebastolobe_rockfish_thornyhead_0412_en g.pdf

DFO. 2012c. Information relevant to the assessment of critical habitat for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales in British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/078. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_078-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012f. Management Plan for the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in cnada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. iv+37pp.

DFO. 2013a. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish. Pp14. Available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2013/ground-fond/ground-fond-2013-eng.pdf

DFO. 2013b. British Columbia Groundfish Fisheries and Their Investigations in 2012: pp 3. Available at: http://www.psmfc.org/tsc-drafts/2013/Canada_TSC_May_2013_DRAFT_V5.pdf

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

DFO 2013d. News Article.Tom Robbins, Senior Communications Advisor Rare Whale Sighted Off British Columbia Coast 19 June 2013 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress- communique/2013/pac04-eng.htm

DFO. 2013e. Policy on Managing Bycatch. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/bycatch-policy-prise-access-eng.pdf

DFO. 2013f. Draft Partial Action Plan for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, B. borealis, and Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 23 pp. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/sara- lep/lgwhale-gdbaleine/docs/action-eng.pdf

DFO. 2013g. Identification and evaluation of biological effects and impacts of sediment to sponge communities in Hecate Strait. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/062.

DFO. 2014. Big skate (Raja binoculata) and Longnose skate (R. rhina) stock assessments for British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/027.

DFO. 2014a. Management Plan for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 50 pp.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 104 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 DFO. 2014b. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish, Effective 21 February, 2014. V1.0. 23pp. Available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2014/ground- fond/ground-fond-sm-2014-eng.pdf

Environment Canada. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) and the Pink-footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 46 pp. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_short_tailed_albatross_and_pink_footed_ shearwater_final_0408_e.pdf

Ernst, C. H.; Lovich, J.E. (2009). Turtles of the United States and Canada (2 ed.). JHU Press. ISBN 978- 0-8018-9121-2.

Environment Canada. 2010. 2010 Annual report of the Canada-Chile Commission for environmental Cooperation. Updated February 2014. Available at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/can- chil/default.asp?lang=En&n=B0D4D0F8-1

FAO 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome.

Ford, J.K.B., R.M. Abernethy, A.V. Phillips, J. Calambokidis, G.M. Ellis, and L.M. Nichol. 2010. Distribution and relative abundance of cetaceans in western Canadian waters from ship surveys, 2002-2008. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2913: v + 51 pp.

Fossa, J.H., Mortensen, P.B., and Furevik, D.M. 2002. The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia 471: 1-12

Gaichas, SK, Francis, RC. 2008. Network models for ecosystem-based fishery analysis: A review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1965-1982.

Gallucci, V., Taylor, I., King, J., McFarlane, G., and McPhie, R. 2011. Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Assessment and Catch Recommendations for 2010. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2011/034.

Gburski, C. 2005. Ageing procedures for big skate (Raja binoculata), longnose skate (Raja Rhina), Alaska skate (Bathyraja parmifera), Aleutian skate (Bathyraja aleutica) and Bering skate

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects of oil on cetaceans. In: Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks (Ed. by J. R. Geraci & D. J. St Aubin), Academic Press, San Diego, California. pp. 167-197.

Hare, S.R. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2011. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2011:91-194. (http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html

Hillier, C.J., Gueret, D., Butterfi eld, S. and Pellegrin, N. 2007. Fish harvesting activities within the proposed Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2803: vi + 65p.

IPHC. 2013b. 2012 Standardized stock assessment survey. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2012:503-538. http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 105 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

IWC. 2011. Report of the Scientific Committee. Tromso, Norway. May to 11 June. 2011. IWC/63/Rep 1 Annex F http://web.archive.org/web/20111105190412/http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCR epFiles2011/Annex%20F%20-%20BRG.pdf

IWC. 2012. International Convention for the Regulation on Whaling. Schedule as amended by the Commission at the 64th Annual Meeting, Panada City, Panama, July 2012. 16pp. http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February-2013.pdf

Jamieson, G.S. and Davies, H. 2004. State of Knowledge of Marine Habitats of Northern British Columbia., Research Document. 2004/009. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/ResDocs/habitat_03_e.htm

Jamieson, G.S., Pellegrin, N., and Jessen, S. 2006. Taxonomy and Zoogeography of Cold Water Corals in Explored Areas of Coastal British Columbia, Research Document. 2006/062. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2006/2006_062-eng.htm

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR- , 37 pp.

King J.R., McAllister M., Holt K.R., and Starr P.J. 2011. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) stock assessment and yield advice for outside stocks in British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Working Paper. Pp 3.

Lockyer, C. and A.R. Martin. 1983. "The sei whale off western Iceland. II. Age, growth and reproduction". Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 33: 465–476.

Magnuson-Ford, K., Ingram, T., Redding, D.W., and Mooers, A.O. 2009. Rockfish (Sebastes) that are evolutionarily isolated are also large, morphologically distinctive and vulnerable to overfishing. Biol. Conserv., 142. pp 1787-1796.

MarineBio. 2014. History, Life. "Loggerhead Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta". MarineBio. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=163

Martell, S., and R. Froese. 2012. A simple method for estimating MSY from catch and resilience. Fish and Fisheries. (DOI: 10.11/j.467 – 2979.2012.00485.x

McFarlane, G.A., and King, J.R. 2009. Re-evaluating the age determination of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) using oxytetracycline and fish at liberty up to twenty years. In Biology, Management and Fishery of spiny dogfish. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K., Dietrich, K.S. and Hamel, O.S. 2001. Solutions to seabird bycatch in Alaska’s demersal longline fisheries. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington. 45pp. http://www.wsg.washington.edu/pubs/seabirds/seabirdpaper.html

Neilson, J. L. and C. M. Gabriele. 2010. Results of humpback whale population monitoring in Glacier Bay and adjacent waters: 2010. Report to the National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, AK. 20 pp.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 106 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 NMFS. 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service: Review of the Status of the Right Whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans (2006). NOAA. 1997. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Pacific offshore Cetacean take reduction plan regulations. Federal Register, Vol62:19. #51805 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr62-51805.pdf Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2012. Draft Minutes 53rd Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S. Groundfish Committee’s Technical Subcommittee May 1-2, 2012. Available at: www.psmfc.org/tsc-drafts/TSC_minutes_2012_final.docx Perrin, W.F.; Würsig, B.G. and Thewissen, J.G.M. 2009. Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press. p. 404. ISBN 978-0-12-373553-9. Perry SL; D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber.1999. "Special Issue: The Great Whales: History and Status of Six Species Listed as Endangered Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973". Phillips, J.B. 1964. Life History Studies on ten species of Rockfish. Marine Resources Operations. Pp. 20-23. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Eubalaena japonica (Northeast Pacific subpopulation). In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. Schnute, J.T., Olsen, N., and Haigh, R. 1999. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 99/184. Pp. 33 Spotila, James R. 2004. Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press and Oakwood Arts. Smith, J.L. and Morgan, K.H. 2005. An Assessment of Seabird Bycatch in Longline and Net Fisheries in British Columbia. Technical Report Series No. 401. Canadian Wildlife Service - Pacific and Yukon Region.Appendices Stanley, R.D. and Starr P.J. 2009. Stock assessment update for British Columbia Canary Rockfish. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Response. Pp 19. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/ScR-RS/2009/2009_019_E.pdf Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Berardius bairdii. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. www.iucnredlist.org Vincent, A. and Turris, B. 2012. British Columbia Pacific Halibut. 2012 MSC Third Surveillance Visit Report: Certificate Number: SCS-MFCP-F-0020. SCS Global Services. Wallace, J.R. and Cope, J.M. 2011. Status update of the US canary rockfish resource in 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA USA. Pp 245. Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304 Williams, R. and O’Hara, P. 2010. Modelling ship strike risk to fin, humpback and killer whales in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 11(1): 1-8. Williams, R. and Thomas, L. (2007). "Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the coastal waters of BC, Canada" (PDF). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9: 15–28. Woodford R. 2003. Sperm whales awe and vex Alaska Fishermen. Alaska Fish and Wildlife News. August 2003. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=61

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 107 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Yamanaka, K.L., Lacko, L.C., Withler, R., Grandin, C., Lochead, J.K., Martin, J.C., Olsen, and Wallace S.S. 2006. A review of yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus along the Pacific coast of Canada: biology, distribution and abundance trends. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document. Pp 76.

Yamanaka, K.L., McAllister, M.K., Etienne, M.P., Obradovich, S. and Haigh, R. 2011. Stock assessment for the inside population of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) in British Columbia, Canada for 2010. CSAP Working Paper. Pp 6. Yang, M.S. and Nelson, M.W. 2001. Food habit of the commercially important groundfishes in the Gulf of Alaska in 1990, 1993, and 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-112. 174pp. Zimmer, W.M.X., Tyack, P.L., Johnson, M.P. & Madsen, P.T. 2005. "Three dimensional beam pattern of regular sperm whale clicks confirms bent-horn hypothesis". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117 (3 Pt 1): 1473–1485.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 108 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 8 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

8.1 Principle 1—Stock Status Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1

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 There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is point where point where above the point where recruitment would be recruitment would be recruitment would be

Guidepost impaired. impaired. impaired. Met? Yes Yes Yes The estimate at the end of 2012 of the female spawning stock biomass is 201 million pounds, which corresponds to a depletion level of 35% of its unfished state (Stewart et al, 2013). Spawning stock biomass is currently above the B30% target (Stewart et al 2013). The 2012 coast wide harvest rate was 26.5%, above the target harvest rate of 20% (Stewart et al 2013).The 2012 assessment indicated that the Pacific halibut stock has been continuously declining over much of the last decade as a result of decreasing size at age, as well as poor recruitment (Stewart et al. 2012). There is no explicit stock recruitment relationship therefore it is difficult to interpret the level at which recruitment would be impaired, annual recruitment is estimated as a free parameter. It is assumed that the previous models used for developing the reference points are stationary, and that B30% is an appropriate target reference point and that B20% is an appropriate limit reference point (Clark and Hare 2006). Based on the 2012 stock assessment decision table (Stewart et al 2013), the probability of being >= to the LRP is > 99%; thus, there is a high degree of certainty

that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The reported probability of being >= the target reference point is 75% (Stewart et al 2013). Therefore the team has determined that all elements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met for this issue. Specifically, the stock is above a point where

Justification recruitment would be impaired. 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? Yes No

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 109 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing The 2012 IPHC stock assessment indicates that the stock is slightly above the target reference point, but given that there has been a substantial adjustment to the stock assessment model, there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock is above that reference point. Based on the 2012 stock assessment decision table (Stewart et al 2013), the reported probability of being >= the target reference point is 75%. Thus it is likely that the stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point, and SG 80 is met for this scoring issue. A high degree of certainty would require a probability of 95% that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point. Thus, SG 100 is not met for this scoring issue. The team has determined that the fishery does meet the scoring elements of SG80, but not SG 100, as there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating

Justification around the target reference point. Clark and Hare 2006, Hare 2010, Stewart et al 2013 References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Target Relative spawning 30% SB, or 172 million 201 million pounds at the end reference biomass pounds of 2012, or 35% of unfished SB, point or 1.13 of Target Limit Relative spawning 20% SB, or 115 million 201 million pounds at the end reference biomass pounds of 2012 or 35% of unfished SB, point or 1.70 of Limit OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 110 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 appropriate for the points are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost species category. Met? Yes Yes The limit reference points are appropriate for the stock and have undergone simulation testing under the old area-based assessment framework. The reference points can, and are estimated during each assessment. Given that there is no recent estimate of an underlying stock-recruitment relationship defined for the coast-wide Pacific halibut model, it is not possible to determine whether the target reference point is consistent with BMSY; however, for many groundfish stocks the depletion level associated with BMSY is generally in the range of 30% to 40% of the unfished stock and is a function of the age-at-recruitment to the fishery and the age-at-maturity. The limit reference point for halibut is 20% of the unfished spawning stock biomass. The target reference point for halibut is 30% of the unfished spawning stock biomass.

The team has determined that the fishery clearly meets all the elements of SG60 and SG 80; specifically, that the reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.

Justification 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 impairing reproductive capacity following capacity. consideration of precautionary

Guidepost issues. Met? Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 111 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Limit reference point of B20% is appropriate for demersal stock with many year classes. The current harvest policy for Pacific halibut utilizes a ramp from target harvest rates to no fishing between B30% relative spawning biomass and B20% relative spawning biomass. The details of the calculation of relative spawning biomass have not changed from recent assessments. The unfished spawning stock biomass is calculated by multiplying the spawning biomass per recruit times the average coast-wide recruitment from an unproductive regime. This calculation is conservative in that it uses estimates of at age- recruits from an unproductive regime (Clark and Hare 2006; Hare and Clark 2008). In the most recent assessment the estimated unfished female spawning stock biomass is 573 million pounds, the limit reference point (B20%) is 115 million pounds, and the target reference point (B30%) is 172

million pounds (Stewart et al 2013). The team has determined that the fishery meets the element of the SG 80 and SG 100; specifically, that the limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of

Justification precautionary issues. 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 level consistent with consistent with BMSY or some BMSY or some measure measure or surrogate with or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a similar intent or higher level, and takes into outcome. account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high

Guidepost degree of certainty. Met? Yes No The limit reference point or 20% SB is related to maintaining a relative minimum spawning stock biomass, and has been related to the limit biomass reference point of 0.5BMSY (Clark and Hare 2006). A target reference was selected to be 1.5 times the limit of threshold reference point (Hare 2010). The unfished spawning stock biomass is calculated by multiplying the spawning biomass per recruit times the average coast-wide recruitment from an unproductive regime. This calculation is conservative in that it uses estimates of at age-recruits from an unproductive regime. In the most recent assessment (Stewart et al. 2013) the estimated unfished female spawning stock biomass is 573 million pounds, the limit reference

point (B20%) is 115 million pounds, and the target reference point (B30%) is 172 million pounds. The team determined that the fishery clearly meets all elements of SG 80 and the first element of the SG 100 but that more simulation work was required to

Justification quantify appreciable levels of risk before a higher score could be justified.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 112 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost stock. Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) Not relevant

Halibut are not a low trophic level species Justification Clark 2002, Clark and Hare 2006, Clark and Hare 2008, Hare 2010, Stewart et al. References 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 113 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 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 expectation of strong evidence that rebuilding success, are in place. will be complete within the

Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? NA NA Not applicable at this time. In the Pacific halibut fishery, the stock has not

fallen below the limit reference point and no rebuilding policies have been implemented. The current harvest policy in place uses a 20% exploitation rate to determine annual Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY) each year. Justification b A rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframe is specified is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is for the depleted stock depleted stock that is specified which does not that is the shorter of the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for 30 years or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe timeframe is up to 5

Guidepost is up to 5 years. years. Met? NA NA NA The Pacific halibut stock is not depleted, as of the 2012 IPHC stock assessment

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 within a specified or previous timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a

Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? NA NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 114 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe

The Pacific halibut stock is not depleted as of the 2012 IPHC stock assessment (Stewart et al, 2013)

Justification References Stewart et al, 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 115 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 achieve stock management the target and limit harvest strategy work objectives reflected in the reference points. together towards target and limit reference achieving management points. objectives reflected in the target and limit

Guidepost reference points. Met? Yes Yes Yes The harvest strategy is well defined in the 2012 IPHC stock assessment, as a Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY), which involves applying a fixed harvest rate to the estimate of exploitable biomass in each statistical area. There was also an additional asymmetric adjustment to the annual catch based on a Slow-Up/Fast- Down (SUFD) policy where catch limits are adjusted more strongly in response to declines in biomass and less so to increases in biomass. The harvest strategy was relatively simple, but involved a very complex process of determining the exploitable biomass in each area. In addition, the fixed harvest rate was adjusted downwards if the female spawning stock biomass falls below the target reference point of 30% of its unfished state. Starting with 2013 harvest advice, IPHC stopped using SUFD and moved to the risk-benefit decision table approach for providing harvest advice. The default exploitation rate of 20% of the exploitable biomass has been shown to achieve management objectives. The IPHC has done an extensive amount of simulation testing under the closed area model to test the current

harvest strategy that is in place (Stewart et al 2013, Clake and Hare 2006). The assessment team determined that all elements for SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met, specifically that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target

Justification and limit reference points. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the likely to work based may not have been harvest strategy has been fully on 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 objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks

Guidepost at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 116 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

The harvest strategy appears to be robust; it has resulted in decreased removals as stock size has declined over the past decade and some evidence suggests that it has prevented the stock from declining below the target reference point, despite (in hindsight) a prolonged period of harvest rates in excess of the target harvest rate. However, recent size-at-age data and changes in the stock assessment model for Pacific halibut have resulted in changes in estimated productivity and selectivity for both the directed fishery and the setline survey; previous estimates of optimal exploitation rates are outdated and need to be revised (Martell et al 2013). The harvest strategy has not been fully tested with the coastwide assessment model and apportionment process, and given the recent changes in our understanding

of the population dynamics of the halibut stock, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. So, while the elements of SG 60 and SG 80 have been met, the assessment team has determined that the elements of SG 100 have not been met due to the recent

Justification changes in the coast wide assessment and apportionment scheme. c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is

Guidepost working. Met? Yes

The 2012 stock assessment describes a well-conceived and implemented monitoring plan, that collects data from all significant sources of mortality of halibut both at sea and dockside (Stewart et al 2013). The assessment team has

Justification determined that the elements of the GS60 for this issue have been met. d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? No Performance Indicator 1.2.1 addresses a robust and precautionary harvest strategy. The results of the 2012 stock assessment indicate that in retrospect the

halibut stock has experienced overfishing for all of the last decade. This suggests that the harvest strategy is not precautionary, despite its robust nature. The assessment team has determined that the fishery does not meet the elements of SG 100 for this issue.

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

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 117 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Met? (Not relevant) (Not relevant) (Not relevant)

Not relevant. Landing sharks without fins is prohibited in Canada. Vessels are monitored while fishing. Shark finning has not been reported in Canada in recent years.

Justification Clark and Hare 2006, Stewart et al 2013, Martell et al 2013. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 118 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 exploitation rate is as limit reference reduced as limit points are reference points are

Guidepost approached. approached. Met? Yes Yes The harvest control rule that is currently in place is defined as follows: the annual catch limit in a given area is set at 20% of the exploitable biomass in that area if the female spawning stock biomass is greater than 30% of the unfished level. The harvest rate declines linearly to 0 if the female spawning biomass declines to 20% of its unfished level. In addition to this fixed rule, additional adjustments are made based on recent trends in spawning biomass to avoid large fluctuation in annual catch limits. This adjustment is referred to as Slow-Up/Fast-Down (SUFD) policy and is consistent with the precautionary approach. Under the SUFD adjustment, annual catch limits respond more quickly to declines in biomass than to increases

in biomass (Clark and Hare 2006). The assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the elements for SG 60 and 80 for this issue, specifically that a well-defined harvest control rule is in place that is consistent with the harvest strategy and ensures that the exploitation

Justification rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. 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? Yes No The 2012 stock assessment describes a revised assessment model and presents the results of the estimation of spawning biomass and fishing intensity in a control rule. It also presents a decision making table framework with forecast projections under a range of management options, and probabilities of risk. The assessment team has determined that all of the elements for SG80 are met, but not the elements of SG 100, specifically that the design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties.. There is, however, historical evidence under the closed area models that the harvest rules have worked in the past, where annual catches have been adjusted up or down based on trends in the spawning stock biomass. However, the new coast wide assessment model does not take into consideration the uncertainties associated with movement/migration of halibut and assumes fixed parameter values (e.g.,

Justification natural mortality rate); therefore, a score of 100 is not justified.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 119 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place 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 harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Yes Yes No The 2012 stock assessment model provides evidence that the harvest control rule has worked to control exploitation, as the harvest policy has been decreased over time from 30% to the 21.5% to Areas 2A, 2B, 2C and 3A, and 16.125% to Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, and 4CDE in response to declining stock biomass. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the policy. Unfortunately, in retrospect the effective harvest rate has exceeded the policy substantially in the last decade, indicating problems with

the assessment model, that hopefully have been resolved. The assessment team has determined that the elements of SG 60 and 80 have been met, but that the evidence does not clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control

Justification rules. Therefore the fishery does not meet the elements of SG 100. Clark and Hare (2006), Stewart et al 2013. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 120 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet fleet composition, stock composition is composition and other abundance, fishery removals available to support data is available to and other information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current

Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes There is a large amount of information collected on Pacific halibut each year from commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries and scientific surveys. Each year there is set line survey that is used to collect information on size/age composition, relative abundance, and growth information and the spatial coverage is nearly complete with the exceptions of Easter Bering Sea (EBS). However, each year the IHPC does place a sampler aboard the NMFS EBS groundfish/crab survey to collect biological data on halibut for length and age composition information in that region. In addition to the routine set line surveys and catch sampling programs, there has also been tagging studies to determine movement/migration of Pacific halibut. These tagging studies have shed light on stock structure and the results of which have been the motivation for moving to a coast wide assessment model. Environmental information in the form of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is also used in the assessment and has been shown to explain halibut recruitment patterns (Hare 2010), but is not necessarily relevant to the current harvest strategy. Based on this the assessment team determined that the fishery meets all the elements for SG60, SG80, and SG 100, specifically that there is a comprehensive range of information available for management purposes, including some that

Justification may not be related to 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 monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to control rule, and one uncertainties in the support the harvest or more indicators are information [data] and the control rule. available and robustness of assessment and monitored with management to this sufficient frequency to uncertainty. support the harvest

Guidepost control rule. Met? Yes Yes No

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 121 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored on an annual basis and with a reasonable degree of certainty. There is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the data. We were unable to score this Performance Indicator at the 100 level because a recent assessment of the robustness of the harvest control rule has not been updated with the new coast wide model and apportionment scheme. So, while the fishery clearly meets all elements of the SG 60 and SG 80 and the first element of the SG 100 but could not satisfy the second element of the SG 100 because the recent assessment of the robustness of the harvest control rule has not been updated with the new coast wide model and apportionment scheme. Also, bycatch estimates are in need of improvement to avoid the danger of underestimating total removals, in particular in the northern ustification

J range of the stock on smaller vessels c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost Met? Yes There is good information on all the substantive removals from the stock to the combination of at-sea data collection of most the fisheries that capture halibut, and the intensive dockside monitoring program. This information is not perfect however, there are potential uncertainties associated with the recreational fish catch, and with catch of small vessels in Alaska that do not have complete at-sea monitoring. It must be noted that there is outstanding data available on all removals from the 2B management unit due to the effort of Canadian Department Fisheries and Ocean to collect data at sea on all commercial fishing vessels

catching for halibut, and that there are differences between the data available for the data available for the Canadian managed portion of the stock and the U>S managed portion of the stock. Therefore the assessment team determined that the British Columbia portion of

Justification the stock (area 2B) meets all the elements of SG80 for this issue. Stewart et al., 2013 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 122 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 stock and for the harvest control rule and takes harvest control rule. into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature

Guidepost of the fishery. Met? Yes Yes The annual assessments of Pacific halibut conducted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) are very comprehensive in comparison to most stock assessment models. The model considers numerous sources of data from fisheries independent surveys, commercial samples and addresses issues pertaining to sex, size/weight-at-age and the harvest control rule is based on spawning stock biomass based reference points (Clark and Hare 2006; Hare 2010; Stewart et al 2013). Major sources of uncertainty including density dependent growth, recruitment, and selectivity are considered. Annual assessments are internally

reviewed and externally reviewed by an outside review team. The assessment team has determined that the assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery, and therefore

Justification meet the elements of SG 100 for this issue. b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Met? Yes

The 2012 IPHC stock assessment clearly estimates stock status relative to reference points (Stewart et al 2013). Therefore the assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the element of SG 60 for this issue. Justification 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? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 123 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Major sources of uncertainty including density dependent growth, recruitment, and selectivity are considered. In 2012, a persistent retrospective problem in the

stock assessment model was corrected, and a decision table framework was implemented to evaluate uncertainty in stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way Therefore the assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the

Justification elements for SG80 and SG100. d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have

Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? No It is likely that parameter uncertainty is substantially underestimated in the model. Stewart et al (2013) noted that pre-model processing and redundancy in the halibut data sets likely result in a substantial underestimation of this source of uncertainty. Additional sources of uncertainty include choices made in structuring the assessment model (e.g., explicit inclusion or exclusion of spatial processes), steps taken during data processing, and many other sources that are not included in the results (Stewart et al 2013). Further, the current coastwide assessment

model has not been simulation tested and alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have not been rigorously explored. There the assessment determined that the elements of SG100 were not meet at this time for this issue

Justification e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Yes yes The 2012 Pacific halibut stock assessment has been subject to peer review and has

been internally and externally reviewed. Therefore the assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the SG 80 and 100 elements of this issue. Therefore the assessment determined that all the elements of SG 80 and SG100 have been met.

Justification Stewart et al 2013 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 124 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 8.2 Principle 2—Ecosystem Considerations Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 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? NA, no main retained NA, no main retained Y for two minor scoring species species components and N for one minor scoring component

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 125 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species There are no main retained species in this fishery evaluation. There are three minor species including lingcod, canary rockfish and bocaccio. Several other species are retained, but contribute insignificantly to the fishery (<1%) and the volume of the fishery is not exceptionally large compared with other Canadian fisheries. Lingcod, canary rockfish and bocaccio were considered at the SG100 where the scoring issue does not stipulate ‘main’ in the retained PI wording. Because there are no main species based on the composition of the fishery and scoring issues SG60 and SG80 stipulate ‘main’ the fishery meets these and the SG100 is evaluated for these components by default in accordance with CB3.2.1.

Lingcod, a minor retained species, is considered to have two populations, an inside Georgia Strait stock and an outside Georgia Strait stock. Because the halibut fishery occurs offshore, the outside stock the halibut fishery catches some lingcod from the outside stock. The outside stock also is considered to have four management units. The last stock assessment was in 2010 (King et al., 2011) where four separate assessments were conducted (Management areas 3C, 3D, 5AB and 5CDE). All populations are considered to be highly likely above the LRP

(0.4BMSY) and above the USR (0.8BMSY) with a high degree of certainty for two of the 4 units (90%CI). There are several management measures in place to protect lingcod including trip limits, TAC, minimum size, and a seasonal closure. This

Justification scoring component meets the SG 100.

Canary rockfish are a very minor proportion of the catch (<0.5%) but are considered based on sensitivity to fishing due to life history traits and stakeholder concerns. COSEWIC considered the population to be threatened in 2002 and again in 2007 (COSEWIC 2002; COSEWIC 2007), but a more recent stock assessment (Stanley and Starr 2009) found that after incorporating aging information and conducting a meta-analysis of the stock-recruitment relationship, that the canary population is in the healthy zone, meaning the stock is between the LRP and USR, in accordance with the Precautionary Approach criteria. The calculated PA- compliant harvest estimate over the long term is <900 mt/y for all fisheries (trawl and H+L combined). The H+L cap on canary rock fish is 3,500lbs, or 1.588mt. This scoring component also meets the SG100.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 126 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

Bocaccio are also considered a minor scoring component. There is evidence to suggest that fisheries could pose a risk of recovery to bocaccio rockfish. Bocaccio currently have a 99% probability of being in the DFO Precautionary Approach (PA), critical zone, <0.4*Bmsy. They were designated as threatened by COSEWIC in 2002 and endangered in 2014 (COSEWIC 2002; 2014), but have not been listed on SARA schedule 1. It also bears mention that the trawl fishery accounts for more than

90% of non-target mortality. Halibut fishery catches range between 750 and 2,000 individuals/yr. To mitigate risks to this scoring component, the groundfish fisheries and the halibut fishery induced trip limits in 2013 (IFMP 2013 & IFMP 2014 Appendix 6). They are considered under the "other rockfish" category which imposes trip limits to 200lbs if /15 thousand lbs halibut are landed and 400 lbs if >30 thousand lbs of halibut are landed. Because bocaccio are not a main species, but are in the critical zone (below the LRP), the team considered that this scoring component does not meet the SG100. b Target reference points are

defined for retained species. uidepost G Met? Y Lingcod, bocaccio and canary rockfish have all been evaluated against the Precautionary Approach (PA), which includes default reference points relative to MSY. These are the Limit Reference Point (LRP), below which the stock is

considered in the critical zone and the Upper Stock Reference Point (USR) below which harvest control rules are employed to reduce fishing mortality. The LRP and USR have been defined for the minor scoring components (King et al, 2011;

Justification Stanley and Star 2009; DFO 2012a) as 0.4 and 0.8BMSY respectively. 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 demonstrably effective ensure that the fishery management measures

does not hinder in place such that the recovery and fishery does not hinder rebuilding of the recovery and

Guidepost depleted species. rebuilding. Met? NA (no main sp.) NA (no main sp.)

Based on relative proportions in the fishery, there are no main retained species. Please see appendix 4 for relative proportions.

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 127 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species 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? NA (no main species) Based on relative proportions in the fishery, there are no main retained species.

Please see appendix 4 for relative proportions. Justification DFO, 2012d. Canada’s Wild Fisheries Facts and Figures. Communications Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Cat. Fs1-76/2012 (modified 2013-06-28).

King JR, McAllister M, Holt KR, Starr PJ. 2011. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) stock assessment and yield advice for outside stocks in British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Working Paper 2011/P03.

DFO, 2014. 2014/2015 Rockfish by Hook and Line (Outside ZN) Commercial Harvest Plan, Appendix 5.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC Status Report-Bocaccio. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_bocaccio_e.pdf References COSEWIC. 2014. Annual Report 2013-2014 Appendix 1. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/CESCC_1014_e.pdf

DFO. 2013. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish. Pp14. Available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2013/ground-fond/ground- fond-2013-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012a. Stock assessment update for Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Report 2012/059. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_059- eng.pdf

Stanley, R.D. and Starr P.J. 2009. Stock assessment update for British Columbia Canary Rockfish. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Response. Pp 19. Available

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 128 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/ScR-RS/2009/2009_019_E.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 129 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 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 limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to

fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? NA (no main species) NA (no main species) Y The strategy in place to manage retained species, such as lingcod, bocaccio and canary rockfish, is a multi-protection approach limiting total catch, discards and wastage. For lingcod there are trip limits, TAC, an IVQ option for overages, seasonal closures and a minimum size limit (65cm).

The halibut fishery has restrictive catch limits recently introduced in 2013 for bocaccio (IFMP 2013, Appendix 6) and a TAC in place for canary rockfish. Limits are expected to decrease over time as well (2014 DFO Harvest Plan), which would further decrease the impact of the halibut fishery on this species as they recover.

Several other retained species are managed with output controls including TACs, IVQ and other trip limits. The SG80 is not applicable, due to their being no main retained species, but the

Justification SG100 is applicable, and is considered met for minor retained species. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species

experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species

Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N for some components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 130 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species The strategy to protect lingcod and canary rockfish from overfishing is considered to be working based on stock assessment results indicating that the populations are likely to be within the healthy zone (>0.8BMSY) (King et al, 2011; Stanley and Star 2009). Limits to fishing effort for lingcod and canary rockfish are maintained by the fishery validated by 100% EM or at-sea monitoring and 100% 3rd party dockside validation. This information comes directly from the fishery and species stock assessment meeting the SG100 for these two components.

For bocaccio, it is likely that imposing limits on take has a positive impact on these species. DFO has introduced a bocaccio rebuilding plan consistent within its Precautionary Approach Framework. Recovery is expected to be slow, however, and there is uncertainty in the fishing mortality from other fisheries including the

salmon troll fishery the recreational fishery. Steps to enumerate take in these fisheries are underway, but results are forthcoming. This meets the SG80 for

Justificat bocaccio, but not the SG100. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the

that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y There is clear evidence that the strategy to protect lingcod, bocaccio and canary rockfish from overfishing is being implemented successfully from DFO catch statistics that indicate that the halibut fishery (and all other commercial

groundfish fisheries) remains well below the recommended TAC (usually only 50 to 60% of the TAC is reached in the halibut fishery). Size limits in the lingcod catch are also respected. This is verified through the 100% dockside and 100% at-sea

Justification monitoring and auditing meeting the SG100. d There is some evidence that

the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? N for some components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 131 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species The objective of the lingcod strategy is to maintain the stock within the ‘healthy’ zone. According to the last outside-stock stock assessment (King et al, 2011), all four outside management units are in the healthy zone, two being with a high degree of confidence.

Canary rockfish have a strategy in place and DFO catch statistics indicate that the halibut fishery (and all other commercial groundfish fisheries) are well below the recommended TAC. The last stock assessment (Stanley and Starr, 2009) indicated that canary rockfish are also in the healthy zone.

Bocaccio catch has been significantly reduced in recent years, mainly due to a strategy implemented in the commercial trawl fishery. In 2005 the trawl fleet voluntarily stopped targeting bocaccio and, as a result, the incidental catch of bocaccio decreased from 200-300 mt/y to 120-150 mt/y for all sectors. A more

aggressive strategy to reduce bocaccio mortalities to 74 mt/y was put in place in 2013; but, it has only just been implemented and it has not been shown to be working yet. This scoring issue is met at the SG100 for lingcod and canary rockfish

Justification but not bocaccio. 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? Y Y Y Some spiny dogfish, a small shark, are retained in the halibut fishery. Fishery regulations stipulate that sharks carcasses must be retained in addition to fins. The

number of fins must match with the number of shark carcasses. There have been no violations of this regulation in the halibut fishery and with 100% dockside validation of landings, there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not

Justification taking place in the halibut fishery. King JR, McAllister M, Holt KR, Starr PJ. 2011. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) stock assessment and yield advice for outside stocks in British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Working Paper 2011/P03.

References DFO, 2014. 2014/2015 Rockfish by Hook and Line (Outside ZN) Commercial Harvest Plan, Appendix 5. Stanley, R.D. and Starr P.J. 2009. Stock assessment update for British Columbia Canary Rockfish. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Response. Pp 19. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/ScR- RS/2009/2009_019_E.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 132 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 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 Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species

amount of main available on the and the consequences for the retained species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. retained species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? NA (no main species) NA (no main species) N for some components

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species via 100% EM and 100% dockside validation in the halibut as well as the other groundfish fisheries. However, only species with stock assessments have quantitative information on the consequences of fishing on the stock. Lingcod have a recent stock assessment that evaluates fishing mortality influence on the stock (King et al, 2011). For bocaccio and canary rockfish, the consequences of catching these species are known and a mitigating strategy is in place. Canary rockfish were found to be in the healthy zone (Stanley and Starr 2009) in the last stock assessment, whereas bocaccio are still in the critical zone (DFO 2012a). More information on fishery removals from the salmon troll and recreational fisheries

will reduce uncertainty in the bocaccio assessment. It is to be determined whether the strategy is working and what the consequences are for these bocaccio. The fishery easily meets the SG100 for lingcod and canary rockfish, and the SG80 for

Justification bocaccio. b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate

qualitatively assess outcome status with outcome status with a high outcome status with respect to biologically degree of certainty. respect to biologically based limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Y Y for one minor component and N for two minor components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 133 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Information on total removals and discards for retained species is available through 100% at-sea monitoring and 100% dockside validation. Life history parameters including natural mortality, fecundity and other population dynamics are understood to a degree to determine the outcome status of all retained species, but information gaps do exist that decrease the certainty of the assessment outcomes. These include catch at age for some areas and species, how

improvements in technology affect CPUE (tech-creep) and other parameters. There are some species management units where this is very well understood (lingcod in 3D and 5CDE (King et al, 2011)). The fishery easily meets the SG80, but

Justification the SG100 only for lingcod. c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage

measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate main retained species. manage main retained with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? NA (no main species) NA (no main species) N Strategies for lingcod include a TAC, access to IVQ, a minimum size limit, seasonal closures and thorough monitoring of fishing activity. These are designed to work together to maintain the stock in the healthy zone (>0.8BMSY). To determine whether the stock is meeting its objective, stock assessments are completed with associated harvest advice. The stock assessments for lingcod support the notion that the strategy is working, but due to limitations in some information parameters such as tech-creep, uncertainties about natural mortality and others, the stock assessment results do not all meet the 90%CI.

It remains to be seen how reductions in catch from the halibut fishery will improve canary rockfish and bocaccio populations (Stanley and Starr, 2009; DFO 2012a).

Justification Therefore, the SG80 is met, but not the SG100 for this scoring issue. d Sufficient data Monitoring of retained species continue to be is conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk level to all retained species. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator

score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost strategy) Met? Y Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 134 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species In addition to the excellent data that is acquired from monitoring the fishery directly, annual surveys for species abundance are also conducted through fishery independent trawl and line surveys. Several life history parameters including size,

age, maturity, sex and movement are also carried out. All of this relevant information is incorporated into stock assessments for retained species which provides enough monitoring to clue managers to when there may be an issue even

Justification in the interim between full stock assessments. This meets the SG100. King JR, McAllister M, Holt KR, Starr PJ. 2011. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) stock assessment and yield advice for outside stocks in British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Working Paper 2011/P03.

DFO. 2012a. Stock assessment update for Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Report References 2012/059. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR- AS/2012/2012_059-eng.pdf

Stanley, R.D. and Starr P.J. 2009. Stock assessment update for British Columbia Canary Rockfish. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Response. Pp 19. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/ScR- RS/2009/2009_019_E.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 135 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 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? Y Y N In the last two fishery years (2011/12 and 2012/13) spiny dogfish were more often discarded than retained in the halibut fishery, though some retention does still occur (retained to released ratio 0.2:1 in 2011/12 and 0.4:1 in 2012/13). Spiny dogfish are therefore considered a main bycatch species, as they averaged above 5% of the fishery by weight in the last 6 fishing years (2008-2013). They also possess vulnerable life history traits and migratory behavior that may challenge static TACs.

Big skates and longnose skates were also considered in the assessment, but, encounters with the halibut fishery are not enough to meet the ‘main’ criteria (average of 1.0% and 2.7% of the fishery respectively years 2008-2013); they are considered as a minor bycatch species due to life history parameters, and therefore relevant to scoring only at the SG 100 level.

Spiny dogfish in the Pacific are now considered to be a separate species from their cousins in the Atlantic. The Pacific spiny dogfish are also considered for stock assessment and management purposes to be two discrete stocks based on tagging studies (McFarlane and King, 2009); an inside Georges Strait stock and an outside stock that ranges from the Gulf of Alaska to Baja California. The outside stock is encountered by the halibut fishery. The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2010 (Gallucci et al, 2011). This stock was also MSC certified in 201143. Gallucci et al used two different models in the assessment, a generalized Schaefer and a Pella-Tomlinson surplus production model. Each model produced different results. In both modelling scenarios, the assessment reports stock status in terms of the Precautionary Approach and determined that outside spiny dogfish are in the ‘healthy zone’ (>0.8BMSY). In fact, populations were found to be 1.64BMSY and 1.48BMSY (depending on the model used). There were limits in the data, however, with main uncertainties including variation in CPUE due to changing rates of discarding, patchy distribution and also length data missing from some of the data used. There were also concerns of historic underreporting in the

troll and gillnet fisheries (DFO, 2010). The next published stock assessments may show reduced uncertainties, but until that time, the SG80 but not the SG100 is met.

Justification

43 Spiny dogfish MSC information available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british-columbia-spiny-dogfish

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 136 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Other bycatch species, such as the big skate and longnose skate, are also monitored. Relative abundance indices are available from various surveys such as the IPHC longline survey and DFO trawl surveys to determine whether there are changes in overall abundance. The skates recently underwent a stock assessment which has been peer reviewed (King et al 2014 and DFO 2014. Preliminary results indicate that big skate and longnose mortalities due to fishing have been below the calculated maximum catch-MSY, but the science advice in the assessment notes that “the Catch-MSY approach does not include information about recruitment, selectivity or any age-structured effects.” Consequently, setting catch limits based on this approach could result in fishing mortality rates that may be inappropriate in any particular year. While best available practice, methods preclude a high degree of certainty that big skate are within limits. The SG80 but not the SG100 is met for skates.

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? NA NA Spiny dogfish are not considered to be outside biologically based limits. Populations were found to be 1.64BMSY and 1.48BMSY (depending on the model used) in Galluchi et al, 2011. If they were out of biologically based limits, DFO has

management measures in place which include a TAC and the IVQ option so that wastage does not occur. To ensure that the TAC is not exceeded, 100% dockside validation and 100% at sea monitoring accounts for take in commercial groundfish

Justification hook & line, trap and trawl fisheries. 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? Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 137 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups There will be more recent information on current stock status of outside spiny dogfish once the next stock assessment is complete (scheduled for 2015). The last stock assessment was completed in 2010 (Gallucci et al, 2011). The resulting SAR notes that there were no immediate concerns for stock status falling into the critical zone of the PA within the next 5 years at current harvest rates (DFO, 2010). They are managed with a TAC that is reviewed annually in the interim which is expected to maintain stocks in biologically based limits.

Skates are a minor component of the halibut bycatch, but are sensitive to overfishing due to slow growth (age at first maturity) and low fecundity (Gertseva, 2009). Although more specific harvest control advice is not available, DFO has already implemented a partial strategy to protect skates from over fishing. This

includes trip limits and making skates a ‘testable’ species so that skate catch is monitored more rigorously at a cost to industry thereby discouraging mis- reporting. There have been reductions in the number of skates retained in the last

Justification few years across all sectors. Gallucci, V., Taylor, I., King, J., McFarlane, G., and McPhie, R. 2011. Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Assessment and Catch Recommendations for 2010. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2011/034.

Gertseva VV. 2009. The population dynamics of the longnose skate, Raja rhina, in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish Res 95(2-3):146-153.

McFarlane, G. A. and J. R. King. 2009. Movement patterns of spiny dogfish within the Strait of Georgia. Pages 77–87 in V. F. Gallucci, G. A. McFarlane, and G. G. Bargmann, editors. References Biology and management of spiny dogfish sharks. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

DFO. 2010. Assessment of Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in British Columbia in 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/057.

DFO. 2014. Big skate (Raja binoculata) and Longnose skate (R. rhina) stock assessments for British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/027. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/mpo-dfo/Fs70-6-2014-027-eng.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 138 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 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 ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Trip limits for skates have kept big skate and longnose skate catches below the calculated maximum catch-MSY. Survey indices do not show population trends either up or down for big skates. Survey indices for longnose skate indicated that there was no trend in the H+L survey, and a declining trend in the trawl survey (DFO 2014).

Spiny dogfish are protected from shark-fining by DFO regulation requiring sharks to be landed with fins attached.

Removals of spiny dogfish are regulated with a TAC and IVQ to prevent overages and wastage. Depending on the model used, different harvest advice was offered (Gallucci et al, 2011). The yield limit derived from the Schaefer model was 5,964 mt, while the limit derived from the Pella-Tomlinson model was 10,087 mt (Gallucci et al, 2011). The TAC is set annually for the migratory outside stock. In 2011/12 it was 7,282mt and 6,942mt. Catches for the last several years have been well below limits, which are allocated more or less a 30:70 split between the hook

and line and trawl fisheries respectively. Total TAC remains more or less at 14,000 metric tons for both fisheries combined. As discussed above, there are uncertainties in the migratory outside stock assessment that will be addressed in

Justification the outside stock assessment scheduled for 2015. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species

experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species

Guidepost fisheries/species). involved.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 139 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? Y Y N There is some objective basis for confidence that the TAC, and the option for IVQ are likely to work for spiny dogfish because they limit the amount of take from fishing and limit wastage. There is also objective, verifiable evidence from catch accounting that harvest levels are below the recommended TAC. The same may be said for skates as trip limits and catch accounting are also in place. Management measures to protect sharks from finning are in place and effective. These measures are largely best practice towards any potential future incentive to fin, as shark finning has not been a common practice in BC.

The SG80 is considered met. Given the migratory nature of the stock and associated management challenges, as well as the need for a current stock assessment on the outside migratory stock, there is not yet a high degree of

Justification confidence that the strategy will work, associated with the SG100. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the

that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y It is clear that the TAC for spiny dogfish and skate trip limits are being adhered to and catches are well below the TAC for spiny dogfish and skate trip limits. It is also clear that shark finning is not occurring. With the 100% dockside validation and at- sea observer coverage (electronic monitoring included), the SG100 is met for this

Justification scoring issue. d There is some evidence that

the strategy is achieving its overall objective. depost Gui Met? Y for one component and N for two components For spiny dogfish, status is in the healthy zone according to the last stock assessment (Gallucci et al, 2011) and catch is also below the lower limit reference with an accounting system that allows agile real time management responses indicating that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. For skates, 2014 Science advice noted that “assessment methods could not

provide reliable estimates of biomass, preventing evaluation of current and future stock status relative to reference points,” suggesting that while best practice and full transparency are in place, management remains challenged by methodological

Justification constraints, despite full efforts to conduct stock assessment. Gallucci, V., Taylor, I., King, J., McFarlane, G., and McPhie, R. 2011. Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Assessment and Catch Recommendations for 2010. Department of Fisheries References and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2011/034.

DFO. 2014. Big skate (Raja binoculata) and Longnose skate (R. rhina) stock assessments for British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/027.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 140 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 141 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species and

amount of main available on the the consequences for the bycatch species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. bycatch species taken

Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y Y All catches and discards are monitored with either on-board or electronic monitoring for every trip. Video is audited by an independent 3rd party and compared with logbooks. Fishers are penalized when logbooks and video do not match. Catch accounting is so thorough that the number of individual specimens can be estimated. This meets the SG100 for bycatch. Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate

understand outcome outcome status with outcome status with respect to status with respect to respect to biologically biologically based limits with a biologically based based limits. high degree of certainty.

Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N Several parameters are used other than commercial catch statistics to determine stock status including life history traits and data from fishery independent surveys (both trawl, trap and hook & line). Both spiny dogfish and skates have had considerable research completed on aging, fecundity, and size at maturity, but due

to the difficulties in sampling and determining the correct metrics in cartilaginous fishes, research is ongoing (Gertseva 2009; Gallucci et al, 2011). The next published stock assessments may show reduced uncertainties, but until that time,

Justification the SG80 but not the SG100 is met. c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage

measures to manage partial strategy to bycatch species, and evaluate bycatch. manage main bycatch with a high degree of certainty

depost species. whether the strategy is

Gui achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y for one component N for the other two minor components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 142 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch To adequately support management strategies for bycatch species, information on current stock status, life history parameters that affect population growth rates, natural mortality and removals from fishing activity must be known. This information is available for spiny dogfish and some information is available for skates. For skates, more uncertainty exists in the assessment (Martell and Froese, 2012). A protective strategy is already in place for skates, which limits the amount of take (trip limits) and financial disincentives by making skates ‘testable’ species in the logbook audit process at cost to industry. The SG80 is met, but not the SG100 until a big skate stock assessment is available that estimates on how the harvest control rules are working are better understood.

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

scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the

Guidepost strategy). Met? Y Y As discussed above, catch accounting in British Columbia is likely some of the most rigorous in the world. With either on-board or video monitoring of 100% of trips and 100% dockside validation and considerable cost to industry for not accurately reporting, monitoring of fishery removals of bycatch species is excellent. There will

be some changes in the funding structure of the observer program in the coming years, as DFO has undergone cuts in financing. The observer program will continue, however, but will be paid for by industry. This is not anticipated to affect

Justification the quality of the information. Martell, S., and R. Froese. 2012. A simple method for estimating MSY from catch and resilience. Fish and Fisheries. (DOI: 10.11/j.467 – 2979.2012.00485.x

Gallucci, V., Taylor, I., King, J., McFarlane, G., and McPhie, R. 2011. Spiny Dogfish References (Squalus acanthias) Assessment and Catch Recommendations for 2010. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2011/034.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 143 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of national and within limits of national and international international national and requirements for protection of

requirements for international ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 144 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Because of the rigorous catch accounting in the BC groundfish fisheries, the effects of the hook and line fishery for halibut can be quantified with high accuracy in almost real time. Catch is audited for every landing. For quota managed species considered ETP, the national requirement is met by adhering to a total allowable catch for all sectors mediated by IVQ and trip limits. There is a requirement to develop a management plan within 5 years of for any species listed on SARA. Catch amounts are deducted upon landing from the quota.

For rougheye and yelloweye rockfish, the hook and line fishery take is consistently less than the recommended TAC (~75%). Although updated stock assessments for both species would facilitate better understanding of the appropriateness of the TACs, remaining under the TAC is indeed the national requirement. Additional international requirements to not apply to these species. Catch auditing assures a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within national and international requirements for protection of quota managed ETP fishes meeting the SG100.

For non-quota managed ETP fishes such as green sturgeon and longspine thornyhead, the national requirement is considered met by adhering to trip limits (longspine thornyhead) or by way of avoiding interactions by not fishing near where ETP species are likely to be (as in the case of green sturgeon). The green sturgeon management plan is still in development, but as the fishery does not interact with this species, no condition is raised against the halibut fishery. Longspine thornyhead do have a management plan (DFO 2011e). There have been reductions in the number of longspine thornyheads hooked by the fishery such that there are very few (0 to 13 individuals since 2009). The SG100 is met for non- quota managed fishes.

ETP sharks, which include the basking shark, bluntnose six-gill shark and tope shark, are “species of interest” and are required to be released in a manner that does the individual the least harm. Catch accounting ensures that the number of interactions is recorded so that management has an opportunity to invoke additional restrictions if needed. National goals are to at least maintain populations at current levels and not hinder recovery (DFO 2007b). ETP Sharks, face several non-fishery related challenges to recovery including prey availability, pollution, and low numbers due to previous fisheries that are now prohibited (COSEWIC 2007a&b). Shark finning is also prohibited. Because interactions are recorded, validated and DFO action thresholds have not been triggered, there is a high degree of certainty that the fishery effects are within limits of national and international requirements for ETP sharks meeting the SG100.

ETP Marine mammals include nine whale species, stellar sea lions and sea otters. Sea otters are protected from hunting and poaching, but also do not occur off

Justification shore where halibut fishing takes place (DFO 2014a).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 145 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 There were no recorded interactions with stellar sea lions, though one harbor seal interaction was reported. Whales are prohibited from take as are sea birds and sea turtles. Fishers follow recommended guidelines to avoid areas where “bottlenecking” occurs in BC waterways during annual whale migration periods to reduce the number of vessel strikes to marine mammals. No vessel strikes from the halibut fishery were reported in the period 2008 to 2013. Sea bird encounters are also recorded. The fishery recorded some albatross encounters, but no interactions with short-tailed albatross were reported in the period 2008 to 2013. Additionally, according to IPHC survey seabird observation data for 2002-2012, no short-tailed albatross were seen in Canada (Area 2B) prior to 2011 (Geernaert, 2011). In 2011, one of the 24 short-tailed albatross sighted on the surveys was seen in Area 2B (off the northern end of Haida Gwaii). In 2012, of the 17 Short-tailed albatross observed on the surveys, only three were sighted in Canada, in Queen Charlotte Sound. No pink footed shearwaters were recorded having interactions with the halibut fishery and the shearwater recovery plan cites the likelihood of risk from fisheries interactions as “low”: therefore there is no outcome associated risk to pink footed shearwaters from the fishery. The fishery is

considered to meet the SG100 for this scoring issue. b Known direct effects Direct effects are There is a high degree of

are unlikely to create highly unlikely to confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts create unacceptable significant detrimental direct to ETP species. impacts to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y most but not all components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 146 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 direct effects of the fishery on quota and non-quota managed fishes are removals. TACs and catch limits are set so that it is unlikely that fishing will hinder species recovery by employing the precautionary approach under the sustainable fisheries framework (meeting the SG60). Removals of ETP quota species (Rougheye and Yelloweye rockfishes) by the halibut fishery are much lower than in other fisheries by regulation such that less than 20% of the total TAC is allocated to the hook-and-line fishery. Less than 80% of the hook-and-line allocated TAC for both species is taken. The total removals of quota managed ETP species by the halibut fishery is therefore a small proportion of the overall allowable catch. Removal non-quota ETP species (longspine thorny heads and green sturgeon) rates are currently low to non-existent. For example, longspine thornyheads take has been reduced greatly since 2008 (197 in 2008 and 0 to 13 individuals 2009- 2013). No green sturgeon were reported in the 5 years evaluated. This scoring component meets the SG100 for both quota and non-quota managed ETP fishes.

For ETP sharks which include basking sharks, bluntnose six-gill sharks and tope sharks, direct effects are from entanglement when sharks interact with the hook- and-line gear. Sharks may not be retained and shark finning does not occur based on 100% EM and dockside validation. Take in the hook and line fishery may be considered low for basking sharks (less than one per season) and tope sharks (1 to 25 tope sharks per season), and bluntnose sixgill sharks (declining since 2008 to about 25 per year). There are some years, however when interactions increase, such as in 2012/13 when 105 individual tope sharks were released. Absolute ETP shark abundance is difficult to estimate for rare species. The direct effects of the halibut fishery itself are considered highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP sharks, but without more certainty around absolute population sizes the SG80 but not the SG100 is considered met.

Direct effects from the fishery for whales are vessel strikes and gear entanglement (DFO 2007; DFO 2011c). There is much less gear being used in the fishery than historically, so it is likely that average annual harm has been greatly reduced in the last 15 years. Halibut fishing takes place in the same environment that whales migrate and feed. Encounters are likely rare with the small halibut fleet and there

were no interactions in the period 2008 to 2013. Information was provided for sea turtles (no interactions), short-tailed albatross (no interactions), and pink footed shearwaters (no interactions). Direct effects on these species are therefore

Justification considered to meet the SG100 where no interactions have been recorded. 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

Guidepost unacceptable impacts. species. Met? Y Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 147 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Indirect effects of the fishery may be considered types of pollution (diesel leakages, noise pollution, offal release attracting opportunistic feeders which may change behavior). These types of considerations are addressed in the IFMP (DFO 2013a) and in specific species recovery plans (DFO 2011b; DFO 2012b; DFO 2011e, DFO 2012f; Environment Canada 2008). There are excellent fishing activity records through catch accounting and hail-out/hail-in requirements, and while activities

considered to be indirect effects are less well monitored there is a high degree of confidence that any detrimental effects on ETP species by the fishery are not likely to be at a level that causes serious or irreversible harm, or that hinder recovery.

Justification The SG100 is met for this scoring issue. COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger in Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_canary_rockfish_0808_e.pdf

COSEWIC. 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and update on status Report for Basking Shark, Cetorhinus maximus, in Canada. COSEWIC Secreatariat, Environment Canada.

COSEWIC. 2007b. Status Report-Bluntnose Sixgill Shark in Canada. COSEWIC Secreatariat, Environment Canada.

DFO. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. iv + 8 pp. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/ec/En3-4-36-2007E.pdf

References DFO. 2007a. National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Ottawa. March. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa-seabirds-eng.htm

DFO. 2007b. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa- sharks_e.pdf

DFO. 2007c. Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment. Web site: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/im-gi/seismic-sismique/pdf/statement- enonce_e.pdf

DFO. 2011a. Gentle Giants: In Search of Basking Sharks in Canada's Pacific Waters. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/article/2011/10-25- 11-eng.html DFO. 2011c. Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 148 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 51 pp.

DFO. 2011e. Management Plan for the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish Complex (Sebastes aleutianus and S. melanostictus) and Longspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi+ 49 pp. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_sebastes_sebastolobe_ rockfish_thornyhead_0212_eng.pdf

DFO. 2012. Canada’s Progress Report on the Implementation of Key Actions Taken Pursuant to the National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Ottawa. July. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa- pan/npoa-pan/seabirds-oiseauxmer-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012c. Information relevant to the assessment of critical habitat for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales in British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/078. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR- AS/2011/2011_078-eng.pdf

DFO. 2012f. Management Plan for the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in cnada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. iv+37pp.

DFO. 2013a. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish. Pp14. Available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2013/ground- fond/ground-fond-2013-eng.pdf

DFO. 2013f. Draft Partial Action Plan for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, B. borealis, and Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 23 pp. http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/sara-lep/lgwhale-gdbaleine/docs/action-eng.pdf

DFO. 2014a. Management Plan for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 50 pp.

Environment Canada. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) and the Pink-footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vii + 46 pp.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 149 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_short_tailed_albatross_ and_pink_footed_shearwater_final_0408_e.pdf

Schnute, J.T., Olsen, N., and Haigh, R. 1999. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 99/184. Pp. 33 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 150 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP 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 managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the requirements for the national and protection of ETP species.

protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y one component, N for others For quota ETP species (rougheye and yelloweye rockfish), the strategy includes a TAC, IVQ to prevent overages/wastage, and 100% verified catch information (through EM and dockside monitoring). For non-quota species the same rigor applies to monitoring, but there are trip limits instead of quota. Sharks are a ‘species of interest’ and may trigger additional video review at cost to industry. Other interactions are recorded on logbooks that are validated by an independent third party. The strategy easily meets national and international requirements, but the fishery has not adopted additional measures beyond national and international requirements and therefore meets the SG80 for these scoring components.

In addition to the extensive monitoring that provides evidence that the fishery does not have unacceptable impacts on ETP birds, the Pacific halibut fleet was one of the first to voluntarily use tori lines or other bird deterring devices. Because of this early adoption of bird deterring devices the fishery is considered to have

achieved above national requirements and international requirements for ETP birds (SG100).

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 151 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP 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 plausible argument work, based on involved, and a quantitative (e.g., general information directly analysis supports high

experience, theory or about the fishery confidence that the strategy comparison with and/or the species will work. similar involved.

Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y N for some N for some components components

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 152 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. Many of the ETP species are long-lived, have late maturity, low fecundity and population status is difficult to determine (COSEWIC 2005; Lockyer and Martin 1983; Whitehead 2002; Magnuson-Ford et al, 2009). Even though the strategies have been in place for many years, it will take several decades to see increases with high confidence for some populations.

There have, however, been some recoveries in short-tailed albatross populations that have been observed (BirdLife International, 2012). Protecting several of the ETP species (sharks, sea birds, marine mammals including whales and otters) from directed exploitation has indeed been shown to increase populations. These protections have been shown to work for these species in the past (DFO 2013f). In the current era, species face some additional challenges from a changing environment (temperature and pH), pollution, prey availability and stochastic events (on breeding colonies for sea birds) (DFO 2013f, BirdLife International 2012; DFO 2007b). Quantitative analysis has not been completed for all ETP species, but prohibition from directed fisheries/hunting has certainly been effective. The SG80 but not the SG100 is met for these scoring components.

For and Rougheye rockfish (Types I and II), there is not an objective basis for confidence that the current strategy (TAC limiting catch), will work based on information directly about the species involved (SG 80) because there has not been a stock assessment since 1998. Rougheye rockfish currently have a truncated age structure, suggesting a doubling of mortality. Current catches exceed upper PSARC-reviewed limits agreed after the last assessment from 1998. This work by Schnute et al (1999) framed as “how many fish can safely be caught” cited a yield range of 520 to 950mt for all fisheries. After integration, the TAC was increased to 1,140mt. The main management measure of the strategy as it applies to rougheye (overall TAC) is therefore higher than the last recommended yield range and a stock assessment needed to increase confidence that the TAC is currently still appropriate is still to be conducted. Furthermore, two species/genotypes were identified ~2005, and abundance and limits relevant to these two types have not been assessed/critically considered by DFO. The next stock assessment is currently scheduled for 2017 (~20 years between assessments) (See Appendix 1.1). Therefore, this scoring element does not currently meet the SG 80. The fishery is currently within limits, taking only 81% of the allocated TAC for rougheye, so does meet the SG80 on the relevant outcome performance indicator 2.3.1, but not the SG80 for 2.3.2b.

For Yelloweye rockfish, the outside stock is also overdue for a stock assessment, which was scheduled to occur in 2013. (The fishery mainly interacts with the

outside stock). The revised schedule projects assessment for September 2015 (See Appendix 1.1) and data have been compiled in preparation. Yelloweye was listed in 2011 as Species of Special Concern on SARA, triggering a national requirement

Justification for DFO to develop a management plan within 5 years, due in 2016.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 153 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. It is currently unclear that the main management measure of the strategy as it applies to yelloweye (overall TAC) may not be totally appropriate for the current state of the stock given outdated stock assessment for a species of special concern and one that is at risk of overfishing. Therefore, this scoring element does not currently meet the SG 80 from a management perspective. (The fishery is currently within limits, taking only 75% of the allocated TAC for yelloweye, so does meet the SG80 on the relevant outcome performance indicator). A condition is therefore raised based on the need to use current information to inform the main management measures within the overall integrated groundfish

strategy, for these ETP rockfish. c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the

the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y With the third-party evaluation of video footage on all trips and 100% dockside

monitoring, and no indication that there have been grievous offenses with any frequency regarding ETP species (none reported in the last 5 years regarding non- quota ETP species, for example), the SG100 is considered met. Justification d There is evidence that the

strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? N As discussed above, many of the ETP species are long-lived, have low fecundity and are difficult to monitor. Some steps toward studies using tagging and genetic analysis have been undertaken to better understand population dynamics (sharks,

whales, otters) (DFO 2007b; DFO 2010a; DFO 2011e; DFO 2012f; DFO 2013f; DFO 2014a). It is clear that the strategies have been implemented, but it may take several decades before then we may see that the strategies are achieving their

Justification objectives. COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger in Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. BirdLife International 2012. Phoebastria albatrus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2 References DFO. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. iv + 8 pp. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/ec/En3-4-36-2007E.pdf

DFO. 2007a. National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 154 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. in Longline Fisheries. Ottawa. March. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa-seabirds-eng.htm

DFO. 2007b. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/npoa-pan/npoa- sharks_e.pdf DFO. 2010a. Management Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) in Canada [Final]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi + 69 pp. DFO. 2011e. Management Plan for the Rougheye/Blackspotted Rockfish Complex (Sebastes aleutianus and S. melanostictus) and Longspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi+ 49 pp. DFO. 2012f. Management Plan for the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. iv+37pp. DFO. 2013f. Draft Partial Action Plan for Blue, Fin, Sei and North Pacific Right Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, B. borealis, and Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 23 pp. DFO. 2014a. Management Plan for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 50 pp. Lockyer, C. and A.R. Martin. 1983. "The sei whale off western Iceland. II. Age, growth and reproduction". Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 33: 465–476. Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304 Magnuson-Ford, K., Ingram, T., Redding, D.W., and Mooers, A.O. 2009. Rockfish (Sebastes) that are evolutionarily isolated are also large, morphologically distinctive and vulnerable to overfishing. Biol. Conserv., 142. pp 1787-1796.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

1 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): (2.3.2b) The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for yelloweye and rougheye rockfishes will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 155 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3

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

mortality of ETP impact of fishing to be species. quantitatively estimated for ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N Sufficient information is known to estimate fishery related mortalities for both quota and non-quota ETP fishes. For the stock assessments that are completed, there is a high degree of certainty relating to fishing impacts on the stocks.

For ETP sharks, there is sufficient information to determine the level of impact of the fishery to obtain numbers of sharks impacted by species. There is still more information that is being gathered to get a better indication of overall population status from tagging and genetics studies currently underway (DFO 2012f).

Other marine mammal, seabird and sea turtle interactions were provided during the audit. It was clear that these data are collected and can be queried from the observer database to estimate the impact of hook and line fishing on these species.

The SG80 is considered met for all scoring components, but more information is needed to estimate outcome status for some species.

Justification b Information is Information is Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly sufficient to determine information is available on the understand the impact whether the fishery magnitude of all impacts,

of the fishery on ETP may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and the species. protection and consequences for the status of recovery of the ETP ETP species.

Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 156 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Because of the rigorous monitoring of the groundfish fisheries, there is excellent information on interactions with ETP species from the fishery. Information is accurate and verifiable through video and dockside monitoring meeting the

Justificatio n SG100. c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support sufficient to measure support a comprehensive measures to manage trends and support a strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP full strategy to manage minimize mortality and injury

species. impacts on ETP of ETP species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N For ETP fishes (quota and non-quota) fishery independent surveys over time provide an indication of stock outcome or status with some caveats for uncertainties in catchability, depth range of the surveys and similar data limitations. Information is adequate to meet the SG80, but misses the SG100 not for lack of survey data, but due to the difficulties in sampling for deep water species such as longspine thornyheads. Other species with stock assessments may meet the SG100 once they are complete (yelloweye), but this will not be evident until they are published.

Information on the trends in shark status is opportunistic from surveys and study results to determine relatedness and migration will be forthcoming. Knowing the impacts that fisheries have due to direct impacts is enough to support the no-take strategy and to understand some aspects of stock trends, but not with a high degree of certainty, and in the absence of a stock assessment (scheduled for 2017). The SG80 but not the SG 100 is met for ETP sharks, which may change when assessment results are available after the 2017 assessments.

For whales, turtles, seabirds and other marine mammals, several organizations are monitoring and tracking populations. The sightings database is a useful tool in understanding overall densities and helps scientists determine where pods or individuals consistently feed. The database may inform ocean use planning and where MPAs may be the most effective, or inform when seasonal closures on

“bottleneck zones” will be most effective. Encounter rates for ETP species are often rare, particularly those monitored opportunistically. For populations that do not have dedicated research surveys it is challenging to determine with a high

Justification degree of certainty when a strategy is achieving its objectives. DFO. 2013b. British Columbia Groundfish Fisheries and Their Investigations in 2012: pp 37 References DFO. 2012f. Management Plan for the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. iv+37pp.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 157 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered PI 2.4.1 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 irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm.

Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 158 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered PI 2.4.1 on a regional or bioregional basis, and function There are several habitat types to consider as scoring elements for the habitat indicators. These are corals/sponges, seamounts, continental slope features and abyssal features. Evaluating fishing effort location relative to protected areas and considering the nature of longline gear as the most habitat affecting of the hook and line types, the fishery is found to meet the SG80 for all habitat types.

The longline fleet has recently decreased the amount of gear being deployed. Of the 435 licensed vessels, only 155 actively fish. This is compared with 274 active vessels 15 years ago. A reduction in gear deployed is associated with less impacts (Hare, 2012). There are several areas that are closed to fishing or have limited fishing access to protect sensitive habitat types including rare glass sponges including the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and the Haida Heritage Site (DFO 2013a).

Rockfish Closure Areas, although not specific to the halibut fleet offer protections to ecologically important areas such as seamounts. The Gaan Kinghlas-Bowie Seamount is also an MPA. Most fishing occurs near the continental slope. By nature of the gear being mostly static (though inclement weather may cause gear to move) (DFO, 2013d), the ‘footprint’ is considered small compared with the total available continental slope habitat. Halibut do not generally occur in the deep abyssal plains near hydrothermal vents so fishing does not typically occur there.

The Endeavour Hydrothermal Vent MPA is in place to protect these unique features. It may be highly likely that fishing for halibut does not cause serious or

irreversible harm to most of these habitat types. Updated and higher resolution fishing maps relative to habitat features are currently being developed. With this additional evidence, the fishery may meet the SG100, but not at this time for some

Justification of the most vulnerable features, such as the glass sponges and cold water corals. DFO. 2013d. Identification and evaluation of biological effects and impacts of sediment to sponge communities in Hecate Strait. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/062. References Evaluating fishing effort spatial information from the Atlas of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Hare, S.R. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2011. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2011:91-194. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 159 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types 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

Guidepost performance or above. Met? Y Y N The strategies used in the hook and line fisheries, including the halibut fishery, to protect habitat focus on area closures, temporal closures and risk assessment for historic and “frontier” areas. As part of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, a Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas was developed. It ensures consistency between multiple policies including MPA connectivity and development, risk assessment, ETP species requirements and other ocean uses from other sectors. Most of the developed policy is aimed at reducing the fishery footprint of mobile gear, but some suggestions for fixed gear types have been put forward including reducing soak times between sets and only setting when surface conditions can ensure that fixed gear does not get pulled over sensitive habitat (DFO 2013g). Several of the more ‘charismatic’ habitat features such as the glass sponges and hydrothermal vents are afforded protections through closed areas.

Other areas are managed with at least a partial strategy with some closures (seamounts and continental slope features. As more protected areas come into force it will be more clear that the strategy for protecting all habitat types is in

Justification place. The SG80 is considered met. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the strategy work, based on that the partial strategy will work, based on plausible argument will work, based on information directly about the (e.g. general information directly fishery and/or habitats

experience, theory or about the fishery involved. comparison with and/or habitats similar involved.

Guidepost fisheries/habitats). Met? Y Y Y Closing areas to fishing, even if they have been fished before to allow them to recover is an effective management strategy (Jamieson and Davies, 2004; Kaiser et al, 2006). DFO considering the effectiveness of connectivity between MPAs also reduces risk to habitat types by careful spatial planning and resource impacts on habitats. The BC EEZ is rich in several resources with many industries interested in utilizing them. Spatial planning and monitoring is an effective tool for ensuring that the long term use of several resources. Several surveys have been completed

to test the impacts of fishing gear (DFO 2013g) as well as ROV surveys to understand changes over time have been conducted by DFO and more recently with PHMA in BC (methodology from Dr. Cox, Simon Fraser University). Regarding

Justification management measures, the fishery meets the SG100.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 160 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the

that the partial strategy strategy is being implemented is being implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Met? Y Y All groundfish vessels, whether fishing for halibut or other species are required to log several aspects of fishing activities including fishing location and details on sets. Information is transmitted from a GPS system. If the Electronic Monitoring system on the vessel (video and GPS) is not working, the fisher must cease fishing activity. Records from vessel activity are clear evidence that the strategies regarding fishing locations and adhering to spatial and temporal closures are being implemented successfully meeting the SG100.

Justification d There is some evidence that

the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? Y Many of the MPAs are designed to protect sensitive and rare glass sponges (Jamieson and Chew, 2002). Since their discovery about 15 years ago and their even more recent protection, several studies have been undertaken to better understand these unique systems (Stone et al, 2014; Kaiser et al 2006). It is clear that preventing damage from fishing gear is having a positive effect as these systems are largely intact.

Justification DFO. 2013g. Identification and evaluation of biological effects and impacts of sediment to sponge communities in Hecate Strait. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/062. Jamieson GS and L Chew. 2002. Hexactinellid Sponge Reefs: Areas of Interest as Marine Protected Areas in the North and Central Coast Areas. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res Doc 2002/122. http://www.acee- ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_21799/83896/Sponge_Reefs_Report.pdf

Jamieson, G.S. and Davies, H. 2004. State of Knowledge of Marine Habitats of Northern British Columbia., Research Document. 2004/009. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. References (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/ResDocs/habitat_03_e.htm

Jamieson, G.S., Pellegrin, N., and Jessen, S. 2006. Taxonomy and Zoogeography of Cold Water Corals in Explored Areas of Coastal British Columbia, Research Document. 2006/062. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2006/2006_062- eng.htm Kaiser MJ, KR Clarke, H Hinz, MCV Austen, PJ Somerfield, I Karakassis. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 311:

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 161 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types 1-14. Stone RP, KW Conway, DJ Csepp, JV Barrie. 2014. The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-AFSC-284. 41pp. http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-264.pdf

Stone RP, KW Conway, DJ Csepp, JV Barrie. 2014. The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-AFSC-284. 41pp. http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-264.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 162 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 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, The distribution of habitat understanding of the distribution and types is known over their types and distribution vulnerability of all main range, with particular attention of main habitats in the habitat types in the to the occurrence of vulnerable

area of the fishery. fishery are known at a habitat types. level of detail relevant to the scale and

Guidepost intensity of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y With advances in technology including side scan sonar, ROVs and GIS mapping as well as information sharing from other regions including the US, the BC EEZ benthos are well mapped (Stone et al, 2014; Kaiser et al, 2006). Information is always improving and there is still much to be discovered. The authors note in a recent impact study on gear types in sensitive areas (DFO 2013g) that resolution

will improve with more study particularly in areas that are open to fishing. The fishery easily meets the SG80. Fishing effort with substrate type maps have been generated by DFO (see figures 8 and 9). Areas of sponge and corals have been

Justification identified and largely protected with MPAs. This also meets the SG100. 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 been quantified fully. of the main impacts of of the fishery on gear use on the main habitat types to be habitats, including identified and there is spatial overlap of reliable information on

habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of

Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat are being investigated, but have not been quantified fully. Information from GIS on active fishing vessels, fishing activities (number of skates deployed, soak times) and pertinent oceanographic

data to inform magnitude of movement of fixed gear due to surface conditions is sufficient to meet the SG80. Baseline and ROV studies (DFO 2013g) as well as other further investigations using methodologies being developed by Simon Fraser

Justification University are currently underway may improve scores to SG100 eventually.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 163 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types c Sufficient data Changes in habitat continue to be distributions over time are collected to detect any measured. increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator

scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost measures). Met? Y N Several of the MPAs discussed above are relatively new or are in the process of

being implemented. Information on changes in outcome for these areas continues to be monitored by both DFO and industry initiatives. The SG80 is considered met at this time. As more information is available to compare to baseline data the SG100 may eventually be met. Justification DFO. 2013g. Identification and evaluation of biological effects and impacts of sediment to sponge communities in Hecate Strait. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/062. Kaiser MJ, KR Clarke, H Hinz, MCV Austen, PJ Somerfield, I Karakassis. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology References Progress Series. 311: 1-14. Stone RP, KW Conway, DJ Csepp, JV Barrie. 2014. The Boundary Reefs: Glass Sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellidae) Reefs on the International Border Between Canada and the United States. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-AFSC-284. 41pp.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 164 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a 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 a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N When evaluating the ecosystem performance indicators key elements refer largely to the connectivity of the target species and other removals and evaluating whether the prey/predator relationships are likely to be disrupted by fishing activity. Halibut are highly connected in the food web because their diet is highly varied. This means that removing halibut from the system at the current fishing rate will not have a large effect on any one prey item as connectivity is spread over many organisms (Gaichas and Francis, 2008). Juvenile halibut are potential prey items for several fishes including Pacific cod and even adult halibut. As adults, becoming prey is less frequent due to their shape, size and quick flight response. Other removals from non-target species have similar connectivity as halibut. Lingcod and spiny dogfish also have varied diets. They may be prey items for larger

sharks, but shark diets are typically varied also. The total removals are also relatively low particularly with the recent active vessel reduction. The halibut fishery has not been studied explicitly regarding ecosystem effects, so the SG80

Justification but not the SG100 is met.

References Gaichas, SK, Francis, RC. 2008. Network models for ecosystem-based fishery analysis: A review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1965-1982. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 165 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a 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? Y Y N Initiation of a Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) and planning for resource use began in 2008. A plan was released in 2013 and is currently being consulted on and finalized. The plan consolidates several existing resource use plans including the groundfish IFMP within which the halibut fishery impact is discussed, SFF utilizing the precautionary approach, protocols for bycatch

and encounter protocols for biotic benthic organisms. The plan also incorporates other and other marine related resource uses so that it is comprehensive in scope. Together, the strategy to meet the ecological needs of marine British Columbia

Justification use meet the SG80 and once finalized may meet the 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 and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The plan ecosystem so as to and measures are based on achieve the Ecosystem well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for development of a full strategy

that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious

Guidepost or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Through the SFF, to which the halibut fishery adheres, including bycatch protocols, coral/sponge encounter protocols, and limits on quota and non-quota species (through trip limits and TACs), seasonal and area closures to protect habitat and migratory animals the impacts of the fishery are certainly restrained to meet the

Justification outcome level of an SG80 in PI2.5.1.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 166 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function 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 (e.g., general (e.g., general the fishery/ecosystems

experience, theory or experience, theory or involved. comparison with comparison with similar similar

Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y Several aspects of the strategy to protect ecosystem components have been shown to be effective particularly for the halibut longline fishery (DFO, 2010b). These include catch and effort limits for target and non-target species, spatial and or temporal closures and aspects of the fishery, rockfish conservation areas, groundfish integration, and estimates of the impact of lost longline gear being included in the stock assessment for the directed species. This meets the SG100.

Justification d There is some evidence There is evidence that the that the measures measures are being

comprising the partial implemented successfully. strategy are being implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y With 100% EM monitoring including GPS and 100% dockside validation by third parties and no evidence of systematic compliance, there is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Justification DFO. 2010b. Potential Impacts of Fishing Gears (Excluding Mobile Bottom Contacting Gears) on Marine Habitats and Communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. References Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/003.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 167 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 to identify adequate to broadly the key elements of understand the key the ecosystem (e.g., elements of the trophic structure and ecosystem.

function, community composition, productivity pattern

Guidepost and biodiversity). Met? Y Y Scientists and managers actively seek information about several aspects of the ecosystem through annual fishery independent surveys, genetics and tagging studies. These include surveys on multiple species, pelagic surveys, benthic ROV surveys and oceanographic conditions. Information is also sufficient to identify key

linkages between predators and prey (Lucas et al, 2007; Gaichas and Francis, 2008). Information is improving all the time with greater resolution on habitat types and their functions through side scan sonar and ROV studies. The SG80 is

Justification easily met. 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. and have not been and some have been

Guidepost investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N The information on impacts of the fishery is available and is known to be accurate. Investigations regarding gear impacts on seafloor habitats are currently under detailed investigation, but are considered understood based on information from similar fisheries (DFO 2013c). Information on fishing location and duration are available were recently compiled into maps that also show bottom types.. This work is ongoing. The SG80 is considered met.

Justification 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 in the ecosystem are are understood.

Guidepost known. Met? Y Y

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 168 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Rigorous catch accounting informs managers and scientists of the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, retained and ETP species. The main functions of these

species within the ecosystem are understood, though some question remains on their total population size for some species (ETP sharks, for example). Their functions, however, are well understood. Information and understanding of the

Justification ecosystem component functions meet the SG100. d Sufficient information Sufficient information is 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. the ecosystem to be

Guidepost inferred. Met? Y N Certainly information on the impacts of the fishery can be inferred for several of the components impacted by the fishery including those that have regular stock assessments (lingcod) or where encounters are very low (ETP whales). Due to the difficulty in estimating the outcome status of some populations (ETP sharks) and more information on the substrate in fishing areas (currently under investigation with PHMA and Dr. Cox), not all impacts are well understood for all ecosystem components. The SG80 is considered met, but not the SG100 at this time.

Justification e Sufficient data Information is sufficient to continue to be support the development of collected to detect any strategies to manage increase in risk level ecosystem impacts. (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator

scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost measures). Met? Y Y Several surveys are conducted on the different components of the ecosystem (See above). Information on components of the ecosystem, and considering a wide array of marine resource users, DFO in conjunction with the eNGO community, fishing industry and other industries have created a Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Plan so that the sustainable use of the complex BC ecosystem can be enjoyed by many factions into the future. The plan has been developed and is currently under consultation.

Justification DFO. 2013c. Evaluation of proposed ecologically and biologically significant areas References in marine waters of British Columbia. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/075. Gaichas, SK, Francis, RC. 2008. Network models for ecosystem-based fishery

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 169 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

analysis: A review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1965-1982.

Lucas BG, S. Verrin, and R. Brown (Editors). 2007. Ecosystem Overview Report. Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2667. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Scoring Rationales for Principle 3

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1

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 national legal system national legal system legal system and binding and a framework for and organised and procedures governing cooperation with effective cooperation cooperation with other parties other parties, where with other parties, which delivers management necessary, to deliver where necessary, to outcomes consistent with MSC management deliver management Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and 2.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 170 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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. Two bodies provide science for and manage the halibut fishery: the IPHC and DFO. Both agencies operate under clear mandates to sustainably manage the fishery as well as the other ecosystem components relevant to the fishery consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The IPHC and DFO undertake consultations and facilitate cooperation between parties including between Canada and the US.

Consistent with MSC Principle 1, the IPHC performs assessments and basic research on the Pacific halibut stocks, sets total allowable catches (TACs) in 10 areas of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Canada and the US, and determines regulatory measures almost exclusively related to conservation issues (Casey et al. 1995). Some of the IPHC regulations apply generally to all halibut fishers; and other regulations apply specifically to commercial fishers, sport fishers, US Treaty Indian Tribes, Canadian Aboriginal groups, and those engaged in customary and traditional fishing. The Commission submits its recommended regulatory measures to and consults with the two governments for approval and fishers of both nations are required to observe the approved regulations.

Canada has responsibility for managing halibut fisheries within its EEZ and addressing domestic issues, such as allocations between national user groups (First Nations food, social and ceremonial, commercial and recreational)44 and management and regulatory measures regarding the conduct of fishing and enforcement. Fisheries science and management are under the jurisdiction of Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This includes the components in Principle 2, including undertaking other encountered species stock assessment and management (Retained, Bycatch and ETP) and utilizing the Precautionary Approach (PA) for these as well as protecting habitats and the ecosystem balance. Information on the Canada’s legal and regulatory framework governing the Canadian Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut can be found in Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2013).

The Canadian National Marine Conservation Area Act , the Canada Wildlife Act and other treaties, laws and policies are critical elements of the framework that governs the management system for the Canada Pacific halibut fishery. As noted in Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish, the Sustainable Fisheries Framework contains policies for adopting ecosystem-based and precautionary approaches to fisheries management (DFO, 2013).

Together, the IPHC and DFO have effectively managed the halibut fishery and the ecosystem in which it operates.

Justification

44 DFO (2013), Page 6 (Section 1.2.1), Page38.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 171 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 IPHC has a comprehensive open and transparent consultation process, as stakeholders participate through a number of advisory bodies, including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the relatively new Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC also recently formed a Scientific Review Board to obtain an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs. These advisory bodies are discussed on the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors ).

DFO also offers several opportunities for cooperation and consultation. The annual management plan is reviewed by the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) and Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). DFO may also solicit advice on the plan in other consultative processes (e.g., bilateral consultations with First Nations). The advisory boards include commercial fishery participants in addition to First Nations, recreational, environmental and coastal community representatives. Meetings are generally open to the public and minutes of all meetings are posted on the DFO Consultation website.

Between both governing bodies and their consultations with outside parties, the SG100 is considered met.

b The management The management The management system system incorporates system incorporates or incorporates or subject by law or is subject by law to is subject by law to a to a transparent mechanism a mechanism for the transparent for the resolution of legal resolution of legal mechanism for the disputes that is appropriate to disputes arising within resolution of legal the context of the fishery and the system. disputes which is has been tested and proven to considered to be be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 172 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Pacific Halibut Convention does not contain any provisions for formal settlement of disputes either between the parties or between the Commission and members of the public, fishing organizations or lower levels of governments in each country.

As an agreement between two sovereign governments, an international convention would not be expected to provide for settlement of disagreements between private citizens of either country and the Commission regarding Commission decisions or regulations. Rather, it would be expected that differences of opinion between the Commission and citizens of either country’s decisions would be settled through representations within the national section of each country, i.e. citizen groups would deal with the Commissioners of their own country.

At the country-to-country level, disputes between the parties could be settled through formal dispute settlement mechanisms. However, Canada and the US have, for the most part avoided the inclusion of dispute settlement provisions in the bilateral or multilateral fisheries agreements the parties have concluded in recent years.45 Instead, when conflicts have arisen within Canada/US commissions, they have usually been settled through negotiations. In these cases, negotiated government-to-government decisions are implemented through issuance of instructions to the particular commission or, in some cases, amendments to treaties. This is evidence that they current dispute resolution framework is effective in dealing with most issues and that it is appropriate to the context of the fishery.

In Canada, disputes may also be resolved through formal appeal processes, by directly appealing to the Minister or through the Courts.

n Disputes within Canada regarding halibut regulatory or management measures can be addressed in a number of ways. In Canada, DFO continually seeks and accepts advice from all stakeholders through the various advisory forums described in the IFMP (DFO 2013).

Justificatio

45 An exception is the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty which contains an article providing a dispute settlement procedure limited to technical matters such as the measurement of interceptions of salmon by fishermen of one country intercepted by fishermen of the other and questions of overfishing. Despite serious disputes between the parties regarding the interception issue, procedural wrangling has prevented use of the dispute settlement provision (Shepard and Argue 2005).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 173 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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. For example, the annual management plan is reviewed by the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC), Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) and Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). DFO may also solicit advice on the plan in other consultative processes (e.g., bilateral consultations with First Nations). The advisory boards include commercial fishery participants in addition to First Nations, recreational, environmental and coastal community

representatives. Meetings are generally open to the public and minutes of all meetings are posted on the DFO Consultation website.

DFO has also used facilitation and arbitration-type processes involving independent experts to provide advice to the Minister to resolve disputes between fishing sectors, gear types or individual fishers. Examples of facilitation include the groundfish integration initiative where representatives from each groundfish fleet participated in a process conducted by an independent facilitator.

Arbitration-type processes are generally invoked by DFO after facilitation has failed. Examples of arbitration-type process include: (1) the 1997 Halvorson process (to address groundfish allocations between the trawl and hook & line commercial fleets and to determine an initial allocation formula for the groundfish trawl IVQ program; and, (2) the Kelleher process to address halibut allocations between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. It is important to note that such processes are advisory in nature as the final authority to allocate fisheries resources rests with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Although there is no formal dispute settlement process, most disputes are settled in the course of the deliberations described above. Where major differences on substantive matters persist, disputes are referred to the Courts. In this case, the Courts may be viewed as the final focus for dispute settlement. While this is a rare event, it is an avenue for resolving disputes. During the 2012-2013 fishing year commercial halibut fisherman Mr. Graeme Malcolm, on behalf of himself and other commercial halibut fishermen, initiated a federal court action based on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ February 17, 2012 decision to change the Pacific halibut allocation framework to 85% commercial and 15% recreational without using a market-based mechanism. This change increased the recreational sector’s allocation by 3% and resulted in a commensurate drop for the commercial sector.

Although there is no formal dispute settlement mechanism in place, the layered national system of consultations has recourse to the courts when problems persist. There is also a structured and transparent system for resolution of significant disputes arising between the two nation states in the fishery that has been shown to be effective through the longstanding history of shared stock management via the IPHC. The SG100 is met for this scoring issue.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 174 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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. c The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to formally commit mechanism to mechanism to observe to the legal rights created generally respect the the legal rights created explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly or established custom of people dependent explicitly or by custom of people on fishing for food and established by custom dependent on fishing livelihood in a manner of people dependent for food or livelihood in consistent with the objectives on fishing for food or a manner consistent of MSC Principles 1 and 2. livelihood in a manner with the objectives of consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC

Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 175 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 management system for the Canadian halibut fishery 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.

Aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery, either communally or individually, is described in section 7.3. of the 2013 Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan. Fisheries chapters in modern First Nation treaties articulate a treaty fishing right for FSC purposes that is protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (commercial access may be provided either through the general commercial fishery or a Harvest Agreement, which is negotiated at the same time as the treaty and is referenced in the treaty, but is not protected under the Constitution Act).

Generally, there are three categories of Aboriginal participation in fisheries – food, social, and ceremonial (FSC), commercial, and treaty. Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, however it does not specify the nature or content of the rights that are protected.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling in the Sparrow decision. This decision found that the Musqueam First Nation has an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. The Supreme Court found that where an Aboriginal group has a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, it takes priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. The Supreme Court also indicated the importance of consulting with Aboriginal groups when their fishing rights might be affected. The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was implemented in 1992 by DFO to address several objectives related to First Nations and their access to the resource. These included: · To provide a framework for the management of fishing by Aboriginal groups for food, social and ceremonial purposes. · To provide Aboriginal groups with an opportunity to participate in the management of fisheries, thereby improving conservation, management and enhancement of the resource. · To contribute to the economic self-sufficiency of Aboriginal communities. · To provide a foundation for the development of self-government agreements and treaties. · To improve the fisheries management skills and capacity of Aboriginal groups.

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 176 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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. AFS fisheries agreements may identify the amounts that may be fished for FSC purposes, terms and conditions that will be included in the communal fishing licence, and fisheries management arrangements. In Pacific Region, 14 First Nations have AFS agreements that specify groundfish. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may also issue a communal fishing licence to a group to fish for FSC purposes. There are currently 53 coastal First Nations that have communal FSC

licences that include groundfish species (DFO 2013). The United States and Canada, 1923 McCaughran and Hoag, 1992 Casey et al. 1995 References SCS, 2011 DFO, 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 177 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility and

Guidepost interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for the halibut fishery.

For the IPHC, under Article III of the Halibut Convention, the Commissioners of the IPHC are authorized to submit fishery management regulations to the two governments for approval. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may accept or reject the Commission’s recommendations. However, the Minister has a legal obligation to carry out the terms of the Convention. The Commissioners annually review the regulatory proposals made by the scientific staff and stakeholders participate in the IPHC process through a number of advisory bodies, including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC also recently formed the Scientific Review Board to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs. Information regarding individual membership and the purposes and roles of these advisory bodies are available to the public on the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors).

Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish outlines the various consultation processes and defines roles and responsibilities. Further information on these processes, as well as their terms of reference and membership, is available on the DFO webpage at http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html .

DFO seeks and accepts advice from stakeholders regarding the management of the halibut fisheries through the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB). HAB is a multi-interest advisory process that includes commercial, recreational, First Nations, union,

Justification provincial government, IPHC and DFO participants.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 178 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 DFO has also formed the HAB Strategic Working Group, a subcommittee of HAB that focuses on international issues at a more technical level. The Strategic Working Group meets at least 3-4 times per year and reports to HAB.

The Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC) provides formal advice and makes recommendations on policy and operational matters that impact across commercial groundfish fisheries and/or between commercial groundfish fisheries – it is the advisory process where groundfish issues (including halibut issues) common to all seven (7) commercial groundfish sectors are discussed. The commercial harvester advisors on HAB elect two of their own to participate in the CIC process.

The Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) is the multi-interest forum for providing advice to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on management and policy issues relating to the groundfish fisheries in the Pacific Region. The GIAB addresses issues that affect multiple interests and is not intended to interfere with operational matters within any specific interest group. Membership on GIAB includes commercial fishing, First Nations, union, seafood processor, environmental non-government organizations, recreational fishing, provincial government and community interests.

Commercial sector representatives for each of the seven commercial groundfish sector groups are elected to GIAB from their respective groundfish fishery advisory boards. For example, halibut representatives are elected by the commercial advisors on Halibut Advisory Board.

DFO consults on recreational halibut issues through the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB), the DFO advisory body for the recreational fishery. SFAB consists of the following groups: SFAB Main Board, SFAB North Coast Advisory Board, North Coast Local Sport Fishing Advisory Committee, SFAB South Coast Advisory Board, South Coast Local Fishing Advisory Committee, and SFAB Working Groups. The membership, terms of reference and meeting schedule can be found on DFO's website. Meeting minutes can be obtained by contacting DFO's Regional Recreational Fishing Coordinator.

DFO also engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations. As noted in Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish, these exchanges and involvement may include bilateral consultations, advisory processes, management boards, technical groups and other roundtable forums. Canada has statutory, contractual and common law obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 179 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept that obtain relevant that regularly seek and relevant information, including information from the accept relevant local knowledge. The main affected parties, information, including management system including local local knowledge. The demonstrates consideration of knowledge, to inform management system the information and explains the management demonstrates how it is used or not used. system. consideration of the

Guidepost information obtained. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The IPHC seeks advice annually from the Conference Board, Processors Advisory Group (PAG), Research Advisory Board (RAB), Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB), and Scientific Review Board (SRB).

· The Conference Board is a panel representing Canadian and American commercial and sport halibut fishers; meets annually in January. · The Processor Advisory Group (PAG) represents halibut processors; provides input to IPHC at annual meetings. · The Research Advisory Board (RAB) consists of both fishers and processors who offer suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission research should focus. · The Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) is a panel formed of harvesters, fisheries managers, processors, IPHC Staff, Commissioners, science advisors, and academics to oversee and advise on the IPHC’s Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE); generally meets annually in November. · The Scientific Review Board (SRB) provides an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and supports and strengthens the stock assessment process; advice is found in annual IPHC reports.

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the form of observations and comments provided by First Nations is considered in management decisions when provided. DFO consults bilaterally with First Nations regarding management issues that may affect their priority access to FSC fish. Consultations with First Nations follow clear guidelines established in 2011 by the Federal Government.

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 180 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish outlines the various consultation processes currently in place in Canada for groundfish, including those specific to halibut and other user groups (DFO, 2013).

As addressed in 3.1.2 (a.), several groups are regularly consulted with by DFO including the HAB, SFAB, CIC, and GIAB which include constituents that provide local and traditional knowledge.

Reading through the meeting minutes from HAB, CIC and GIAB there are numerous examples of the advisory committees providing advice to DFO regarding management, monitoring and enforcement of the Pacific halibut fishery and the advice being accepted and the recommended measures appearing in the IFMP and associated Appendixes (Appendix 2: 2013/2014 Groundfish Hook and Line/Trap Monitoring Requirements, Mortality Rates, and Size Limits; and Appendix 6: Halibut Commercial Harvest Plan). Meeting minutes commonly provide rationale for recommendations, as well as DFO rationale for accepting or rejecting advice provided by the advisory process.

CIC also provides ongoing in-season advice to DFO that frequently results in changes to the management plan regarding monitoring requirements, sector rules and sector access. Changes to the management plan in-season are generally enacted through license conditions attached to a commercial halibut fishing license and communicated by Fishery Notice.

DFO also receives recreational fishing advise annually and in-season from the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). Recreational fishing management decisions are made all year long and result in amendments to the printed BC Tidal Waters Sport Fishing and Freshwater Salmon guides. Updates are posted here in-season on the DFO website and also communicated via fisheries notice. Meeting minutes commonly provide rationale for recommendations, as well as DFO rationale for accepting or rejecting advice provided by the advisory process.

The management system for the Canadian halibut fishery includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the

information and explains how it is used or not used. c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates

Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 181 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 The IPHC advisory processes include representation from commercial and recreational harvesters, processors, academia and potentially other members of the public. The number of commercial, recreational and processing representatives on the Conference Board and PAG, for example, is significant. There are regular meetings of the groups and the IPHC continually posts meeting notifications, schedules, agendas and times on their website and sends out information notices by mail to any participants wishing to register with the IPHC office. Both in response to growing interest and as a clear indication that the IPHC is seeking and providing greater opportunity for the provision of external advice, the IPHC has expanded their advisory processes in recent years. The MSAB and SRB were established in 2013 inviting greater participation by commercial and recreational harvesters, processors, academia and other interest groups to help establish fishery objectives, articulate and define management procedures and evaluate performance measures and science advice. While there is no formal representation on any of the committees from the environmental community, they can submit their views and advice directly to the IPHC Executive Director. The IPHC has also extended the invitation to environmental organizations in the past to sit in as observers to the various processes. It is clear that the IPHC consultation process provides consultation opportunity to many interested parties.

DFO also supports and facilitates a comprehensive domestic consultation process (Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board) in which different sectors (First Nations, Coastal Communities, Environmental, Processors, and Commercial and Recreational harvesters) are invited to participate and provide advice on annual and in-season management of the Canadian domestic halibut fishery. In addition to any individual being able to directly provide advice in writing to the Minister of Fisheries or to DFO staff, all industry sectors are formally invited or represented in advisory processes facilitated and managed largely by DFO to ensure timely advice for annual management plans and in-season management changes. Information regarding advisory meetings (Terms of Reference, meeting notices, agendas and minutes) and advisory committee members (names and contact information) are provided on the DFO website. Contacts for Advisors are published annually in the

groundfish IFMP.

The consultation process in the Canadian halibut fishery provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and

Justification facilitates their effective engagement. References DFO, 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 182 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 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 that to guide decision- objectives that guide guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management

Guidepost policy policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes/No (2 components)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 183 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach IPHC long term objectives are consistent with MSC Principle 1. The IPHC was created to conserve, manage, and rebuild the halibut stocks in the Convention Area to those levels that would achieve and maintain the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery. The yield definition was changed to optimum sustainable yield by the amending 1979 Protocol.46 The IPHC was charged with studying the life history of halibut and with recommending regulations for the preservation and development of the halibut fishery.47 This includes keeping the spawning stock biomass above 30% of the unfished state 80% of the time each year.48 The IPHC uses a limit reference point of B₂₀ (20% relative spawning biomass) target reference point of B₃₀ (30% relative spawning biomass). The current harvest policy for Pacific halibut recommends ramping down the target harvest rate to no fishing as fishery moves from B₃₀ to B₂₀. The current target harvest rate for Area 2B (British Columbia) is 21.5%.49

Methodologies used by the IPHC are evolving. Since 2012, a new method has been used for decision making. IPHC advice on harvest levels is presented in the form of a risk-benefit decision table, wherein risks of negative impacts on stock and fishery performance are associated with the benefits of particular choices of harvest level. This format for decision making more fully reflects uncertainty and allows the Commission to weigh the risks and benefits of management choices, as well as overall harvest policy, when deciding on catch limits. A significant aspect of this advice table is that it is structured at the coastwide level, rather than at the level of individual regulatory areas. This orientation results from the necessary definition of harvest policy reference points (threshold and limit) at the coastwide level. The existing harvest policy is under review as part of the Commission’s ongoing Management Strategy Evaluation. In particular, the harvest policy will be revised over the next year to incorporate alternative fishery objectives, arising through the MSE process, and revised understanding of halibut distribution and population dynamics, arising through the assessment process.50 These will also be formalized in publications updating the management policy with the IPHC.

Justification

46 Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Basic Instrument for the International Pacific Halibut Commission -- IPHC): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RY3t5blQKj0J:www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/intlagree/docs/IPHC%2520- 05.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca 47 Bluebook 2014, page 199 48 Bluebook 2014, page 187. 49 Bluebook 2014, page 124 50 Bluebook 2014, page 164

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 184 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach To assist with this, the Commission approved the formation of a Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) to oversee the MSE process and to advise the Commission and Staff on the development and evaluation of candidate objectives and strategies for managing the fishery. The MSE process will assist in the precautionary management of the resource by helping the Commission develop and thoroughly test alternative management procedures, prior to actually implementing any management changes for the fishery. Some of the preliminary overarching objectives identified by the MSAB in 2013 were: • Biological sustainability - identify stock conservation objectives • Fishery sustainability (all directed) - identify harvest minimum and acceptable variability • Assurance of access - minimize probability of fisheries closures • Minimize bycatch mortality • Serve consumer needs

While the estimation of biomass and the provision of harvest options and advice are science based and the purview of the IPHC, the choice of the harvest levels recommended to the governments of Canada and the United States is a policy choice by the Commissioners, with the consequences of their choice being informed by the scientific analysis. As such, the long term objectives may be explicitly stated, but the Commissioners are not required by management policy to stay within them when providing advice to the Parties, thereby meeting the SG80 for this scoring issue.

The DFO National webpage lists three broad objectives under the DFO Fisheries Renewal initiative:

1. Long-Term Sustainability: By enabling DFO and resource users to achieve strong conservation outcomes through risk management frameworks incorporating the ecosystem and precautionary approaches. 2. Economic Prosperity: By aligning fisheries policies and decision-making processes to support economically prosperous fisheries for Canadians. 3. Improved Governance: By increasing stability, transparency and accountability in fisheries management and by promoting shared stewardship.

The DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework is the vehicle for delivering these three objectives. The DFO National webpage and Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2013) discuss the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) and how it provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 185 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach

The SFF contains a suite of policies for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which support conservation and sustainable use; in particular the policy, “A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach” that describes a general fishery decision-making framework for implementing a harvest strategy that incorporates the Precautionary Approach. In the policy document, DFO notes the decision framework is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions.

The DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish also states that, moving forward, groundfish stock assessments (“non-directed” species in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery) will be written in manner consistent with the Department’s Precautionary Approach.

Sections 5 and 6 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish also outline the long term and short term objectives specific to Canada’s Pacific groundfish fisheries.

In 2003, the Privy Council Office, on behalf of the Government of Canada published a framework applicable to all federal government departments that set out guiding principles for the application of precaution to decision making about risks of serious or irreversible harm where there is a lack of full scientific certainty.

The IPHC Commissioners recommend to the Parties (Canada and the US) TACs for each country. The management authority for each country is then responsible for setting and managing the domestic TAC. As such, DFO policy requires management be consistent with long-term objectives, including the precautionary approach. This meets the SG100 considering DFO.

Considering the scoring sub-components evaluated, the IPHC and DFO, each met

the SG80, but only DFO meets the SG100, therefore a score of 90 is appropriate. References DFO, 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 186 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 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 The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that are incentives that are incentives that are consistent with achieving the consistent with consistent with outcomes expressed by MSC achieving the achieving the Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed outcomes expressed by explicitly considers incentives by MSC Principles 1 MSC Principles 1 and 2, in a regular review of and 2. and seeks to ensure management policy or that perverse procedures to ensure they do incentives do not arise. not contribute to

Guidepost unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Yes Yes Yes The halibut fishery incentivizes several measures designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by Principles 1 and 2 including an IVQ system with provisions for under harvesting and carry over, 100% dockside and at-sea monitoring to ensure accurate catch accounting, accounting for under-sized halibut encountered in all sectors by taking them from the quota, freedom from subsidies to the industry and employing best practices including tori lines to prevent bycatch.

The rigorous and accurate catch accounting system prevents gross overages and does not penalize fishers for under harvesting their allocated quota. This prevents fishers from competing in a “derby style” of fishing and from harvesting groundfish up to the allocated quota for fear of losing the quota the following year. The Canadian halibut fishery is managed with Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQ) and comprehensive at-sea and dockside monitoring requirements within a management framework that integrates all commercial groundfish fisheries. Comprehensive at-sea (observers and electronic monitoring) and dockside monitoring support the Integrated Fishery Management Plan (IFMP) requirement that each vessel is accountable and responsible for all fish mortality incurred during fishing operations. The management plan includes rules that prohibit excessive overages (more than 10% over the vessel's halibut quota or more than 30% over the vessel's holdings on other groundfish quota species). All overages must be covered either by the transfer of equivalent quota onto the license or by the deduction of equivalent quota from the vessel's allocation in the following year. The IFMP also provides incentives for halibut licensed vessels to under-harvest their halibut and groundfish IVQ by permitting up to 10% of the vessel's uncaught halibut quota and 30% of the uncaught groundfish quotas to be carried forward and added to the vessel's allocations for the following fishing year. Knowing that underharvesting will not adversely impact the amount of quota allocated in following years ensures that perverse incentives to over harvest on quota do not arise. As a result of the IVQ and transfer system, the annual year end catch data has shown the net result of the carryover of quota underages and overages to be that the halibut TAC (and other groundfish TACs) is underharvested.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 187 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Mandatory 100 percent monitoring on all commercial groundfish hook and line, trap and trawl fishing trips is required and provides a full and reliable accounting of all catches in these fisheries, both retained and released, and also records fishing activity, location, date and time. In addition, all landings must be validated through a dockside monitoring program. The primary tool for monitoring compliance in the halibut fishery is the use of EM data to audit the accuracy of fishermen's logbook entries. Failure of a logbook audit results in a higher level of scrutiny with potential for increased monitoring costs to the fisher (the monitor pays for 100% of the monitoring program requirements, including the audit by a government certified service provider), thereby creating an economic incentive to accurately report catches (both retained and released).

Under reporting juvenile halibut catch is also dis-incentivized through fines on mis-reporting and accuracy of EM validation. All non-directed halibut mortalities by commercial groundfish hook & line, trawl (incidental) and trap vessels are counted against the TAC under the groundfish integration rules. The management of the groundfish trawl fishery off Canada's Pacific coast includes a halibut bycatch program that allocates Individual Bycatch Quota to each licensed trawl vessel (retention is prohibited). The groundfish trawl fleet is subject to 100% at-sea observer coverage and all halibut release mortality incurred while fishing is estimated by the observer and deducted from the vessel's halibut bycatch quota allocation. All trawl mortality of legal size fish is deducted from the following year's TAC and mortality data on juvenile halibut is used in the annual halibut stock assessment. These programs provide incentives for sustainable fishing.

The halibut fishery (and all groundfish fisheries) is also free from subsidies that directly and substantially promote overfishing or ecosystem degradation. For example, commercial halibut vessel owners pay license application fees to DFO and pay all costs for the comprehensive logbook, at-sea and dockside monitoring programs in place in the fishery. In 2012, it is estimated that monitoring costs in the halibut fishery totaled approximately $800,000. Prior to 2013 DFO contributed to the EM program, but has since withdrawn all funding.

The commercial halibut fleet voluntarily introduced seabird avoidance devices and practices into the fishery in 2000 and requested DFO make these measures a mandatory requirement while fishing halibut (which occurred in 2002). Canada implemented a National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries in 2007 that applies management measure to mitigate the incidental catch of seabirds. To minimize the impacts on seabirds, the use of seabird avoidance devices (e.g., tori lines) and best practices (e.g., discharge of old bait and offal) are required by hook & line halibut vessels by condition of license.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 188 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Annually, in preparing the IFMP for the following fishing year, DFO reviews all management current and proposed measures with the various advisory processes (HAB, CIC, GIAB). HAB and CIC will review in detail the operational results of the existing management measures and recommend changes to DFO to improve efficiency and better achieve the stated objectives. GIAB will consider management plan measures at an overarching level to ensure that activities are consistent with conservation objectives and actions of one sector do not impair access of another. The IPHC is also undertaking a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) with input from stakeholders and the Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) to present findings and make recommendations for candidate objectives and strategies.

The management system for the Canadian halibut fishery provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise and considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures through evaluation of the IFMP and through various committees and input groups. It is important to note that the shift to an overall integrated groundfish program with 100% video-based observer coverage represented a significant management effort specifically designed to avoid perverse outcomes of fishing behaviours based on dis-aggregated fishing regulations for both target and non-target species. This system represents unusually strong management practice and a system with dynamics fundamentally designed to assure economic and social incentives for fication sustainable fishing, with performance consistent with the SG100.

Justi References DFO 1994, Casey et al. 1995, Gislason 1999, Jones 2003 and DFO 2005 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 189 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, with achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed achieving the consistent with achieving the by MSC’s Principles 1 outcomes expressed by outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit MSC’s Principles 1 and Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s 2, are explicit within within the fishery’s management system the fishery’s management system.

Guidepost management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes Both the IPHC and DFO have explicit short and long-term objectives for the fishery with DFO having additional groundfish objectives that are consistent with achieving outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2. IPHC objectives are primarily consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 1.

The IPHC's long-term objectives are to conserve, manage, and rebuild the halibut stocks in the Convention Area to those levels that would achieve and maintain the optimum sustainable yield from the fishery. The outcome based metric for measuring the long-term success of meeting the IPHC objectives is the SSB relative to the unfished state. The reference points chosen include keeping the spawning stock biomass above 30% of the unfished state 80% of the time each year. The IPHC uses a measurable limit reference point of B₂₀ (20% relative spawning biomass) and measurable target reference point of B₃₀ (30% relative spawning biomass) as part of the strategy to support the objectives. Research used to contribute to the overall stock protection objective is an important aspect of the IPHC undertakings. Each year the IPHC staff develops a series of annual research objectives which it recommends to the Commission for adoption through this Annual Research Plan. For 2014, the IPHC has identified four research objectives: Objective 1: Stock identification, monitoring and assessment. A field study to examine the selectivity of large halibut on circle hooks by monitoring hooking success. Objective 2: Harvest policy and management Research by IPHC staff and stakeholders on the harvest policy through the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). Objective 3: Biology, physiology, and migration Studies will continue into the declining trend in size at age, taking advantage of IPHC’s extensive historical otolith archives dating to the 1920s. Objective 4: Ecosystem interactions and environmental influences. Three studies are proposed which are continuations of studies currently underway: oceanographic monitoring with the profilers from the survey platforms, mercury and contaminant assessment, and assessment of Ichthyophonus (a parasite) prevalence. Through the Management Strategy Evaluation, candidate objectives and strategies were provided to the IPHC. Some of the preliminary overarching objectives identified by the MSAB in 2013 were: • Biological sustainability - identify stock conservation objectives

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 190 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 • Fishery sustainability (all directed) - identify harvest minimum and acceptable variability • Assurance of access - minimize probability of fisheries closures • Minimize bycatch mortality • Serve consumer needs These overarching objectives were further refined to specific objectives that could be directly related to performance measures generated from an operating model. In 2013, the Preliminary MSAB management objectives were written as follows: • Maintain a minimum number of mature female halibut coast-wide (level to be determined) in each year with a probability of 0.99 • Maintain a minimum female spawning stock biomass above 20% of the unfished biomass in each year in 95 out of 100 trials (spawning biomass limit) • Maintain a minimum female spawning stock biomass above 30% of the unfished biomass in each year in 75 out of 100 trials (spawning biomass threshold) • Maintain an economically viable directed fishing opportunity each year for all user groups in each regulatory area, conditional on satisfying objectives 1 and 2, in 95 out of 100 trials • Maximize yield in each regulatory area each year without exceeding the target harvest rate in 50 out of 100 trials • Limit annual changes in the coast-wide total CEY to a tuned percentage that is consistent with objectives 4 and 5, conditional on satisfying objectives 1 and 2 • Reduce bycatch mortality to the extent possible in both directed and non-directed fisheries. To address the stated preliminary MSAB objectives, the following performance metrics were suggested: • Absolute number of sexually mature female halibut (re: objective 1) • Ratio of current SSB relative to unfished SSBo (where SSBo is based on current size- at- age (re: objectives 2 and 3) • Total catch and directed catch from each regulatory area (re: objectives 4, 5, 6,) • Legal biomass in each regulatory area in each year (re: objective 5) • Bycatch from each regulatory area in each year (re: objective 7).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 191 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Additionally, The IPHC also has a five year goal (commencing in 2014) to undertake a complete expansion of the IPHC setline survey, beginning with the expansions into Area 2A and Area 4A in 2014. This will include unsurveyed depths (275-400 fathoms, and 10-20 fathoms) and areas within the current depth range that are not surveyed (e.g., Strait of Georgia in Area 2B, Bower’s Ridge in Area 4B, the northern 28 Area 4D Edge). These regulatory area expansions have been prioritized for near-term future survey sampling based on an evaluation of their likely contribution to the regulatory area WPUE (Weight Per Unit Effort) indexes and coastwide stock estimate.

The DFO National webpage lists three broad objectives under the DFO Fisheries Renewal initiative:

1. Long-Term Sustainability: By enabling DFO and resource users to achieve strong conservation outcomes through risk management frameworks incorporating the ecosystem and precautionary approaches. 2. Economic Prosperity: By aligning fisheries policies and decision-making processes to support economically prosperous fisheries for Canadians 3. Improved Governance: By increasing stability, transparency and accountability in fisheries management and by promoting shared stewardship.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 192 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Sections 4 and 5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish also outlines the long term and short term objectives specific to Canada’s Pacific groundfish fisheries (DFO, 2013). The long term objectives were developed for the 2011-2013 Groundfish IFMP and are supported by short term objectives. The plan states that the "Objectives must be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART)". The long term objectives are as follows: • By 2017, identify and begin to acquire the necessary data required to provide science advice for all groundfish species identified in the DFO groundfish stock assessment strategic plan • By 2017, pursue accountability for total groundfish mortality (retained and released catch) for all user groups supported by scientifically defensible (accurate and precise) catch monitoring programs • By 2017, have an agreed upon process to aid in the development of allocation arrangements between user groups for groundfish species in the future • By 2017, develop the infrastructure to collect and analyse data to determine economic viability and social impacts of the various groundfish fisheries. Short term objectives were developed with input from GIAB. This does not preclude additional short term objectives to be included in subsequent iterations of the IFMP. Current short-term objectives are as follows: • By the spring of 2014, work with groundfish users to identify and pursue funding mechanisms that support groundfish science and fisheries management (e.g., joint project agreements consistent with the emerging use-of-fish policy, user fee amendments) • By the outset of 2015, evaluate different approaches to assessing data limited species and assess the applicability of these approaches to the BC groundfish context • By the dates below, develop and formalize catch monitoring standards that are consistent with DFO’s strategic catch monitoring framework for each of the groundfish fisheries: • By the outset of the 2013 fishing season, implement new delivery models for existing catch monitoring standards for commercial groundfish fisheries;

• By the outset of 2014, develop recreational fishing effort profiles that can inform catch monitoring standards for recreational fisheries;

• By spring 2014, develop a pilot catch monitoring risk assessment for a FSC groundfish fishery that can inform catch monitoring standards for FSC fisheries.

• By the summer of 2014, use the GIAB to develop the appropriate consultative approach that would support achieving the long term objective #3.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 193 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 • By the outset of 2015, identify information sources that can be used to define and describe the cultural importance of the groundfish fisheries.

• By the outset of 2015, identify and initiate implementation of improvements to catch monitoring and reporting of groundfish species in recreational and First Nations fisheries.

DFO also outlines objectives, goals or guiding principles for important specific initiatives that are consistent with the outcomes expressed in Principle 2. For example, the DFO 2002 Inshore Rockfish Strategy was implemented to protect inshore rockfish and their habitat from fishery related impacts. The strategy outlined four goals under the fisheries management and stock assessment regime which relate to P2 retained species and habitats:

• Protect a part of inshore rockfish populations from harvest through the use of rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) that are closed to fishing.

• Collect information on total fishery mortalities through improved catch monitoring programs.

• Reduce harvests to levels that are less than the estimates of natural mortality (i.e., less than two percent).

• Improve the ability to assess the status of inshore rockfish populations and monitor changes in abundance. Similarly, in 2003, DFO identified five guiding principles for the commercial groundfish sector: • All rockfish catch must be accounted for. • Rockfish catches will be managed according to established rockfish management areas. • Fishers will be individually accountable for their catch. • New monitoring standards will be established and implemented to meet the above three objectives. • Species and stocks of concern will be closely examined and actions such as reduction of TACs, and other catch limits will be considered and implemented to be consistent with the precautionary approach for management. Additional management policies and guidelines may be found as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework. Many of these have been incorporated into the IFMP and relate to habitat and ecosystem outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2 and others are separate policies that are relevant to the groundfish fisheries: • Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013); • Guidance on Implementation of the Policy on Managing Bycatch (April 2013);

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 194 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

• A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach (April 2009)

• Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone (April 2013);

• Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species (April 2009);

• Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities (April 2013); and,

• Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species (April 2009)

• Marine Spatial Planning for the Pacific North Coast Integrated management area (including fishing and other sectors such as shipping)

• Marine Protected Area Network Planning

• Marine Protected Area Designations for areas that have been proposed such as Race Rocks, Hecete Strait, Scott Islands and Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs

• Habitat-protection procedures including vessel caps and transferability for impacts on bycatch of corals and sponges in the trawl fleet

• Habitat-protection protocols for coral and sponge encounters in the trawl fleet

• Habitat impact research from fishing including sedimentation and habitat forming species These include several measurable objectives including: • Assembling and mapping existing data to identify existing benthic habitat types relative to fishing effort

• Conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment Framework assessment to determine the level of impact and whether further management measures are required.

• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the measures over time

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 195 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 • For the Canadian halibut fishery there are well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Together, it is clear that the IPHC and DFO demonstrate compliance with this PI at the SG100 level.

References DFO 2013, IPHC Bluebook 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 196 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2

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

Guidepost objectives. Met? Yes Yes Information provided in 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.2.1 show that the IPHC and DFO have established effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives of the Canadian halibut fishery. Both the IPHC and DFO have an established decision making processes to define and strategize fishery objectives. The IPHC undertakes decision making relating to total allocations based on results of the stock assessment conducted by IPHC staff and consulted on annually by several advisory bodies including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC also recently formed the Scientific Review Board to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs.

Under Article III of the Halibut Convention, the Commissioners of the IPHC are authorized to submit fishery management regulations to the two governments for approval. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may accept or reject the Commission’s recommendations. However, the Minister has a legal obligation to carry out the terms of the Convention. Allocations are presented in a table with associated risk to better allow managerial staff to make an informed decision on TACs for the following year.

The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) oversees the provision of all scientific advice required by operational client sectors within the Department (Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Oceans and Habitat Management, and Policy). In the Pacific Region, science advisory processes are managed by the Centre for Science Advice Pacific (CSAP). Science is the basis for sound decision making and DFO Science Sector provides information on the consequences of management and policy options, and the likelihood of achieving policy objectives under alternative management strategies and tactics. Several publications are provided to managers to assist in any decision making including Science Advisory Reports, Research Documents and Proceedings from Peer Review meetings.

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 197 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. b Decision-making Decision-making processes Decision-making processes processes respond to respond to serious and respond to all issues serious issues other important issues identified in relevant identified in relevant identified in relevant research, monitoring, research, monitoring, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, evaluation and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely adaptive manner and take account of the wider and adaptive manner account of the wider implications of decisions. and take some implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of

Guidepost decisions. Met? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 198 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Information provided in 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.2.1 show that the IPHC and DFO have established effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives of the Canadian halibut fishery. The established IPHC and DFO processes are accessible to relevant stakeholders and many are open to the public. Any issue applicable to the fishery can be brought forward in one (or multiple) of these processes. Science issues are identified in the various IPHC processes and addressed by the IPHC staff or through the review process. Similarly, DFO's CSAS processes consider and address relevant science requests. Science requests to DFO can be made through DFO's Groundfish Management Unit. Meeting notes are recorded and disseminated to attendees and interested parties in a timely manner.

Issues raised in the IPHC processes are addressed during the various advisory or Commission meetings scheduled throughout the year. Many IPHC related issues, if not all, are responded to at the Annual Meeting held in January. As noted in 3.1.2, the IPHC has a very inclusive and transparent process that draws participation from stakeholders and external experts. Over the years, the IPHC has extended invitations to non-industry stakeholders to attend as observers of the process. In addition, the public can pass on issues directly to the Canadian government Commissioner (DFO Representative), who leads the Canadian delegation at the IPHC Annual Meeting. Review of prior IPHC Annual Reports at the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/library/annual-reports.html) demonstrates the wide range of issues that are raised and addressed by the Conference Board, Processor Advisory Group (PAG), Research Advisory Board (RAB), Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB), and Science Review Board (SRB). Consistent with their duties51, the respective advisory board or group considers issues and relevant implications before providing responses or advise to the Commissioners and the IPHC.

Justification

51 IPHC Advisory Boards roles and Terms of References: http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 199 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment.

Issues raised through research, program monitoring and evaluation within Canada regarding the management of the Canadian halibut fishery are addressed at one (or numerous) established advisory processes, including the HAB, CIC, and GIAB. Detailed science issues will also be addressed by the Canadian Science Advice Secretariat (CSAS). These processes are ongoing and meet regularly throughout the year. The proceedings from these meetings are published on DFO's website under the “Consultations” or under the “Science and Research” page . The various levels of consultation ensure that issues and the associated implications are considered by all user and interest groups throughout British Columbia.

Bocaccio rockfish is an example of how DFO's management system in the halibut fishery provides effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to address the Department's stated objectives of conservation and sustainability. A May 2012 stock assessment resulted in CSAS reporting that the coastwide bocaccio stock had declined and, based on the precautionary approach and risk based analysis, recommended that the level of harvest needed to be reduced by approximately 50% to allow Bocaccio to rebuild. The CSAS advice triggered DFO to immediately raise the issue with all advisory processes in groundfish (HAB, GTAC , SAC , GHLAC , CIC, GIAB, and SFAB) in the winter of 2012 and early 2013 that lead to clear and direct changes to the 2013/2014 IFMP. Recommendations took into account the wider implications for other sectors. Following the fishing year, DFO reported to all stakeholders the Bocaccio mortality (from all data sources, including commercial at- sea and dockside monitoring programs) had declined by approximately 42%. Further consultations, in the winter of 2013 and early 2014 resulted in further IFMP changes to further reduce Bocaccio mortality. The minutes of various CSAS meetings and DFO advisory committee meetings (HAB, GTAC, SAC) demonstrate that DFO deploys this same process consistently when science advice identifies stock concerns (i.e. Pacific cod in 2001, Inshore rockfish 2003, quillback rockfish 2011, longnose skate 2013).

It is clear that decision-making processes in the Canadian halibut fishery respond to 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, meeting the SG100 for this scoring issue.

c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Guidepost Met? Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 200 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. The DFO National webpage and Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2013) discuss the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) and how it provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada.

In the policy document, DFO notes the decision framework is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. Decision-making processes in the Canadian halibut fishery use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Since March of 2009, DFO has been guided by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, which includes "A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach".52 The following are the primary components of the generalized framework:

1. Reference points and stock status zones (Healthy, Cautious and Critical). 2. Harvest strategy and harvest decision rules. 3. The need to take into account uncertainty and risk when developing reference points and developing and implementing decision rules.

The stock status zones are created by defining the Limit Reference Point (LRP) at the Critical/Cautious zone boundary, and an Upper Stock Reference Point (USR) at the Cautious/Healthy zone boundary and the Removal Reference for each of the three zones.

The harvest rate strategy is the approach taken to manage the harvest of a stock and is a necessary element of any fishery plan. In order to implement the PA in a fishery, pre-agreed harvest decision rules and management actions for each zone, are essential components of a harvest rate strategy.

An important aspect of the DFO decision framework is the treatment of uncertainty and risk when estimating stock status, reference points and in making and implementing management decisions. Both scientific uncertainty and uncertainty related to the implementation of a management approach must be explicitly considered and the management decisions taken must be tempered when necessary

to give effect to the Precautionary Approach.

Justification

52 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 201 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. 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 emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and

Guidepost review activity. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The IPHC reports the proceedings of meetings for the Conference Board, PAG, RAB, MSAB and SRB on its website.53 The information is readily available to all interested stakeholders and the public. The IPHC also mails out an Annual Report to all stakeholders and interest groups. Furthermore, the IPHC Director and staff are easily accessible if additional information is needed or to provide updates on existing processes or activities.

DFO reports the proceedings of all of its processes (HAB, CIC, GIAB, CSAS) on its website.54 These processes are set up to address all issues facing the groundfish fisheries and to provide advice to the Department. DFO also reports the proceedings of the various Sports Fishing Advisory bodies on its website.55 Stakeholders or interested parties requiring additional information can correspond directly with the Groundfish Manager or Species Coordinator or with the Regional Recreational Fishing Coordinator. Their contact information is available on the DFO website where the consultation information is provided.

In the Canadian halibut fishery, formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describing how the management system responds to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity is provided.

Justification

53 Meeting schedules and proceedings from the various IPHC meetings and events can be found at: http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events.html 54 Meeting schedules and proceedings from the HAB, CIC, GIAB, and CSAS can be found at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/index-eng.html 55 Meeting schedules and proceedings from the Sport Fishing Advisory bodies can be found at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/index-eng.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 202 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. e Although the The management system or The management system or management authority fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to or fishery may be comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly subject to continuing with judicial decisions implements judicial decisions court challenges, it is arising from any legal arising from legal challenges. not indicating a challenges. disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability

Guidepost for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes The halibut fishery and the management system comply with judicial decisions arising from legal challenges in a timely fashion. One such case is discussed in rationale for PI3.1.1. The Malcolm v Minister of Fisheries and Oceans 2012 case (T-577-12). In this case, the decision by the judge was to uphold the Minister’s decision to change allocation ratios between the commercial and recreational sectors. This decision was made within about a year of the original proceedings and is currently in appeal. Other examples include listing species on the SARA registry thereby requiring generation of a management and recovery plan. There are several examples of this. As explained in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 the fishery has extensive consultative processes and dispute resolution systems in place to avoid legal disputes. Furthermore, as outlined in 3.1.4 the fishery uses management measures that provide incentives to comply with management rules

and avoid illegal activity that lead to legal disputes. This is supported by the rationale provided in 3.2.3 that shows there is a very low number of violations in the halibut fishery and the high level of compliance with the rules and regulations. It is clear that the management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes and rapidly

Justification implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges are required by the SG100. [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 203 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance system mechanisms exist, are system has been has been implemented in the implemented in the implemented in the fishery under assessment and fishery under fishery under has demonstrated a consistent assessment and there assessment and has ability to enforce relevant is a reasonable demonstrated an management measures, expectation that they ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. are effective. relevant management measures, strategies

Guidepost and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is a resource management organization with the infrastructure necessary to support professional law enforcement activities. The enforcement policies and activities of DFO, with respect to regulatory compliance of commercial fisheries, are the responsibility of the Conservation and Protection (C&P) Directorate. The program is delivered through balanced regulatory management and a three pillar enforcement approach including:

• Promotion of compliance through education and shared stewardship; • Monitoring, control and surveillance activities; and, • Management of major cases / special investigations in relation to complex compliance issues.

The Conservation and Protection program in DFO’s Pacific Region promotes and maintains compliance with legislation, regulations, and management measures implemented to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of Canada’s aquatic resources, and the protection of species at risk, fish habitat and oceans.

There are approximately 155 fishery officers stationed in the Pacific Region, which encompasses the province of British Columbia and Yukon Territory. They are designated as “fishery officers” under Section 5 of the Fisheries Act and have full enforcement powers and responsibilities outlined in the Fisheries Act, Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Oceans Act, Species at Risk Act, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Constitution Act.

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 204 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Observers perform a key role in observing, documenting and reporting to DFO fishing related occurrences. Observers (which include At-Sea Observers and Dockside Monitors) perform duties best described as “Observe, Record and Report.” Duties are related to monitoring of fishing activities, examination and measurement of fishing gear, collection of biological samples, recording scientific data, monitoring the landing of fish and verification of the weight and species of fish caught and retained. Observers, while performing a vital role contributing to regulatory compliance, are not enforcement officers. Observers must carry proof of their designation by DFO as an Observer (laminated card). Observers monitor and document weigh-out inspections at all approved landing locations, interview the fisher, assigning catch to the appropriate stock area, spot-check harvest logs for consistency with verbal reports and notify the Department of any occurrences observed during the interview, logbook review and offload process. Occurrence reporting procedures are reviewed with the objective of ensuring that fishery officers coast-wide are able to provide prompt response to significant enforcement issues. (DFO 2013)

Fishery officers are tasked with the responsibility of responding coast-wide to calls from the general public, other agencies, observers and other industry users reporting occurrences. Fishery officers inspect and investigate groundfish vessels for compliance with terms and Conditions of Licences, Fisheries Act and related Regulations and Variation Orders. Due to the complexity of transferable Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) and the related dynamic licence amendment system, tracking of catch quantities under the ITQ system is primarily performed administratively under the dockside monitoring program. (DFO 2013)

The 2013 Groundfish IFMP identified the following C&P priorities: • investigate all incidents of Closed Area fishing such as RCAs, sponge reef protection areas, and other Closed Areas; • continue to enforce compliance with hail-out, hail-in and other elements of the DMP and at-sea observer program; • conduct investigations and enforcement actions in response to the retention of groundfish caught, retained or possessed without licence authority. Priority will be placed on occurrences where retention for the purpose of sale is indicated; • investigate incidents of unauthorized dual fishing; and • take greater concern for compliance with Electronic Monitoring (EM) Licence Conditions, especially Time Gaps that are reported.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 205 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with DFO also conducts at-sea enforcement using a combination of small craft (program vessels, mostly 7.33 metre and 9.2 metre rigid hull inflatable boats) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) vessels, and Air Surveillance Patrols using chartered aircraft with a fishery officer on-board to identify concentrations and distribution of fishing vessels. Aerial surveillance resources are utilized throughout the year to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act, Regulations and Licence Conditions. Flight reports, photographs and other data collected from the surveillance flights are readily available to departmental managers and fishery officers through an Internet-based flight information system (DFO 2013).

Monitoring and fishery reporting standards for Pacific groundfish fisheries require both 100% dockside and 100% at-sea monitoring. At-sea observation may be provided by either at-sea certified observers, or a fishing logbook audited with data from an electronic monitoring (EM) system. Electronic monitoring systems use global positions system (GPS) sensor, fishing gear sensors, and video monitoring, and are provided by third-party, independent service providers. These monitoring tools perform a key role in observing, documenting, and reporting fishing related occurrences to C&P and Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Branch. Fishery occurrence reporting procedures have been established with the objective of ensuring that Fishery Officers are able to provide prompt responses to significant enforcement issues.

Commercial Halibut fishing in British Columbia is also monitored in part through a Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP) that monitors 100% of groundfish landings (which includes all halibut landed). These monitoring systems are also provided by a contracted service provider. When the collected information (from either at-sea monitoring or dockside monitoring) suggests that fishing activity breached a regulation or condition of licence (e.g., fishing in a closed area, misreported catch, illegal gear), an occurrence report is generated. DFO Fishery Officers access occurrence reports through a database maintained by the contracted monitoring service provider in order to conduct investigations. Fishery Officers also create occurrence reports from other EM (electronic monitoring) and Observer data, as well as other sources. C&P maintains an additional database, the Departmental Violations System (DVS), for managing occurrences, violations and all case files which combines Fishery Officer-generated occurrences with occurrences reported by the monitoring service provider that are under investigation. Since 1991, DMP Fishery Observers attended 100% of all landings in the commercial halibut fishery. Since 2006, all halibut trips have been included at-sea monitoring (either an Observer or Electronic Monitoring).

Currently, all halibut harvesters choose to use EM over at-sea observers because of the cost savings offered by EM. The conditions of licence outline the operating requirements of an EM system (e.g. how and when the system must operate to ensure all fishing activity is recorded). If a harvester is not able to maintain an EM system as required by the conditions of licence, the harvester is required to use an at-sea observer. Where an EM system is used for at-sea monitoring, ten percent of the captured video data, and one hundred percent of the sensor data is reviewed

for each trip to audit the fishing logbook. If an audit of the fishing logbook

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 206 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with indicates that the logbook is inaccurate, all EM data is reviewed and this data becomes the official at-sea fishing record. The audit process provides high quality data needed for sustainable management of the resource (Stanley et al., 2011).

Fishery occurrence reporting procedures have been established with the objective of ensuring that Fishery Officers are able to provide prompt responses to significant enforcement issues. Fishery occurrence reports are generated by At- Sea Observers, Dockside Fisheries Observers, and through an audit of the EM data, allowing Fishery Officers to be made aware of possible fishing infractions and focus their attention on targeted violations, thus enhancing the effective use of C&P resources. Detailed statistics of fishery occurrences reported by the Fisheries Observer Program are maintained in the service provider’s database, and occurrences that warrant additional review or investigation are further recorded in the Department’s Violation System.

During 2012, 154 vessels participated in the Commercial Halibut fishery. These vessels made 543 fishing trips. There were 44 occurrences recorded in DVS for the Commercial Halibut fishery. Each encounter with a vessel or vessel master, where potential enforcement issues are uncovered, is classified as an occurrence. Within an occurrence each individual enforcement issue constitutes a separate violation. As a result, one occurrence in DVS can be associated with more than one violation. The 44 occurrences reported in 2012 encompassed a total of 76 violations. Of the 44 occurrences reported in 2012, 26 resulted in an investigation being initiated. Eleven of these investigations have since been closed through the following means; • One investigation revealed that a vessel master was discarding cardboard bait boxes at sea. Charges were approved and the vessel master pled guilty to a reduced fine of $300. • Three investigations were closed with the issuance of warning letters. • Seven investigations resulted in the Officer determining that there was either no violation or that the violation was insufficient to warrant a response, resulting in no action being taken.

The 15 occurrences that continue to be under investigation encompass a total of 70 violations. Seven of these investigations involve fishing in closed areas. Two thirds of the 2012 halibut occurrences that were input into DVS originated from EM and DMP monitoring systems provided by a contracted service provider.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 207 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Twenty percent of occurrences were generated by Fishery Officers themselves, typically through the inspection of fishing vessels and records.

• During 2012 , Fishery Officers dedicated more than 1,700 hours of enforcement time to the commercial Halibut fishery). On 14 dedicated patrols (by vessel or vehicle), there were 22 vessels inspected for compliance. • During 2012, Fishery Officers dedicated more than 2,500 hours of enforcement time to the Aboriginal Halibut fishery for food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) purposes. On 23 dedicated patrols (by vessel or vehicle), there were 7 vessels and 15 persons inspected for compliance. • Fishery Officers dedicated nearly 800 hours of enforcement time to the recreational Halibut fishery in 2012. On 100 dedicated patrols (by vessel or vehicle), there were 240 vessels and 578 persons checked. Patrols in 2012 were directed at enforcing legal limits and monitoring closed areas. • In 2012, 186 aerial surveillance flights patrolled the Pacific Coast for a total of over 900 hours. These flights resulted in 364 sightings of fishing vessels engaged in Halibut fishing.

2012 C&P Fishery Officer Halibut patrols commercial, aboriginal, and recreational groundfish fisheries56

56 Source: DFO Departmental Violations System (DVS)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 208 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with

2011-2013 Aerial Surveillance Program activity for marine fisheries

The Conservation and Protection program is in a state of transformation. A number of processes within the Government of Canada, such as Strategic Review, Strategic and Operating Review, amendments to the Fisheries Act and the arrival of the Mid-Shore-Patrol Vessels, have caused the program to review and prioritize delivery of C&P services in the future, with the objective to have a C&P Program which is fully integrated, risk-based, and intelligence-led. A current challenge facing the C&P Program is the gap between capacity (human, financial and material) and demands on the program. Like any other law enforcement agency, C&P cannot respond to every demand and it is not possible to address every compliance issue that arises. The new National Fisheries Information System (NFIS) program, which is currently progressing through an Implementation Strategy, aims to improve the prioritization of C&P activities, with a focus on those activities that are most harmful to fisheries and oceans resources, through improved capacity for analysis of existing data streams. NFIS activities will add value to the overall C&P Program by shifting the approach to compliance strategies and the operational planning framework to a model that emphasizes threat-risk based priority setting and decision making.

For example, an intelligence-led program will aid the program in prioritizing resources towards determining if and where serious fraud and/or collusion is occurring in fisheries, which occurrences warrant further investigation, which fisheries and areas should be the focus of patrols, or which licence conditions need to be closely monitored and thoroughly enforced to meet the priorities of C&P and fisheries management. The new Intelligence Service is intended to become the foundation of all C&P program activities and the NFIS structure will be based on National priorities. A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the Canadian halibut fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 209 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with 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 consistently applied and evidence that they are applied and thought to demonstrably provide effective applied. provide effective deterrence.

Guidepost deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes DFO’s C&P Program pursues violations of fisheries law and regulations in three ways.

1. For violations that are considered minor, an officer may issue warning letters that will form part of the fisher’s compliance history and will be considered when investigating future occurrences. 2. Restorative Justice (RJ), a community based approach, can be used to help meet the needs of people faced with fisheries offences and conflict in an inclusive and meaningful way. RJ practices provide voluntary opportunities for those who have been harmed and those who have caused harm to be active participants in their journey for justice, accountability, and reparation. DFO supports the advancement of RJ as it contributes to the C&P mandate and they aid in developing collaborative partnerships, addressing conflict, and assisting offenders in the exploration of values and principles. 3. Finally, serious or repeat offenders are dealt with through the provincial and federal courts where sentencing can include significant fines (some recent examples have been in excess of $50,000), license suspensions, and in some cases jail time.

The Halibut fishery is extensively monitored through the use of sophisticated electronic and human monitoring programs. Combined with the significant penalties which can be sanctioned by the court system, the compliance rate in general for this fishery remains high. This allows enforcement staff to focus resources on individuals and vessels that are flagged in the monitoring process.

While there have been few serious violations and investigations in the Canadian halibut fishery, there were two resolved in 2013 that indicate the effectiveness of the enforcement program and act as a deterrent to potential violators. Below is a summary of these priority investigations and court decisions:

Justification

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 210 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with 1. Regina vs. DALUM • During the period from March 9, 2007, to December 31, 2007, Gerald Peter Dalum was the owner of G.P. Dalum Enterprises Ltd., which owned the fishing vessel Double Decker and its two commercial halibut fishing licences. Both Mr Dalum and his company were charged with nine infractions of the Fisheries Act. It was alleged that the two caught and retained halibut, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and shortspine thornyheads in a quantity in excess of the quota allowed by their Licences contrary to the Fishery (General) Regulations under the Fisheries Act. • The quota was not reconciled within the guidelines of the Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan and the Licence Conditions. An investigation took place and sufficient evidence was gathered to lay charges. • In March 2011, the accused was convicted of four charges. Sentencing occurred on June 8, 2011, however the harvester subsequently appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The appeal was heard in December 2011. • On April 24, 2013 the convictions were upheld and reasons for Judgement given by the court. • On July 29, 2013 Gerald Dalum was sentenced in Nanaimo Provincial Court to a fine of $60,000, with five years to pay; and a minimum payment of $5,000 per year; • G.P. Dalum Enterprises Ltd. was fined $10,000, with two years to pay; and a minimum payment of $5,000 per year.

2. Regina vs. STEER On June 26, 2013, Justice Ted Gouge of BC Provincial Court convicted Scott Steer on charges that included multiple contraventions of the conditions of a commercial fishing licence including sale and possession of illegally caught fish and fishing during a closed time. • Steer was employed as the vessel master of the Canadian Fishing Vessel, Pacific Titan, a 50-foot vessel licenced to fish for Albacore Tuna in U.S. waters, and for Groundfish in Canada. Between July and October 2010, the vessel's owners found that Steer caught less Tuna than was expected during three fishing trips. • The court found that between November and December 2010, Steer "caught and landed large quantities of sablefish during that period surreptitiously, under cover of darkness and without validation". Sablefish landings in British Columbia are required to be validated by an independent dockside Observer upon landing. • During the same period, Steer caught and surreptitiously landed a large quantity of Halibut, a species which he was not instructed to fish by the vessel owners. • Judge Gouge found that Steer, under an alias and using a cell phone found in his possession, arranged for the transportation of a large shipment of illegally caught frozen Sablefish and Halibut from Vancouver Island to Dawson Creek, BC.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 211 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with • Steer pled guilty to 3 counts of failing to maintain harvest logs (later consolidated to one count). Judge Gouge found Steer guilty of 7 additional counts; two counts of offering fish for sale that had not been caught and retained under the authority of a license which authorizes their sale; two counts of failing to maintain the electronic monitoring system of the Pacific Titan in operational condition; and three counts of landing groundfish without validation. Steer was sentenced on November 26, 2013. Judge Gouge handed down the following conditions of sentence; a 6 month jail sentence for each of the 8 charges, to be served concurrently; cancellation of all existing fishing licenses and permits and a 10 year prohibition against the issuance of new licences or permits; a 10 year fishing prohibition; and $15,000 in restitution for the lost wages of a crew member. Steer was not given a fine, as Judge Gouge determined that he would be unable to pay a fine that would be adequate to satisfy the objective of denunciation and deterrence.

Within the Canadian halibut fishery, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist,

are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with 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. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management

Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 212 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with As shown by DFO's C&P enforcement data, considerable enforcement effort is in place to monitor, control and enforce the Canadian halibut fishery, including the recreational fishery, Aboriginal fishery for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and the commercial fishery. Enforcement in the commercial fishery, which catches the vast majority of the annual halibut TAC, is supported by a very comprehensive at-sea and dockside monitoring program that provides accurate and timely information to C&P for assessment and potential investigation.

Vessel's trying to fish illegally (especially repeatedly) are likely to be detected and subject to enforcement action. Indeed the case of Regina vs STEER, identified above was triggered by the vessel owners concern over irregularities noticed during the vessel landings. The comprehensive monitoring programs are fully funded and contracted by industry, consistent with General Standards Board requirements and DFO certification requirements for at-sea and dockside monitors.

With such a high degree of monitoring and enforcement coverage and so few serious violations there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Justification d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Met? Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 213 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with As shown by DFO's C&P enforcement data (see scoring issue ‘a’ above), considerable enforcement effort is in place to monitor, control and enforce the Canadian halibut fishery, including the recreational fishery, Aboriginal fishery for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and the commercial fishery. Enforcement in the commercial fishery, which catches the vast majority of the annual halibut TAC, is supported by a very comprehensive at-sea and dockside monitoring program that provides accurate and timely information to C&P for assessment and potential investigation.

Based on occurrence reporting by at-sea and dockside observers and the follow up review and decisions made by C&P, there is no apparent systematic non- compliance (see table below).

Commercial Halibut Fishery Occurrences and Enforcement Action in 201257

OCCURRENCE TYPE INVESTIGATION UNABLE TO NO ACTION TOTALS TOTAL INITIATED / RESPOND WARRANTED NUMBER OF UNDERWAY VIOLATIONS CLOSED AREA / TIME 2 1 2 5 0 GEAR CONFLICT 3 3 3 ILLEGAL BUY-SELL-POSSESS 4 1 5 3 INSPECTION 1 1 0 OTHER LEGISLATION 1 1 2 0 QUOTA- Trip Limit Overages 7 3 2 12 6 REGISTRATION – LICENCE 1 1 2 1 REPORTING- Dual Fishing (FSC) 1 2 3 1

REPORTING- Hail / EM systems 3 3 2 SPECIES / SIZE LIMITS 1 1 3 TOTALS 22 5 10 37 19

Justification DFO 2013; Stanley et al, 2011; Departmental Violation System (DFO DVS) References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

57 Source: DFO Departmental Violation System (DVS)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 214 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 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 A comprehensive research plan undertaken, as provides the provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient sufficient to achieve the

t to achieve the objectives consistent with objectives consistent MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with MSC’s Principles 1

Guidepos and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes Article III of the Convention between Canada and the United States directs the IPHC to conduct and coordinate scientific studies relating to the Pacific halibut fishery. Nearly all of the research done by the IPHC is directed toward one of three continued objectives of the Commission: improving the annual stock assessment and information available to provide catch recommendations, developing information on current management issues and adding to the knowledge of the biology and life history of halibut (IPHC staff, 2013c).

Previously, the IPHC would publish the research program report in the annual IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities; reporting on the projects for the past year and proposals for the upcoming year (IPHC Staff, 2012). The 2012 IPHC Performance Review recommended the creation of a Five Year Research Plan and an Annual Research Plan (ARP).58 The plans are intended to provide linkages to Commission objectives, with an accompanying process for input and periodic reviews by the Commission, interested stakeholders, the Research Advisory Board, and independent peer reviewers. In May 2012 the Commission held a science and assessment strategic planning meeting at which four areas of priority science- related activity for the Commission and its staff were identified: peer review of the existing stock assessment, development of a long-term peer review process for stock assessments, development of a five-year research plan, and development of a public engagement strategy for the Commission’s Management Strategy Evaluation. The IPHC 2013 Annual Research Plan is published in the IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities (IPHC, 2013c).

IPHC also utilizes the Research Advisory Board (RAB), formed in 1999 and consisting of both fishers and processors, that offers suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission research should focus.59

Justification

58 IPHC (2013c), Page 9. 59 IPHC webpage: http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 215 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management

DFO operates an active research program on groundfish (which includes the halibut fishery) and related issues, such as stock assessments on groundfish species caught in the halibut fishery. Much of the research is guided by the Sustainable Fisheries Framework and the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan.

Since 2003, DFO has had a comprehensive research survey and biological sampling program. In cooperation with user groups, fishery independent surveys are conducted annually by government and chartered industry vessels. Across a 2 year period all areas of the coast are surveyed. Surveys include: multi-species synoptic bottom trawl surveys; longline trap survey; longline hook surveys; offshore hake hydroacoustic survey; Strait of Georgia hydroacoustic survey; and small mesh multi-species bottom trawl (shrimp) survey.

Survey outputs include abundance indices (index of relative biomass by species each year), measures of variability (CV) about those indices, spatial distribution of species, biological samples (length, sex, weight, maturity, genetics, age structures), and environmental data (temperature, salinity, DO, PH, etc.). Many of the survey outputs are inputs in the stock assessment models.

DFO's research strategy includes the use of simulations to assess how well different survey configurations detect changes in a population. This is done by pooling the survey observations for each survey, imposing a trend on those observations, resampling the observations at time intervals as the trend is imposed, and recalculating the indices and their relative errors.

Consistent with the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan, in 2012 DFO went through a process prioritizing groundfish stocks and putting in place an assessment schedule through 2021 (DFO 2012).

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 216 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Specifically, the prioritization considered more than 200 species that fall within the research mandate of DFO's Groundfish Science Branch, Pacific Region and then recommends separation into higher priority or “Type A” and lower priority or “Type B” species. A screening of the Type B species is done to identify a short list which should receive more assessment work within the coming decade (2012- 2021). A draft assessment schedule of the Type A and selected Type B species for the 2012- 2021 period is then put together following consultation. The intent is to conduct the review every five years, although yearly adjustments can be made as- needed. The prioritization and assessment schedule inform work-planning for DFO and its research collaborators and interested parties.

The process attempts to satisfy essential timing commitments resulting from, for example, treaty (i.e. offshore hake), Species at Risk (SARA) legislation, and Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) timelines. Additional benefits included efficient and early notice of time commitments for DFO and collaborators; advanced warning of the funding required for contract support; more efficient staging of ageing requests; and enhanced opportunity to conduct preparatory studies to augment the quality of future assessments. The prioritization is risk-based in that the scheduling attempts to prioritize those species in most immediate need of assessment because of high fishery importance, a demonstrated conservation concern, or declining trends in abundance. The process attempts to be flexible by proposing an iterative review process that keeps all species in play.

Comprehensive research plans by the IPHC and DFO provides the management system for the Canadian halibut fishery with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly

Guidepost available. Met? Yes Yes No The results of IPHC research results are available on their website (http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html). The results of any DFO groundfish- related research are available on the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific webpage (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarc-ceesp/index-eng.html).

Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. However, neither the DFO Groundfish Science Strategic Plan or the IPHC Five Year Research Plan are widely and publicly available. For these reasons the Canadian halibut fishery does not receive full scores for this issue of SG100.

Justification DFO 2012; IPHC, 2013c References

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 217 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 218 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place place mechanisms to mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system.

Guidepost system. system Met? Yes Yes Yes The IPHC has in place mechanisms and processes that annually evaluate the performance of the commission’s management measures. IPHC analyses and measures are subjected to regular internal and external reviews. Reviewers’ comments are available in the material circulated for the annual meetings. The documents prepared for the annual meeting are reviewed by scientific advisors from both countries and the public and stakeholder participants can provide comments through the public sessions, the Conference Board and Processor Advisory Group deliberations, respectively. The process is open and transparent. In addition, the IPHC recently formed the Scientific Review Board (SRB), a small group of fisheries science experts, to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and support and strengthen the stock assessment process.60

Justification

60 IPHC webpage: http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 219 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system DFO also has processes and mechanisms to evaluate the fishery on an annual or periodic basis. Some of the processes for the evaluation and review of the halibut fishery include: • DFO’s fisheries checklist, which is a core component of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework, provides the internal performance measurement tool for monitoring the outcomes of the management system for the fishery. The results of the checklist are shared with stakeholders during the fisheries management planning / advisory process (which is an external review). The checklist provides information on progress and possible gaps to be addressed. • DFO's Precautionary Approach Framework Policy requires that an evaluation of the fishery's PA framework at least 6-10 years after it has been put in place, and earlier if new information could affect the parameters of the Framework • Post-fishery season reviews are conducted under advisory committee / IFMP processes, which include external stakeholders. • All Scientific Advisory Reports (SAR), Research Documents and proceedings documents are available for external readers via the DFO website. • Both DFO’s Audit and Evaluation Directorate61 conduct evaluations of all DFO programs and activities, using a risk-based approach, and ensuring that fisheries management activities are aligned with and meet commitments under the Department’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA)62 and Management Accountability Framework (MAF)63. • The Canadian Auditor General can, and has in the past conducted reviews of the fisheries management regime on an ad-hoc basis. • Reviews of Canada’s management regime are occasionally conducted by governments and universities. • DFO Fisheries Checklist results are used to report against indicators, measuring DFO's and the Government's performance in managing fisheries and maintaining fish stocks. The results of using these indicators and checklist information are published in two government of Canada reports, both publically available: Canada's Performance Report64 (issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat) and DFO's annual Departmental Performance Report.65

In the Pacific Region, the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific (CSAP) provides a rigorous peer review of DFO stock assessments. CSAP provides advice about fish stock and habitat status as well as potential biological consequences of fisheries management actions and natural events. More information about CSAP -- as well as a description of the processes, policies and guidelines -- can be obtained at: Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish 61 Information aboutoutlines DFO's Audit the various and Evaluation consultation Directorate processes can be currently found at: htin tp://www.dfoplace in Canada-mpo.gc.ca/ae for - ve/index-eng.htm groundfish, including those specific to halibut and other user groups (DFO, 2013). 62 Information aboutFurther DFO's Programinformation Activity on Architecturethese processes, (PAA) canas well be found as their at: http://www.dfoterms of reference- and mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2012-13/index-eng.htm 63 Information about DFO's Management Accountability Framework can be found at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/dpr-rpp07-08/sect3a-eng.htm 64 Information on Canada's Performance Reports can be found at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/index- eng.asp

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 220 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarc-ceesp/index-eng.html#

Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish outlines the various consultation processes currently in place in Canada for groundfish, including those specific to halibut and other user groups (DFO, 2013). Further information on these processes, as well as their terms of reference and DFO's advisory committees (HAB, CIC, GIAB) meet several times a year. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB), the DFO advisory body for the recreational fishery, also meets several times annually and regularly evaluates relevant management measures.

DFO also has well developed processes for the evaluation of science advice. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) coordinates the peer review of scientific issues for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The different Regions of Canada conduct their resource assessment reviews independently, tailored to regional characteristics and stakeholder needs. CSAS facilitates these regional processes, fostering national standards of excellence, and exchange and innovation in methodology, interpretation, and insight. For more information on CSAS see: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm

In addition, when a new significant management change is undertaken, DFO will generally conduct an internal review or hire an external reviewer to perform an evaluation of the new initiative. The review is public and the results are distributed to stakeholders upon completion. For example, following the implementation of the halibut ITQ program, DFO contracted an outside specialist to conduct a formal assessment of the program (EB Economics, 1992). There have been a number of internal and external reviews of the halibut ITQ program; some examples include DFO 1994, Casey et al. 1995, Gislason 1999, Jones 2003 and DFO 2005. DFO also hired an external reviewer to undertake an assessment of combination halibut-rockfish fishing following its implementation (DFO 2000).

When the integration of the commercial groundfish fisheries was being considered in the early to mid-2000s, DFO set up a multi-stakeholder advisory process to ensure all stakeholders views and socioeconomic impacts were considered in the development of the management plans. This process was called the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Committee (CGIAC). The CGIAC included representatives from the commercial industry, First Nations, United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union, environmental non-government organizations, the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, and the Coastal Community Network. Prior to its implementation in 2006, DFO held community workshops in 2005 to explain the groundfish integration management plan and solicit advice from stakeholders. In 2006 DFO again held community workshops to provide commercial groundfish vessel owners the opportunity to review the commercial groundfish fisheries to date, and provide recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the 2007/2008 groundfish commercial harvest plans. These sessions were designed to complement the

Department’s established advisory processes.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 221 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

DFO also undertook internal reviews of the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program while it was still a pilot program and sought a formal external review prior to making it permanent (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/commercial/ground-fond/index-eng.html).

The performance of the Service Provider(s) in meeting the requirements of the electronic monitoring (EM), at-sea observer (ASOP) and dockside monitoring (DMP) programs may also be evaluated. Service Providers failing to meet the minimum requirements outlined in the Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) or as designated under Section 39 of the Fishery (General) Regulations66 or as required under certification by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) may not be approved by DFO to perform those duties in subsequent years. Further, the ASOP, DMP and EM programs and requirements are subject to periodic internal and external review.

The Canadian halibut fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system.

b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system is management system is subject is subject to subject to regular to regular internal and external occasional internal internal and occasional review.

Guidepost review. external review. Met? Yes Yes Yes

As identified in the write up for 3.2.5 (a), the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review. Justification

References EB Economics, 1992; DFO 1994; Casey et al. 1995; Gislason 1999; Jones 2003; DFO 2005 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

66 For the Fishery (general) Regulations go to: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-53/page- 1.html

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 222 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

8.3 Appendix 1.1 Condition and Agreement to Meet Condition

CONDITION 1 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: ensure Performance the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species Indicator 2.3.2 Scoring issue b.) Management Strategy Evaluation Score 75

[Only the rationale relating to the scoring components that carry a condition is included in this section.] For and Rougheye rockfish (Types I and II), there is not an objective basis for confidence that the current strategy (TAC limiting catch), will work based on information directly about the species involved (SG 80) because there has not been a stock assessment since 1998. Rougheye rockfish currently have a truncated age structure, suggesting a doubling of mortality. Current catches exceed upper PSARC-reviewed limits agreed after the last assessment from 1998. This work by Schnute et al (1999) framed as “how many fish can safely be caught” cited a yield range of 520 to 950mt for all fisheries. After integration, the TAC was increased to 1,140mt. The main management measure of the strategy as it applies to rougheye (overall TAC) is therefore higher than the last recommended yield range and a stock assessment needed to increase confidence that the TAC is currently still appropriate is still to be conducted. Furthermore, two species/genotypes were identified ~2005, and abundance and limits relevant to these two types have not been assessed/critically considered by DFO. The next stock assessment is currently scheduled for 2017 (~20 years between assessments). Therefore, this scoring Rationale element does not currently meet the SG 80. The fishery is currently within limits, taking only 81% of the allocated TAC for rougheye, so does meet the SG80 on the relevant outcome performance indicator 2.3.1, but not 2.3.2b.

For Yelloweye rockfish, the outside stock is also overdue for a stock assessment, which was scheduled to occur in 2013. (The fishery mainly interacts with the outside stock). The revised schedule projects assessment for May 2015 and data have been compiled in preparation. Yelloweye was listed in 2011 as Species of Special Concern on SARA, triggering a national requirement for DFO to develop a management plan within 5 years, due in 2016. It is currently unclear that the main management measure of the strategy as it applies to outside yelloweye (overall TAC) may not be totally appropriate for the current state of the stock given outdated stock assessment for a species of special concern and one that is at risk of overfishing. Therefore, this scoring element does not currently meet the SG 80 from a management perspective. (The fishery is currently within limits, taking only 75% of the allocated TAC for outside yelloweye, so does meet the SG80 on the relevant outcome performance indicator 2.3.1, but not 2.3.2b. A condition is therefore raised based on the need to use current information to inform the main management measures within the overall integrated

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 223 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 groundfish strategy, for these ETP rockfish.

The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that Condition the strategy for outside yelloweye and rougheye rockfishes will work, based on

information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. • By the first surveillance audit (2016), provide evidence that a stock assessment on outside yelloweye rockfish has been conducted. • By the second surveillance audit (2017), provide evidence that a recovery plan has been put in place for yelloweye rockfish as mandated by the SARA listing process in 2011. • By the second surveillance audit (2017), provide evidence that a stock assessment on rougheye rockfish types I and II – or a rationale not to assess separately - is being conducted Milestones • By the third surveillance audit (2018), provide evidence that the stock

assessment results have been considered in the management advice for outside yelloweye rockfish. Make this rationale publically available and list any additional management measures proposed based on science advice. • By the fourth surveillance audit (2019), provide evidence that the stock assessment results have been considered in the management advice for rougheye rockfish. Make this rationale publically available and list any additional management measures proposed based on science advice.

Client action plan See letter from DFO below that commits to completing the stock assessments in the timeframe stipulated by the milestones. Consultation on See letter from DFO below. condition

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 224 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 225 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 9 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewers Overall Opinion Overall Opinion of the Report Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has the assessment team Yes Yes arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification While there are some issues The assessment team has done identified with scoring of a thorough job of highlighting particular elements as the achievements and documented below, the challenges that exist in overall conclusion (that the managing this stock. fishery should be re- certified) is appropriate. Certification Body Response Thank you for the reviews. Do you think the condition(s) Yes & No Yes raised are appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification The Condition is a part of Yes, clear and measurable 2.3.2a, but would be more actions have been identified for appropriate associated with situations that require 2.3.2b ("There is an objective development to achieve the basis for confidence that the SG80 outcomes. strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.") since the lack of recent assessments means that there cannot be confidence that the strategy currently in place will be effective. Both the Condition and the associated milestones as suggested in the client letter describing the "Follow up From March 11, 2015 Meeting" are adequate to achieve SG80. Certification Body Response The score for 2.3.2 has not changed, but the condition now refers to scoring issue b instead of a and the rationales adjusted.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 226 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Client Action Plan Comments Client Action Plan Comments (if included) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Do you think the client action No Yes plan is sufficient to close the conditions raised? (Y/N) Peer Reviewer Justification As indicated above, the Condition would be more appropriate as part of 2.3.2b.

The client letter suggests that the imposition of the Condition is inappropriate because the management strategies in place "ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species." Due to the lack of recent assessments, this cannot be stated with any certainty at present. Monitoring of the catches of these species is rigorous but the impacts (i.e., mortality) cannot be determined in the absence of recent information regarding stock size even if catches remain within existing TACs or trip limits.

It is agreed that the items necessary to satisfy the Condition do fall under the prevue of DFO but the client has committed to work with DFO to ensure that the necessary milestones are met, both from a science as well as a management perspective.

The letter from DFO (Feb. 23, 2015) commits to the dates for assessments of Yelloweye and Rougheye and compliments the client Action Plan. Certification Body Response The condition has been more appropriately assigned to scoring issue b.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 227 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Peer Reviewers General Comments Peer Reviewer General Comments (optional) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 See the 'Any Other Comments' section below. None.

Certifying Body Response N/A

Peer Reviewers Comments Related to Scores and Rationales Principle 1 Performance Indicator 1.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The scoring is based on The certifier gave a score of 90 information contained in for this PI because there the Stewart et al. (2013). There is a stock is just above the more recent assessment reference point and there has (Stewart and Martell, 2014) been substantial adjustment to that became available back in the stock assessment model January 2014 that should have there is not a high degree of been used. Information in that certainty that the stock is document would suggest the above the reference point. resource has been fluctuating around its target reference point (B30%) (Fig. 3) with a high degree of certainty (95% CI) and therefore meets the SG100 requirement in SIb and hence an overall PI score of 100 is warranted. Certification Body Response The P1 section of the report and the PI scoring relative to P1 was completed in Sept/Oct 2013 after the Fourth Annual Surveillance audit. At the time the text and scoring was harmonized with the recently completed re-assessment of US halibut. Unfortunately, completion of this re-assessment was delayed, so the text does not reflect the most recent assessment that was released in Jan 2014. Since the most recent assessment does not substantially

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 228 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 change the scoring completed and reported in the present text, it will remain unchanged. The next annual audit will reflect the most recent stock assessment at the time.

Performance Indicator 1.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification There is additional information The certifier gave an overall in Stewart and Martell (2014) score of 90 for this PI reflecting that should be used to the generally adequacy of the reinforce the SG 100 in SIb. assessment, but the robustness of the model still needs to The overall score for 1.1.2 of 90 explored further. is appropriate. Certification Body Response See response to 1.1.1

Performance Indicator 1.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The stock is not depleted but The stock is not depleted an so the reference should be this PI is not applicable. updated to the 2014 assessment. Again, information in the most recent assessment by Stewart and Martell (2014) should be included. The justification for SId needs to be more directly

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 229 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 focussed on whether the harvest strategy is "periodically reviewed and improved as necessary".

The first sentence of the Justification for SIa describes the harvest strategy very narrowly compared the definition on page 52 of MSC Certification Requirements V1.3. The Justification needs to be expanded to include all of the elements in order to properly rationalize the 'Yes' assigned to SG100. The information regarding how harvest advice is provided in SIa is not described in the background sections but should be included there. It is not clear if the CEY was carried over when the SUFD was replaced.

Overall, the assigned score of 85 may be warranted. Certification Body Response See response to 1.1.1.

Performance Indicator 1.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes & No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Again, information in the most The certifier gives a score of 85 recent assessment by Stewart for this PI as the harvest and Martell (2014) should be strategy evaluation has not included. The justification for been applied to the coastwide SId needs to be more directly assessment and precaution for focussed on whether the the retrospective pattern is not harvest strategy is "periodically included.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 230 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 reviewed and improved as necessary".

The first sentence of the Justification for SIa describes the harvest strategy very narrowly compared the definition on page 52 of MSC Certification Requirements V1.3. The Justification needs to be expanded to include all of the elements in order to properly rationalize the 'Yes' assigned to SG100. The information regarding how harvest advice is provided in SIa is not described in the background sections but should be included there. It is not clear if the CEY was carried over when the SUFD was replaced.

Overall, the assigned score of 85 may be warranted. Certification Body Response See response to 1.1.1.

Performance Indicator 1.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Again, information in the most The certifier gives a score of recent assessment by Stewart and 80 here because while the Martell (2014) should be included. harvest control rule has been That document as well as the found to have worked in the Stewart et al. (2013) document past, it has not been exmined includes a figure illustrating the for the coastwide model and Harvest Control Rule in place. This it has not accounted for the figure should be included in the retrospective pattern and background information along consequently appears to have with the existing descriptive text. over estimated population sizes in recent years.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 231 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 In the Justification for SIa, the SUFD is described in some detail but as is indicated in the Justification for PI 1.2.1 SIa, its use was discontinued in 2013 being replaced with a risk/benefit approach. As such, using it as part of the Justification is inappropriate and the section needs to be updated to describe the more recent approach.

There is inadequate detail associated with SIb to explain exactly how the HCR takes main uncertainties into consideration. It is unclear what "… and presents the results of the estimation of spawning biomass and fishing intensity in a control rule." actually refers to. Also, if M and movement/migration are considered "wide range" as is inferred when indicating 'No' to SG100, what specifically are the "main uncertainties" that are presumably taken into consideration so as to warrant a 'Yes' for SG80? This needs to be strengthened before SG80 is awarded a 'Yes'.

Part of the Justification related to SIc speaks to the previous retrospective pattern problems. Incorporation of information from the more recent assessment (Stewart and Martell, 2014) would be helpful in addressing this. There is a concern with the SG80 assignment for SIc. While the available evidence may indicate that the tool previously used (SUFD) was effective, the new tool (risk-benefit decision table) has not been in place long enough to allow evaluation as to whether it is "appropriate and effective" as is required under SG80. Therefore, unless simulations have been carried out to evaluate the merits

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 232 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 of the new tool that demonstrated effectiveness (at least in theory) a 'Yes' can only be applied to the SG60 and a 'Y&N' to SG80, thus warranting an overall score for the PI of 75 and development of a Condition. Certification Body Response See response to 1.1.1.

Performance Indicator 1.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The Justifications provided for The certifier gave an overall each of the SI's are adequate to score of 90 for this PI reflecting support the PI score of 90. the generally adequacy of the harvest strategy, but the robustness of the global model still needs to explored further. Certification Body Response N/A

Performance Indicator 1.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No & Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification For SIa, the retrospective The certifier gave an overall pattern as described in Stewart score of 95 for this PI reflecting et al. (2013) argues against the generally adequacy of the scoring SIa at 100 as the model assessment, but the previously used was clearly not robustness of the model still

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 233 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 appropriate for the stock and needs to explored further. although there were indications that the revised model eliminated the retrospective pattern, more study would be needed to confirm this. The more recent assessment (Stewart and Martell, 2014) provides additional evidence that the retrospective pattern has largely been eliminated thus supporting the 100. This should be included in the Justification.

Reference to the 2014 assessment document should be made in the Justification for SIb as well as SIc.

Stewart and Martell (2014) include a comprehensive discussion of major sources of uncertainty that should be described in the background information and utilized in scoring SId although the 'No' is probably still warranted for SG100.

SIe has been scored at 100 but nowhere in the re-assessment document is the internal or external peer review process associated with the IPHC specifically and fully described. This information needs to be included in order to substantiate the assignment of 100. Certification Body Response See response to 1.1.1.

Principle 2 Performance Indicator 2.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes & No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 234 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In the SIa Justification, the The certifier gave an overall reference to COSEWIC for Canary score of 95 for this PI and Rockfish should be updated to indicates that there are three the most recent information minor species including (2007). There is also a more lingcod, canary rockfish and recent COSEWIC document for bocaccio that are retained, Bocaccio (2013) that updates but no main species. their recommendation to 'Endangered'. This document and its information should replace the references to the previous COSEWIC report and adjustments to text made as necessary. There is a need to address the "fluctuating around their target reference points" part of SG100 in the Justification.

The Justification for SIb is too generic. Specifics regarding the reference points for the 3 species should be included.

Overall, the score of 95 is appropriate assuming the "fluctuating around" issue can be addressed and confirmed and more specific information is provided for SIb. Certification Body Response Added additional text to scoring issue b for clarification.

Performance Indicator 2.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The scoring and Justifications The certifier gave an overall are appropriate. score of 95 for this PI as the

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 235 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 fishery easily meets the SG80, Reference is made to Appendix but the SG100 only for VII of the 2013 IFMP (also lingcod. elsewhere). Appendix 7 refers to bait; Appendix 6 is the appropriate section. Also, there is a 2014 IFMP. This should be checked to ensure the same limits still exist.

An editorial comment only: for SId, 'Y&N' is associated with SG100. In other PIs 'No for some components' is used. Either seems adequate but for consistency it would be better to stick to one or the other. Certification Body Response Corrected reference to appendix number throughout document and made more clear which scoring components meet the SG for each SI throughout Principle 2.

Performance Indicator 2.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The scoring and Justifications The certifier gave an overall are appropriate but it would be score of 95 for this PI, noting helpful to clarify in the that the Catch-MSY approach Justifications that it is used does not include specifically the fishery under information about recruitment, assessment that is being selectivity or any age-structured referred to rather than a more effects. Consequently, setting generic overall groundfish set catch limits based on this of plans. approach could result in fishing mortality rates that may be inappropriate in any particular year. Certification Body Response The same strategies used in the groundfish fishery are also used in the halibut fishery. They are covered by the same management plan.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 236 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Performance Indicator 2.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In SIa, because Pacific Cod is The certifier gave an overall MSC certified does not score of 85 for this PI. necessarily mean it is currently Migration of spiny dogfish and within safe biological limits as associated management long as the management in challenges and lack of a reliable place is such to allow it to stock assessment challenge the increase in stock size. As such, strategy for managing bycatch. more information regarding it's status in relation to its biological limits required.

Also in SIa, the 2014 DFO document (identified as being 'in press') is now published and all references to it throughout the assessment document should be updated to reflect this.

With regard to SIb, I would suggest that since Spiny Dogfish are the only 'main' species, scoring as NA would be more appropriate that 'Yes'. The Justification would then simply read "Spiny Dogfish are not considered to be outside biologically safe limits."

In Justification for Sic, what is SASS; should that be SAR?

It is unclear how an overall score of 95 was reached. A score of 90 would seem more appropriate. Certification Body Response Additional text and edits to account for reviewers comments were

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 237 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 made to this rationale to make more it clear. P. cod were not considered a scoring component, so the text remains in the background of the report but not the rationale. With the change to SI ‘b’ being N/A, and the SG100 ‘a’ not being met, the score was reduced to 80.

Performance Indicator 2.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes & No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In the Justification for SIa, the The certifier gave an overall text should be modified to score of 85 for this PI. make it clear that the last Migration of spiny dogfish and paragraph ("Removals are associated management regulated with a …") refers challenges and lack of a reliable specifically to Spiny Dogfish. stock assessment challenge the strategy for managing bycatch. In SIb, there is no reference to Skates in the Justification section. Appropriate information should be added.

The same situation exists for Sic (i.e., there is no Skate information). The information for Skates should be added and the 'Yes' for SG100 re- evaluated.

The overall score of 85 is reasonable. Certification Body Response Text was added re: skates and clarification that spiny dogfish are being discussed.

Performance Indicator 2.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes & No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 238 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification A 'No' is assigned for SG100 in The certifier gave an overall SIb with Justification that there score of 95 for this PI citing are uncertainties such that that better and more complete (presumably) the "high degree assessments for certain of certainty" requirement is not bycaught species are needed. met. In the Justification section of P2.2.1a it states inter alia for Spiny Dogfish "That being so, the limits on the available data do not prohibit the assessment from achieving a high degree of certainty". This seems to conflict with the determination here. The apparent conflict needs to be resolved and scoring adjusted as may be appropriate.

The overall score of 95 is warranted. Certification Body Response Clarifications have been added that scoring issue c 100 is met for some but not all scoring components.

Performance Indicator 2.3.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes & No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification With regard to ETP species The certifier gave an overall overall, please see the broader score of 90 for this PI. perspectives described in the Albatross bycatch needs to be 'Any Other Comments' section recorded at the species level. below.

The Justification in SIa for

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 239 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Rougheye Rockfish is that the catches are less than the TACs. For that to be meaningful, there needs to be evidence that the TAC itself is adequate to satisfy the SG requirements. Evidence to support this is not provided but needs to be.

Also with SIa, the paragraph on Sharks is too generic. Table 15 mentions two species (Bluntnose Sixgill and Basking) and the discussion here should focus on these.

The paragraph in SIa that deals with marine mammals should focus on those species with interactions as described in Table 15.

Since there are no interactions with Green Sturgeon, is there any need to mention it in SIa and SIb?

The SIb Justification for quota and non-quota managed fisheries is too general and should be re-written to focus more specifically on the species themselves. It would be helpful if the removals described in the halibut fishery could be put into a broader context that demonstrates that the numbers represent e.g., only a small portion of the total annual removals. throughout the ETP species range. This would strengthen the argument in support of the assigned score.

An overall comment on 2.3.1 is that except for 2.3.1b, only those species for which 'direct' interactions have been shown need be discussed.

The overall score is appropriate.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 240 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Certification Body Response An additional table has been included in section 3.4.7 (Table 15). SIa rougheye rockfish statement has been modified to be more clear that the fishery adheres to the recommended TAC. SIa refers to all ETP species, hence the discussion of even those that the fishery does not interact with. With no direct impacts on species such as green sturgeon, those scoring components score to the SG100 on direct impacts.

Performance Indicator 2.3.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes & No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised Yes (see additional detail) Yes improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The second paragraph of SIa The certifier gave an overall Justification states "Because the score of 75 for this PI. Not Pacific region sets the bar in many clear how two species of regards for fisheries management rougheye are doing and protection of ETP species, it is separately. Quantitative difficult to say that the fishery analysis has not been exceeds national and international completed. It may take requirements.". The meaning of several decades to detect and this is rather obscure and it should understand impacts. be re-written to clarify the meaning.

The commentary in the Justification of SIa dealing with Rougheye and Yelloweye Rockfish makes repeated reference to preventing serious harm but this is not part of the SGs that only deal with achieving national/international requirements. As such, the fishery performance (i.e., catch levels) that are within management limits (regardless of the efficacy of the limits) is what should be evaluated here.

It would seem to me that the arguments provided relating to

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 241 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 preventing serious harm/recovery would be more appropriate in SIb and the Justifications moved there. The assignment of the 'No' for SG80 in SIa should be changed to a 'Yes' and a 'No' assigned to SG80 in SIb with the associated Condition being introduced there. The Condition would remain the same.

The current Justification for SIb is too general and should be re- written with more direct focus on the specific species that are relevant.

The overall score is warranted. Certification Body Response Additional text has been added, but the author does not agree that the other species should be removed from the rationale. The condition has been moved from SIa to SIb.

Performance Indicator 2.3.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes & No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA Yes improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification For SIa, a fuller explanation as The certifier gave an overall to why the Shearwater and score of 85 for this PI. Albatross meet SG80 in light of Information on pink the statement "Not albatross shearwaters and albatros by and not all shearwater species is needed. Perhaps interactions are recorded to some more information is species …". In other words, why needed on sharks. is the information considered "sufficient" even with these uncertainties? Certification Body Response The albatross sentence was an artefact from an earlier version of the report. After additional information was provided, this issue has been closed.

Performance Indicator 2.4.1

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 242 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification As an overarching perspective The certifier gave an overall regarding PI 2.4. (all), it is score of 80 for this PI. questionable whether adequate Additional information is information to fully justify the needed on glass sponges and scores assigned has been cold water corals. presented in section 3.4.8.

The Justification states "Evaluating fishing effort location relative to protected areas and considering the nature of longline gear as the most habitat affecting of the hook and line types, the fishery is found to meet the SG80 for all habitat types". There is inadequate justification presented without further substantiation. Descriptions of Rockfish closure areas, MPAs, etc. need to be put in context of the footprint of the fishery. Figure 8 provides information regarding the footprint of the fishery and bottom types but does not provide details related to RCAs, MPAs or other VMEs. See CB3.14.6.1 (a and b).

While the 80 score for SIa may be appropriate, it is not adequately justified at present. Certification Body Response An additional link has been added that includes the location of the MPAs, RCAs and other areas of interest. A comparison of the fishing effort locations and VMEs shows that the fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitats.

Performance Indicator 2.4.2

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 243 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification SIa Justifications need to be put The certifier gave an overall into the context of the halibut score of 95 for this PI noting fishery specifically and its that strategies such as reducing footprint in relation to the soak times and avoiding habitats encountered. The deployment of gear in rough measures and partial strategy weather might help. need to be fishery specific and not simply covered by overall DFO policies ("but some suggestions for fixed gear types have been put forward …"). Overall, the Justification needs to be more fishery focussed in order to adequately support the score of 80. Is there a fishery- specific strategy nested within the overall Groundfish IFMP for example?

As with SIa, the Justification in SIb needs to be more focussed on the fishery under assessment and the specific gear used. Listing a number of activities that are taking or have taken place is inadequate to warrant a score of 100 because the SG100 requires "Testing supports high confidence …".

The justification of 100 for SId is inadequate unless the information is put into the context of the footprint of the halibut fishery. Based on information provided elsewhere, MPAs are not the only strategy. Other habitats,

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 244 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 their sensitivities (or otherwise) and associated strategies should also be discussed (RCAs, VMEs, etc.).

Without additional Justifications, the overall score of 95 cannot be supported. Certification Body Response Added in references specific to the halibut fishery and removed text around the potential for meeting the SG100 in the future.

Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In SIa, the score of 100 is The certifier gave an overall appropriate but the Justification score of 85 for this PI. It’s not could be improved. Supporting clear yet how helpful MPAs text for figures 7 and 8 would be will be. useful. Also, there are no details of VME's provided, their locations, extent and overlap with the halibut fishery. The same applies to MPAs and RCAs. This information is needed in order to allow evaluation of potential impacts of the halibut fishery/gear. See CB 3.16.2.

The Justification of SIb needs to be strengthened to specifically indicate how the data being collected are "sufficient" as per SG80. This may only require a reference to other sections of the document.

For SIc the Justification is also inadequate. There should be a description of the monitoring of the fishery regarding effort,

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 245 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 location, amount of gear deployed, etc. to ensure the operation of the fishery is understood. The focus on MPAs is, by itself, inadequate.

The overall score for this PI (85) may appropriate but the Justifications need strengthening and rescoring considered as may be necessary. Certification Body Response Added additional text and references to support scores. Also added an additional link to interactive MPAs, VMEs, RCAs maps.

Performance Indicator 2.5.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The score is appropriate and The certifier gave an overall properly rationalized. score of 80 for this PI. Halibut fishery has not been studied with regard to ecosystem effects, at least bottom up effects. Certification Body Response N/A

Performance Indicator 2.5.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 246 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Peer Reviewer Justification How the PNCIMA itself will The certifier gave an overall ensure that there is no serious score of 90 for this PI. A plan risk to the ecosystem within has been developed, but which the halibut fishery is measures are not fully in place prosecuted needs to be yet. described. Then the Justification needs to be put into the context of the halibut fishery itself. Does the PNCIMA itself deal with the halibut fishery or others or is it more general? If more general, then strategies specifically related to the halibut fishery footprint need to be described.

It is unclear how having the PNCIMA in place may result in a score of 100 if it does not address halibut fishery specific issues.

Again in SIb, the Justification should be cast in the context of the halibut fishery footprint. It is unclear how finalization of the PNCIMA may boost the score to 100. It is suggested that this comment be left out (same with SIa) unless there is clear reasoning to support it.

For SIc it is stated " Several aspects of the strategy to protect ecosystem components have been shown to be effective particularly for the longline fishery …". A number of measures in place are described but evidence that they actually 'have been shown to be effective in protecting …' need to be presented here to support the statement.

In the Justification for SId, there is an important typo; "no evidence of systematic compliance …" should read "no evidence of systematic non- compliance …". There should be

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 247 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 reference information provided to support this statement.

Overall, a score of 90 may be warranted presuming the Justifications can be improved. Certification Body Response Added in specific references to the halibut fishery. The reference to lack of compilation of fishery location information was an artefact from an earlier version of the report. These data were provided later in the assessment process and the statement removed.

Performance Indicator 2.5.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The Justification for SIa should The certifier gave an overall perhaps speak of "fishery score of 95 for this PI. Would independent multi-species be helpful to have better surveys" or multiple surveys for maps of fishing activity numerous species in order to relative to vulnerable habitats. strengthen the ecosystem link. One should also not forget pelagic surveys as well as oceanographic, benthic organisms and plankton work assuming they occur.

SIb Justification states that information on the impacts is known and available but there are no further details provided (links to other parts of this report or references). Additional detail is necessary to support the statement and score.

Also, in the same Justification, it states "Information on fishing location and duration are available, but have not yet been

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 248 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 compiled and presented". If that is the case, what is the data source for Figure 8? In earlier PIs there is reference to that figure in relation to understanding the fishery footprint but the above statement seems to contradict this. Is the footprint known or not? If not then there needs to be a significant reconsideration of scoring of a number of the PI's (2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5.1). Clarification of this apparent contradiction is essential.

The rationale for SG100 in Sic is not adequately justified. Catch accounting, regardless of how rigorous it might be, does not provide, by itself, information regarding fishery impacts. Evidence to support this is actually in the scoring rationales in previous PI's including the imposition of the Condition. Simply stating that the main functions of species within the ecosystem are understood without supporting evidence, references, etc. is inadequate support of the assigned score. The score for SIc should only be 80 unless adequate additional justification can be included.

For SId, a 'Yes' is assigned to SG100 but the text indicates that SG100 is not met. I agree with the text although would suggest that references be provided in support of the statements.

Discussion of the PNCIMA in SIe Justification does nothing to support the score of either 80 or 100. The Justification should specifically address the SG issues.

The overall score of 95 is not supported unless appropriate

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 249 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 justifications can be added. Certification Body Response Additional text has been added. Changed scoring issue d to meet the SG80 only which reduced the overall score from 95 to 90.

Principle 3 Performance Indicator 3.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification With regard to the Justification The certifier gave an overall of SIa, it would be worthwhile to score of 100 for this PI. IPHC consider incorporating the long and DFO have been working at explanations into Section 3.5 this for some time and with then just summarizing that much success information here with references back to 3.5 as appropriate.

As with SIa, much of the material in SIb could be moved to section 3.5 and only referred to here as necessary. The same can be said for SIc. Certification Body Response Thank you for the editorial comment.

Performance Indicator 3.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In SIa, it would be useful to The certifier gave an overall indicate that the various score of 100 for this PI.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 250 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 advisory bodies, etc. have ToRs Communication and that (presumably) explicitly transparency are important to describe everyone's roles and remember. responsibilities. Again, much of the material in the Justification could be addressed in 3.5 and not repeated here.

Again for SIb, could most of this material be moved to 3.5 and simply referenced here? Since the requirement for a score of 100 is that the system "demonstrates", the inclusion of some specific examples would help reinforce the score (e.g., TEK/Aboriginals, HAB, etc. meeting minutes).

Again details in SIc to 3.5??

Overall, the assigned score of 100 is justified and well supported. Certification Body Response The roles and responsibilities of the identified advisory processes are provided in the IPHC and DFO references and do not need to be detailed in the Scoring Issue write up.

Performance Indicator 3.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA (see suggestion) NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification In para. 2 of SIa Justifications The certifier gave an overall (1st sentence), is it the score of 90 for this PI. "objectives" of IPHC that are Objectives are evolving. A risk- evolving or the "methodologies benefit table is now being used to achieve the objectives" that to communicate options and are evolving? There is a critically risks. Time will tell if it is important difference. Also effective.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 251 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 further down in the same paragraph, "In particular, the harvest policy will be revised over the next year to incorporate alternate fishery objectives …". Is it the 'objectives' that will be 'alternate' or 'strategies to achieve the objectives'? Again, there are critical differences in the two. If the objectives themselves are evolving then it cannot be known if the end point will even meet the requirements of SG80. For example will the Harvest Control Rules depicted in the figure in e.g., Stewart et al. (2013) remain in effect? Or is there a chance the overarching objectives described in para. 1 might change? If it is indeed 'Objectives' that are evolving, then I would suggest a score of only 70 with a Condition added that the revised objectives must be demonstrably in line with MSC Principles and Criteria. If the changes will not affect those in para. 1 then this should be explicitly stated in the Justifications.

As before, much of the detailed information could (should?) be moved to 3.5 and simply summarized and referenced here.

Overall, I agree with the score of 90 as long as what is evolving are not the primary objectives in which case a score of 75 is more appropriate with a Condition attached. Certification Body Response The IPHC's long-term objectives are clearly stated in paragraph 1 and they are not changing. To avoid confusion on this matter I have made a change to the wording in the first line of paragraph 2 to clarify that it is the methodologies used by the IPHC are evolving. While the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process may look at short term objective and industry driven long-

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 252 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 term objectives, such as reduced TAC instability or minimal risk of closing the fishery, it will not alter the IPHC's long-term objectives.

Performance Indicator 3.1.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The score of 100 is appropriate The certifier gave an overall and the Justification is fully score of 100 for this PI as adequate. As with the earlier incentives for sustainable PI's, much of the content could fishing seem to be in place. be moved to 3.5 (checking for duplication) then simply referenced and summarized here thus shortening the text considerably. Certification Body Response N/A

Performance Indicator 3.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The text in SIa is much too long The certifier gave an overall and should be moved to 3.5. score of 100 for this PI. The Much of it is a repeat of management objectives for the information already in the fishery have always been clear background section and it is not and seem to have been necessary to repeat all the recently updated in a positive details in the PI Justification. and constructive manner. SG100 requires that the

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 253 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 objectives are "measureable". It is stated in the Justification section that there are measurable objectives, but no supporting evidence of this is provided. What processes, benchmarks, etc. are in place to measure these? Unless specific evidence is available, a score of 80 can only be supported. It is important to specifically tie/link the generic objectives to the Pacific halibut fishery under assessment as 3.2.1 pertains to "Fishery-Specific Objectives" (CB4.7). Also, as per CB4.7.2, how are these "operationally defined"? Certification Body Response Disagree with reviewer 1. Paragraph 2 clearly identifies measureable objectives for the IPHC that are used annually in the stock assessment process. DFO uses similar measureable reference points identified in the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (limit reference point of .4Bmsy) that is used in the stock assessment process. For both the IPHC and DFO, for many of the other long-term objectives the measure is in the implementation of programs (100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, implementation of 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas, implementation of bottom trawl footprint and coral and sponge bycatch quota).and reviewing the data annually from these programs.

Performance Indicator 3.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Again there is a need to link the The certifier gave an overall generic aspects to the fishery- score of 100 for this PI. specific situation. There is no Management has demonstrated information provided in the an effective decision making Justifications in relation to process. Transparency is CB4.8.1 or 4.8.2. This needs to important.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 254 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 be included.

In SIa it would be helpful to specifically describe how the requirements of both SG60 and SG80 are met in the context of "some" and "established" in a short summary paragraph.

In SIb, there is one example of the DFO responding to a issue (Bocaccio) but the SG100 requires a response to "all issues". A score of 100 cannot be accepted unless the "all" is satisfied. A single example does not do it. Also, a 'No' is given for SIb at SG100. Also see above re CB4.8.2. Additionally, more specific information is required to support 'Yes' for SG60 and SG80.

Once again in SIc there is considerable information that could be moved to 3.5 (and may be repeated in parts of 3.4). Certification Body Response The SG100 should have had a "Yes" as evident from the score, but mistakenly had a "No". This has been corrected. Bocaccio is not the only example. It was used as an example of the process for effective decision making and management action. We have added information to identify other species that have triggered the process.

Performance Indicator 3.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification As with many Justifications The certifier gave an overall associated with P3, much of the score of 100 for this PI. Probably

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 255 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 material in PI3.2.3 should be one of the best fishery covered off in 3.5 and only be surveillance and monitoring summarized here as is systems in the world. This and necessary for the justification. communication provides for good stewardship. Much of the information provided in SIa describes activities whereas the scoring is based on "reasonable expectation" in SG60, "demonstrated an ability" in SG80 and "demonstrated a consistent" in SG100. The example given from 2012 describes 44 occurrences (actually representing 8% of the trips – could more than 1 occurrence happen per trip?) leading to 76 violations (14% of trips?) and 22 investigations (4% of trips?) but the information needs to be put into some sort of context as at present it is left to the reader to accept that these numbers are low enough to indicate an ability to enforce. Also, since only one year of information is provided, there is no evidence available to support an argument of "demonstrated a consistent…" as is required for SG100.

The final sentence in the Justification section of SIa, "… and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules." is not supported by the provided evidence.

As such, the score of 100 for SIa is not supportable with the evidence presented and a score of 80 is more appropriate but only if the 2012 example is considered to represent a low level of infractions by some standard.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 256 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

In the SIb Justification (2nd para.) it states "… the compliance rate in general for this fishery remains high". This is an important comment but is not supported with any specific evidence and/or measured against any specific benchmark and therefore is no more than a judgement call by someone (the author?). There needs to be a reference to something to support this kind of statement. The next paragraph indicates that there have been few serious violations and investigations. More detail to substantiate this claim is required to support the scores assigned for SIb as well as SIa.

It is unclear how the examples provided in SIb demonstrate "provide effective deterrence" as required in SG100. There needs to be clearly demonstrable impacts. Details regarding the "few" serious violations would help fulfil the SG100 requirements.

As with SIa, most of the Justification for SIc is related to activities rather than focussing on results as required by the SG's. The last paragraph in the SIc Justification is a summary that justifies the 'Yes' associated with SG100 but there is no evidence provided to support the statement. Inclusion of some sort of table indicating violations per vessel- day or some such would be extremely valuable in providing justification for the scores in this PI including SId since the SG80 for it refers to "systematic" which implies more than a single year of

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 257 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 information is necessary to support the 'Yes' with SG80.

Unless specific evidence that there is only a low level of infractions and few serious ones is presented, the score of 100 cannot be supported. In other words, there is a need to pull together the appropriate information. There is also a need to specifically address CB4.9.1 is the Justifications. Certification Body Response For some reason, one and a half paragraphs of my original submission were missing from the report text for SIa. They have been re-inserted. The informtion provided describes probably one of, if not the most comprehensive monitoring program in the world that is supported by DFO's enforcement arm (155 Fishery Officers, at-sea boardings, air surveillance, and regulatory framework). The 2012 data was the most recent data available at the start of the fishery re-assessment and were believed to be representative of prior years and a high level of fishery compliance. Interviews with DFO management and C&P staff indicated that there were very confident with the monitoring and enforcement program in place and did not believe there were any systemic problems. As shown by the information presented, occurance reports are automatically generated for any type of possible violation, but after further review by C&P less than 3% continued to be investigated and nearly half of those were for fishing in a closed area (which given the use of EM, observers and GPS, the monitoring program is going to catch). Clearly, the data shows that the compliance rate is high. The reviewer seems to associate a high number of occurrence reports with a poor compliance rate. As discussed in the justification, the occurrence reporting covers anything and everything, most of which are determined by C&P staff not to be violations. The Observer's job is only to "observe, record, and report". C&P's role is to recieve this information and assess if any violations occurred and need further action. As stated above, the monitoring and surveillance system in the BC halibut fishery is as comprehensive as any in the world. Parts of it (100% dockside monitoring) have been in place for 24 years and the entire program has been operational for 9 years. DFO's managers and enforcement staff have significant confidence in the program, the information collected from it, and that the level of compliance is high. The evidence clearly supports SG100.

Performance Indicator 3.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator?

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 258 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification To meet the SG80 score for this The certifier gave an overall PI it is required to have a score of 90 for this PI. documented research plan Strategic research plans have related to the fishery under been generated. They could assessment. The Justification for be made more widely SIa describes that IPHC does available. have annual documented research plans specifically related to halibut and is also developing a document describing a longer term plan.

While the Justification describes various activities carried out by DFO, there is no evidence provided that a specific documented research plan to support the conclusion that a "comprehensive research plan" is in place within DFO that supports research across P1, P2 and P3 with respect to the halibut fishery and as such, it doesn't meet the SG80 requirement in SIa and a Condition is needed that requires DFO (Pacific Region) to develop and document a comprehensive research plan that, as a minimum, meets the requirements of SG80 in SIa for the halibut fishery specifically as per CB4.10.3 and CB4.10.4.

Given the lower score for SIb and the requirement for a Condition to be met, the overall score should be lowered to 75. Certification Body Response While the DFO Groundfish Strategic Plan for science is referred to in the justification, it is not provided in the references and can not be provided on line. A copy was provided to the assessment team and can be provided to others that request it from DFO. I have

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 259 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 attached a copy in with my response. The score is justified and supported.

Performance Indicator 3.2.5 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant No Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA NA improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification As with other PI's in P3, much The certifier gave an overall of the Justification material is score of 100 for this PI Clear already documented in 3.4 structured processes exist for and/or 3.5 such that there is no evaluating management need to repeat all of the details performance. here.

While the score of 100 is appropriate for SIa, there is no mention of the enforcement aspects of the management system and the fact that compliance can be used as a measure. This should be added.

There is no evidence provided to support the statement that the fishery-specific management system is subject to "regular" internal and external review and thus the score of 100 in SIb is not justified and should be lowered to 80 unless specific evidence can be described.

Without additional justifications, the overall score should be lowered from 100 to 90. Certification Body Response Disagree with the reviewer 1. See additional text in report.

Any Other Comments (optional)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 260 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Overall for the background None. sections as well as the scoring tables there is a striking lack of adequate citations. Although there is an extensive list of references in Section 7, citations need to be included throughout the document for 2 main reasons: a) they allow the reader to clearly differentiate between views of the author(s) and those extracted from the literature (primary publications or other), and b) they provide guidance to readers who may wish to pursue any particular point in more detail. Also, in the scoring justifications, citations are essential to support the points being made. References alone are inadequate for similar reasons described above, particularly (a). Additionally, the reference list needs to be carefully checked. For example, the Wilson et al. (2013) assessment document that is referred to very frequently is not listed in Section 7.

As indicated in comments associated with some of the PI's, there is a more recent Pacific halibut assessment document available as well as more recent COSEWIC reports for Bocaccio and Canary Rockfish. Also, there is a Feb. 2014 IFMP summary document available on the Pacific Region DFO web site (the full document is only available on request). This should be consulted and changes made to the assessment document as may be necessary so as to accurately reflect the most recent IFMP.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 261 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 The overall report could be tidied up significantly. There are a number of places where duplications occur. One example of this is the Policy on Managing Bycatch. It is documented in 3.4.4, 3.4.6.3 and 3.4.9.2. Another is the IFMP documented in 3.4.5 and 3.5.4. These should be combined into single sections in order to streamline the document. There are other examples of duplication between the background texts and scoring tables.

There are extensive descriptions of ETP species is Section 3.4.7. Table 15 provides a good summary of these and the extent of any interactions with the halibut fishery (although the table only deals with SARA listed species and should be modified to include CITES species as well). It would also be helpful if the list was reordered so that all species in each species group are listed together. I would suggest a general restructuring of the table along the lines of: Species, Listing Body (SARA, CITES, etc.) Status, Interaction with halibut fishery, Information Source (re interactions). The table could be placed near the front of this section just after a short introductory piece. At that point, it could be summarized as to what species will be considered in relation to "direct effects". Then the remainder would only need to be contemplated in relation to 2.3.1c that considers "indirect effects". It is questionable as to why so much detail is required, especially for those species for which there are no direct impacts, but that is

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 262 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 an editorial decision.

It is unclear why information in sections 3.4.1 - 3.4.4 pertaining to policies and procedures is detailed in P2 rather than P3.

The document refers to depths in meters in some places and feet in others. It also refers to weights in both pounds and tonnes. Could/should this be standardized to British or metric units? In places where one is used, the other could be included in brackets.

In Section 3.4.6.3 regarding Rougheye Rockfish, mortality is described in terms of tonnes of fish and it is inferred that since the bycatch (tonnes) has declined, mortality has declined. This is not necessarily the case. In order to contemplate trends in mortality, the catches need to be linked to stock size. If the stock has actually declined more than the bycatch, the lower value (74 mt) could actually represent a higher mortality. It is important that there be careful attention to wording here.

There are many parts of P3 where Justification in support of SG60 and SG80 warranting 'Yes' are inadequately described. This should be checked carefully. Certification Body Response Additional text, citations, references and other information were added to both the body and the rationales.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 263 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

10 Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions & Team Responses SCS received a total of four stakeholder submissions when onsite meetings for the US Halibut unit (2nd annual surveillance audit) and Canada Pacific Halibut unit (4th annual surveillance audit and re-assessment) were announced. Stakeholder comments were also received during the 3rd annual audit where SCS responded that the concerns would be addressed in the re- assessment. The table below summarizes these submissions. Since submissions were sent in response to a particular unit, the US and Canada teams will consider all stakeholder inputs based on their described intent: comments where core concerns pertain to the overall stock and science advice by the IPHC are included in reports for both the US and British Columbia units.

Geographical Format of Date Target Unit of area of Name submission received submission Core concern concern #1: Ms Email (also Mar 20, US Pacific Concerned about Alaska Beverly via forward 2013 Halibut overfishing/ Minn email from mismanagement Mr of stock/ whether Bondioli) IPHC properly incorporates recommendations of biologists # 2: Mr. Letter sent July 8, US & Canada Need for Principle North Pacific Aaron Hill on via email 2013 Pacific Halibut 1 re-scoring coast (US and behalf of (overall stock Canada) Watershed issues) Watch #3: Gerry Letter sent September Sent in Degree of bycatch North Pacific Kristianson via Email 17, 2013 response to of juveniles by Coast, US on behalf of attachment Canada Unit other Alaskan Sports announcement fisheries Fishing but focusing Advisory on US unit Board #4: Mr Stakeholder September Canada Pacific Assessment of North Pacific Charlie submission 17, 2013 Halibut habitat impacts, Coast, Canada Twaddle form which would be expected to be marginal to nil. (Principle 2) #5: Living Letter sent October Canada Pacific Conservation North Pacific Oceans via Email 15, 2012 Halibut, Concerns for Coast, Canada Society attachment sablefish and bocaccio and dogfish canary rockfish

Team members from the US and BC unit together provided responses to core concerns relevant to P1 and expressed by stakeholders. The team ascertained that comments relevant to P1 were focused on two core concerns: stock status uncertainty (submission from Ms. Minn and Mr. Hill)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 264 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 and juvenile bycatch (Sport Fishing Advisory Board). Responses to both of these issues are provided below.

pertained to information availability for the fishery, relevant to scoring MSC performance indicators associated with habitat requirements. The team has understood that comments from

Comments received from Mr Twaddle on behalf of the British Columbia Canada Ministry of Agriculture, Marine Fisheries and Seafood Policy Unit, were focused at the level of the overall certification requirements and whether many fisheries, such as the BC Halibut Fishery, will have sufficient information to meet scoring requirements. The team confirmed that there was no specific concern that Mr. Twaddle wished the team to consider for scoring purposes. Therefore the comment was conveyed to the MSC as a larger policy issue, rather than material to this assessment in particular (the team did consider information availability under 2.4.3 for scoring purposes).

Concerns raised by Watershed Watch should be satisfied by P1 scores in this re-assessment report for the British Columbia unit, which are aligned with re-scoring for the US unit, as both access the same stock. For the US, these updated scores for P1 will be released in conjunction with the 2014 3rd annual surveillance audit of US Pacific Halibut, (October 2014).

Stock Status Uncertainty The most recent stock assessment of Pacific halibut (Stewart et al 2013) was successful in resolving a persistent problem that had been recognized for a number of years in previous assessments (Hare 2012). Specifically, the problem was retrospective bias; as assessments were updated each year, the previous estimates of stock status needed to be revised downward. By accounting for variation in the availability of different sizes of fish in different areas, the 2012 assessment corrected this problem (Stewart et al 2013). The assessment results are now more consistent with observed fishery and survey data. Additionally, for the first time, uncertainty in stock status has been presented in the form of a decision table analysis. When viewed in this framework, a wider range of uncertainty in stock status may be evaluated. Thus, overall, it appears that uncertainty in stock status which the team agrees previously existed, has been reduced with the new changes implemented by IPHC in the 2012 stock assessment.

Hare, S.R. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2011. IPHC RARA 2011. p. 91-194. Stewart, I.J., Leaman, B.M, Martell, S., Webster, R.A. 2013. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2012. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2012: 93-186. Available at: http:/www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012093_assessment.pdf

Juvenile Bycatch The importance of accounting for the impacts of all bycatch, including the bycatch of juvenile halibut in groundfish trawl fisheries, has long been recognized by IPHC (Sullivan et al 1994; Alderstein and Trumble 1998; Clark and Hare 1998; Valero and Hare 2011; IPHC 2012). Understanding of halibut migration is key to quantifying the impacts of bycatch, and it is recognized that reliable, area-specific estimates of Pacific halibut migration rates are required to properly quantify downstream impacts (IPHC 2012). The IPHC has developed a migratory simulation model to examine the robustness of the downstream impacts of bycatch (Valero and Hare 2010). The annual stock assessments of Pacific halibut account for all removals, including bycatch mortality (Stewart et al 2013). Given that bycatch mortality is modeled and accounted for in the stock assessment, a conservation concern is not evident. The team acknowledges that concerns over allocation of available adult biomass between sectors may remain legitimate concerns, but these are not issues scored directly within the MSC certification requirements.

Alderstein, S.A. and Trumble, R.J. 1998. Size-specific dynamics of Pacific halibut:

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 265 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 A key to reduce bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. Tech. Rept. No. 39. IPHC. Seattle, WA. Clark, W.G. and Hare, S.R. 1998. Accounting for Bycatch in Management of the Pacific Halibut Fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:809–821.

IPHC. 2012. Halibut bycatch workshop meeting summary. Available at: http://www.iphc.int/documents/2012bycatch/FINAL_Halibut_Bycatch_Workshop_Meeting_Su mmary_April_24-25_2012.pdf

Sincerely,

J. DeAlteris (BC unit, Principle 1) T. Jagielo (US unit, Priniciple 1) S. Morgan (BC unit/US unit Lead Auditor & Principle 2)

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 266 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Stakeholder Comment #1: Ms. Beverly Minn and Mr. Bryan Bondioli

From: Adrienne Vincent To: "Megan Atcheson"; [email protected] Cc: Jim Humphreys; Dan Averill; Mike DeCesare; Sabine Daume; Sian Morgan Subject: RE: North Pacific Halibut are not well managed Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:23:00 AM Attachments: image001.png image002.png Dear Ms. Minn,

Thank you for your comments and forwarding the excerpt from Mr. Bondioli’s letter. SCS Global Services is an accredited independent third party Certification Assessment Body that caries both US and Canadian Pacific halibut MSC certifications. We were cc’d on the correspondence below. I have added both your email address and Mr. Bondioli’s to our stakeholder list for the Pacific halibut fisheries.

The MSC process includes mechanisms for stakeholder engagement throughout the lifetime of the certificate (5 years). This may include attending stakeholder meetings in- person, providing a letter or using the MSC stakeholder comment form. Letters and comments are appended to the annual surveillance audit reports. At the next surveillance audit, your stakeholder comments will be evaluated and responded to by the surveillance team. The meetings will likely be in July this year.

I note that your letter includes the following points: 1.) IPHC commissioners have not followed biologists’ recommendations 2.) There have been significant scientific staff changes I note that Mr. Bondioli’s letter includes the following points: 1.) Mr. Bondioli supports the appointment of Mr. Yamada to the IPHC 2.) Mr. Bondioli believes that the IFQ system appears to manage the halibut resource for the profitability of the commercial longline sector in Alaska and Washington particularly 3.) Mr. Bondioli feels that the IPHC public presentations appear to be misrepresenting the state of the resource for the benefit of the commercial sector 4.) SE AK (area 2C) appears to have benefited from the Slow-Up/Fast-Down policy at the detriment to the recreational sector and Canadian commercial and recreational sectors

Please let me know if I have missed a point or have misrepresented the issues you would like addressed by responding to this email.

The surveillance team will be meeting with the IPHC in Seattle likely in July. You will receive an invitation to the meeting and an invitation to provide comments (particularly if unable to attend the meeting in-person) at least 30 days in advance of the meeting. The MSC Certification Requirements (v1.3) and the criteria by which a fishery is evaluated to be sustainable and well managed are publically available. Please let me know if you would like to have a telephone call to go over any particulars or how to find the criteria in the requirements document.

You may find most interesting the assessment criteria in the “default tree,” which is in Annex CB and the rationales in the re-certification final report on how the criteria are met. The report is available from the third link provided by Ms. Atcheson below.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 267 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Thank you again for your interest in the sustainability of this important resource and taking the time to write to the MSC. Stakeholder input in the MSC process is an integral part of the evaluation procedure to ensure a robust and thorough evaluation.

We look forward to hearing from you again! Kind regards, Adrienne Vincent ...... Adrienne Vincent | Project Manager, Sustainable Seafood Natural Resources Division SCS GLOBAL SERVICES 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.9086 direct | +1.510.452.6884 fax skype: adrienne.vincent [email protected] www.SCSglobalServices.com Setting the Standard for Sustainability™ SCS proudly introduces the Kingfisher certification mark, signifying products and services that deliver proven environmental, social and quality benefits.

From: Megan Atcheson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:48 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Adrienne Vincent; Jim Humphreys; Dan Averill; Mike DeCesare Subject: RE: North Pacific Halibut are not well managed

Dear Beverly Minn, I would like to thank you for your email below and your participation in the MSC process. The MSC is a standard setter, and as such we set a standard for sustainable fishing based on global best practice and it is FAO compliant. Assessments against the MSC standards are carried out by independently accredited certifiers, and this third- party approach ensures a robust and credible assessment. The Assessment Team members have to meet stringent qualification requirements, which are described in Annex CM of the MSC Certification Requirements available here: http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc-scheme-requirements/msc- certificationrequirements- v1.3/view . The Assessment Team members for this fishery can be found here: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/us-north- pacifichalibut/ reassessment-documents/18.05.2010-us-halibut-reassessment-team-nomination.pdf The Assessment Team members, peer reviewers and a draft report are all available on the MSC website for public consultation before they are confirmed. I invite you to view the Assessment downloads page for the North Pacific Halibut Fishery at this link: http://www.msc.org/track-afishery/ fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/us-north-pacific-halibut/reassessment- downloads where you can register for email updates or RSS feeds on this fishery or register with the certifier as a stakeholder. Then you can provide feedback to the certifier during annual surveillance audits (the next one for this fishery will likely be in the Fall 2013). If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 268 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Sincerely, Megan Atcheson

From: Kent Hall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 March 2013 00:08 To: MSC-Standards Subject: North Pacific Halibut are not well managed As a resident of Alaska, dealing with halibut management since 1986, I am amazed and dismayed by your certification of North Pacific Halibut. I don't know where you are getting your facts from, or what facts you are examining, but something's not right. I suggest you have a scientist/biologist with no ties to the commercial fishing industry, closely analyze how the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) has been managing halibut for the last 15 years. Pay close attention to how the IPHC Commissioners have NOT followed their biologists recommendations, and how some of their biologists have been let go. This year they aren't called recommendations anymore....merely options to balance along with other factors?

The IPHC will soon fill two vacant seats. I am forwarding an exerpt from a letter written by Bryan Bondioli, below, because he expresses so well, how North Pacific Halibut are being managed. Good luck, Beverly Minn

> From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:09:12 -0400 > Subject: RE: Personal letter of Support for Richard Yamada as IPHC Commissioner > > Just for your entertainment, here's the second part of my personal letter: > > ... Mr. Yamada’s most important qualification is a desire to achieve a > healthy sustainable halibut resource based on science and NOT based on the > profitability of ANY sector, much less solely that of the commercial > fisheries. > Having been extremely active and involved in North Pacific Fisheries > Management Council and IPHC politics and processes for nearly ten years, I > am appalled and disgusted by the destructive mismanagement of the halibut > resource. Since the implementation of the commercial IFQ system, the IPHC > has managed the halibut resource NOT for future sustainability, but solely > for the increased profitability and economic benefit of less than 3000 > commercial longliners and processors. I have personally witnessed, on a > regular basis, IPHC Staff flat out LIE in public testimony and > presentations about data and “projections” to create illusions to support > the desired actions of the commercial sector. > The absolute Control of the IPHC by the Alaskan and Seattle IFQ holders and > processors has resulted in dramatic overfishing (whether the IPHC defines > it as such or not) and essentially destroyed the Pacific Halibut resource. > It is mindboggling to attend an IPHC meeting and learn from the Canadian > contingents (commercial and recreational) how disappointed and frustrated > they are with the overwhelming manipulation of the Alaska longline sector. > The total mismanagement of the resource, for the exclusive economic benefit > of ONE sector, has had significant negative effects to all other users and > most importantly the halibut themselves. (For example, the IPHC and SE

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 269 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 > longline policy of SUFD directly benefitted area 2C longliners financially > to the significant detriment of the guided recreational anglers, Canadian > commercial and recreational fishermen, and most importantly the halibut > resource.) > The recent independent review of the IPHC confirms there is more than > “something rotten in Denmark”. According to the IPHC and NOAA websites on > harvest and mortality, since 1995, Commercial Fisheries have been > responsible for the documented death of OVER 1.3 BILLION pounds of halibut > (the statistics do not include the enormous and unknown volume of “wasted” > sub-32 inch fish). In the same time frame, recreational fisheries (guided > and unguided) have killed LESS than 200 Million pounds and yet a MAIN FOCUS > of the IPHC has been to eliminate the recreational sector. There MUST be a > fundamental change in the makeup and the methodology of the IPHC. It is > imperative that the IPHC have a representative who’s focus and goal is to > preserve the resource and NOT the annual manipulation of the Quota Share market and ex-vessel profits. > > Each year there are over 50,000 recreational anglers who harvest pacific > halibut in Alaskan waters to feed their families. The IPHC has an inherent > responsibility to insure the future opportunities for those anglers to > share the halibut catching experience with their children and > grandchildren. The IPHC policy and practice of managing the halibut > resource solely for the profitability of less than 2800 commercial Quota > Share holders does not fulfill that responsibility. The history of the > IPHC actions have resulted in the virtual decimation of the halibut > fisheries in the Pacific NorthWest and Canada. Now, in less than 20 years, > the IPHC’s mismanagement of halibut in Alaska has resulted in the rapid and dramatic destruction of the LAST great fishery on the LAST FRONTIER. > > Please appoint Richard Yamada as commissioner of IPHC while there is still a halibut left to be saved. > > Respectfully, > > Bryan Bondioli

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 270 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Stakeholder Comment #2: Mr. Aaron Hill on behalf of Watershed Watch and as a member of the Marine Conservation Caucus

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 271 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 272 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 273 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 274 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 275 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Stakeholder Comment #3: Sport Fishing Advisory Board

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 276 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 277 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Stakeholder Comment #4: Mr. Charlie Twaddle

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 278 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

From: , "Charlie AGRI:EX" Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:49 AM To: Sian Morgan , Adrienne Vincent Cc: ca , "Chalmers, Dennis AGRI:EX" , Sabine Daume Subject: RE: Marine Stewardship Council Moves to the next stage in the BC halibut Assessment Process

Thanks you Sian:

Sorry for the lack of clarity - no there is not specific amendment that we have with respect to the scoring tree. Only that we understand that there may be insufficient data to do a proper assessment on habitat impact - (that with longling you would expect to be marginal to nil).

I believe there may other fisheries that might have similar habitat impacts, such as the trap fisheries, where there have been studies or studies in progress. Perhaps this data could be substituted in lieu? A topic worth discussing further when you meet with DFO perhaps.

Regards Charlie

From: Sian Morgan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:58 PM To: Adrienne Vincent; Twaddle, Charlie AGRI : EX Cc: Carswell, Barron AGRI:EX; Chalmers, Dennis AGRI:EX; Sian Morgan; Sabine DaumeSubject: Re: Marine Stewardship Council Moves to the next stage in the BC halibut Assessment Process

Dear Mr. Twaddle,

Thank you for you submission. As Adrienne mentioned, it would be helpful to understand more specifically your concerns related to information paucity and habitat impacts. Do you have a specific amendment to the scoring tree that

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 279 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 you would recommend? Or, are you fine with the tree as structured, but would like to point to particular data gaps when scoring occurs against the existing tree?

If you could further articulate your concerns this evening, I will raise them in meetings with the assessment team and DFO tomorrow.

Kind regards,

Sian Morgan

Siân Morgan, Ph.D. | Project and Program Development Manager, Lead Auditor, Sustainable Seafood Natural Resources Division Research Associate – University of British Columbia

From: Adrienne Vincent Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:55 PM To: "Twaddle, Charlie AGRI:EX" Cc: ca , "Chalmers, Dennis AGRI:EX" , Sian Morgan , Sabine Daume Subject: RE: Marine Stewardship Council Moves to the next stage in the BC halibut Assessment Process

Dear Mr. Twaddle, Thank you for providing input on the development of the assessment criteria (tree) for the MSC assessment of the BC halibut bottom longline fishery. I understand that your organization has identified concern that there may not be enough information on habitat impacts of the fishery to complete scoring of the fishery under the default performance indicators for habitats (2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3).

I am forwarding your stakeholder input form to Dr. Sian Morgan who is the lead auditor and Principle 2 (Ecosystem) expert. She may ask you directly for some elaboration on your specific concerns on lack of information. Your input will be considered by the team prior to confirming the assessment tree.

Thank you again for contributing! On behalf of the SCS assessment team,

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 280 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 we look forward to any future correspondence.

Kind regards, Adrienne ......

Adrienne Vincent | Lead Auditor, Sustainable Seafood Natural Resources Division Representing SCS GLOBAL SERVICES 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.9086 direct | +1.510.452.6884 fax skype: adrienne.vincent [email protected] www.SCSglobalServices.com

From: Twaddle, Charlie AGRI:EX [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:13 PMT o: Adrienne Vincent Cc: Carswell, Bar r on AGRI : EX; Chalmer s, Dennis AGRI : EX Subject: RE: Marine Stewardship Council Moves to the next stage in the BC halibut Assessment Process

Hello Adrienne:

Please find brief submission from our agency re comments on Assessment Tree proposed as per your attached email request.

Charlie

Charlie Twaddle Marine Fisheries and Seafood PolicyUnit Agriculture Science and Policy Division Ministry of Agriculture Phone: 250 387-9595

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 281 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Monday, October-15-12

Dear SCS GLOBAL SERVICES and Marine Stewardship Council,

RE: Audit of B.C. halibut, sablefish and dogfish MSC certified fisheries

Living Oceans Society submits the following conservation concerns for bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and canary rockfish (S. pinniger) in relation to the MSC certified halibut, sablefish and dogfish fisheries.

Bocaccio is listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as ‘Critically Endangered’ and designated as ‘Threatened’ under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) . Since the MSC certifications of these fisheries, consultation was initiated to list bocaccio under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), however a decision was taken by the Ministry of the Environment (on the advice of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in 2011) not to list bocaccio under the SARA due to the justification that, “the negative socio-economic impacts of adding the Bocaccio to the List would be significant.”

However, at the same time it has been acknowledged by Department of Fisheries and Oceans that a recovery plan for bocaccio would require “a 45% reduction in the harvest of the target species ... “ or in other words, “... reduce the incidental catch of Bocaccio to 50 metric tons (t), which would facilitate the population recovery of this species.” Despite this scientific advice, the groundfish commercial fisheries have merely reduced catch to ~ 150 metric tonnes (t) from earlier levels of 200 tonnes - 300 tonnes. This is in part due to the order given to not list bocaccio under SARA. Yet these levels are still well above the level of incidental catch of 50 t recommended. There does not appear to be, or ever has been a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for this species in the Integrated Groundfish Management Plan (IGMP). Therefore, Living Oceans recommends for a TAC of 50 tonnes to be implemented for this species.

Similarly, canary rockfish is designated as ‘Threatened’ under COSEWIC and also had the potential to be adopted under SARA. However, again the Ministry of the Environment on the advice of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in 2011 did not list canary rockfish under the SARA due to the justification that “the socio-economic costs of adding Canary rockfish to the List would be significant.”

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 282 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 While the non-SARA listing is disappointing, it is even more concerning that the TAC for canary rockfish by the groundfish fishery has increased in past years. The all-sector coast- wide TAC for canary rockfish has increased from 679 tonnes in the 2009 IGMP to 900 tonnes in the 2011-2013 IGMP. Specifically, in the hook and line sector itself, the TAC increased from 83 tonnes in 2009 to 112 tonnes in the 2011-2013 IGMP. Considering that canary rockfish is listed ‘Threatened’ and that TACs for other rockfish species listed in the IGMP have remained stable, it is difficult to understand the justification for this increase, or what risk assessment it was based upon. Both species continue to be managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) under the Fisheries Act. These two species are still harvested as bycatch taken by non-directed fisheries, including the commercial dogfish, halibut, and sablefish hook and line fisheries. As part of the decision not to list these two species under SARA, in lieu the Public Registry indicates; "To better assess the health of the stock in a timely manner to allow for appropriate management actions, more frequent updates to the current stock assessment will be carried out every four years." However, recent budgetary restraints are now limiting DFO's ability to conduct assessments every four years, and the next stock assessments are tentatively scheduled for 10 year cycles for both canary and bocaccio. Furthermore, we know of no new risk assessments to determine if current levels of rockfish species bycatch in the halibut fishery, since the original MSC assessment set the Condition 2.1.5.3. Given the current level of harvest and the cycle for the next assessments for these two species, in our opinion it will be difficult to assess the level of risk from incidental catches of these hook and line fisheries.

While catch monitoring is relatively extensive in each of the fisheries, catches of bocaccio do not appear in these Sector Catch Summaries . We recommend that bocaccio be included in the future.

It is unclear at this time how management measures for economically important species may impact the recovery of these two species under the recent changes made to the Fisheries Act by Bill C-38. Living Oceans recommends implementing recovery targets for these two species.

Living Oceans also recommends identifying and protecting sensitive habitats that boccacio, canary rockfish and other SARA (under consideration and or listed) or COSEWIC incidentally caught species reside. At a more localized level, it is possible that long term effects of fishing gear (trawl and longline) have had an impact on bocaccio through disturbance to biogenic habitat (i.e. coral and sponges). While these issues have been studied elsewhere, they have received little attention on the B.C. coast, and no work has been directed specifically at the interaction of fishing on bocaccio habitat.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 283 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

Living Oceans believes adopting these recommendations will strengthen the long term health of the boccacio and canary rockfish species, and in turn ensure the sustainability credibility of the MSC certified halibut, sablefish and dogfish B.C. fisheries.

Sincerely,

Will Soltau, Sustainable Fisheries Campaign Manager Kelly Roebuck, Sustainable Seafood Campaign Manager Living Oceans Society

1 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/20085 1 http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=740&StartRow=11&boxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic =All&location=All&change=All&board=12&commonName=&scienceName=&returnFlag=0&Page=2 1 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-2011-56/FullText.html 1 ibid 1 http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=960&StartRow=1&boxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic= 4&location=1,18&change=All&board=All&commonName=Canary%20Rockfish&scienceName=&returnFlag=0& Page=1 1 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-2011-56/FullText.html 1 ibid 1 http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/commercial/ground-fond/index-eng.htm

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 284 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

CAB Response: Sections 5.2 and 5.3 have been edited to be more clear on where the fishery certificate ends and where chain of custody begins. Client or CoC questions on specific issues may be directed to [email protected] at any time.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 285 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 286 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 287 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 288 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

CAB Response: Regarding the change to score in PI2.2.1 after peer review. The reviewers noted a contradiction in rationale and score regarding the difference in interpretation of what evidence supported “likely” vs. “highly likely.” The team agreed with the reviewer and reduced the score to 80. See Peer Review for PI2.2.1. Regarding reducing score in PI 2.2.3 from 95 to 90, scoring issue c is met at the SG100 for some but not all scoring elements. The more conservative and justifiable score is therefore 90 instead of 95. Please also see Peer Review comments for PI2.2.3. Regarding SARA Schedule 1 “Special Concern” designation being considered ETP, the CAB references the definition of

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 289 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 SARA schedule 167 “once a species is listed on schedule 1, protection and recovery measures are developed and implemented” which indicates that for listed species measures must be put in place. This is regardless of whether the species has been further categorized into “endangered,” “threatened,” or “of special concern.” SCS understands that the requirements or measures for protection differ for species designated as “special concern” from other SARA listing categories. However the species remains listed by national legislation, and SARA is the main Canadian Act germane to ETP species under Canadian law. SCS stands by the interpretation that SARA Schedule 1- listed species of any status should therefore be considered as ETP species for MSC assessments. We don’t disagree that MSC guidance on this issue specific to Canada would be helpful and prudent from a process credibility perspective. Regarding PI 3.1.3 with regard to harmonization, SCS notes that this is covered in Annex CI, Harmonized fisheries in CR v1.3. Harmonizing fisheries CI3.2.3 which requires that “key assessment products and outcomes are harmonized”. The assessment team was presented with the client request for an increased score several times and each time the team supported the P3 expert score of 90 as appropriate. This score is below the 100 score for this PI for US Halibut which is expected to be re-assessed in 2015 by SCS: the results of this assessment will be considered when scoring PI 3.1.3 for the US portion of the fishery. Both fisheries scored highly on this PI and neither fishery has a condition or any key outcome that differs in a material sense. Regarding the updated milestone in the client action plan, the PHMA informed SCS that DFO had made a minor extended the date of the rougheye rockfish stock assessment after the initial schedule had been provided. The milestone has been updated to reflect the new timeline in this version of the report (from May 2015 to September 2015).

67 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/faq/faq-eng.htm The DFO website describes schedule 1 desgination: Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act is the official list of wildlife species at risk in Canada. It includes species that are extirpated (extinct in Canada), endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Once a species is listed on Schedule 1, protection and recovery measures are developed and implemented.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 290 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 11 Appendix 4. Catch Accounting Statistics Source: DFO (December 2014) 2011-2013 2010-2013 2009-2013 2008-2013 2008-2012 2009-2012 2010-2012 2013 Total Catch 2012 Total Catch 2011 Total Catch 2010 Total 2009 Total 2008 Total (3-yr) (4-yr) (5-yr) (6-yr) (5-yr) (4-yr) (3-yr) Species (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Catch (lbs) Catch (lbs) Catch (lbs) average average average average average average average PACIFIC HALIBUT 7,422,472 7,270,552 8,195,207 8,210,773 8,161,829 9,671,229 77.6% 76.6% 75.5% 75.0% 74.5% 74.8% 76.0% SABLEFISH 176,228 223,418 218,387 228,079 325,502 619,929 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2.7% 2.9% 2.3% 2.2% SPINY DOGFISH 196,319 460,964 342,202 1,056,352 1,135,349 527,595 3.4% 5.1% 6.1% 5.7% 6.3% 7.0% 6.0% LINGCOD 455,394 501,205 384,172 413,453 347,285 766,815 4.5% 4.3% 4.0% 4.4% 4.3% 3.9% 4.2% CANARY ROCKFISH 25,443 25,521 22,158 20,991 21,603 22,887 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 77,074 70,083 50,492 45,451 66,757 82,456 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 297,297 305,537 284,031 261,189 293,089 336,223 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% QUILLBACK ROCKFISH N/A - - - - COPPER ROCKFISH N/A - - - - CHINA ROCKFISH N/A - - - - TIGER ROCKFISH N/A - - - - Total QB, CO, CH, TG 96,893 93,530 71,854 86,468 91,724 93,231 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 182,539 212,374 144,728 144,391 155,332 154,197 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 59,680 62,985 54,198 50,310 47,967 56,959 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 37,149 49,121 46,265 41,318 59,339 47,072 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% REDBANDED ROCKFISH 167,250 151,176 106,669 RB rockfish non quota species 1.4% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8%

Total Non-Quota (Landed Only) 257236 377,392 307,397 557,200 689,522 831,129 3.2% 3.7% 4.2% 4.6% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0%

Total (conservative, NQ landed only) 9,450,974 9,803,858 10,227,760 11,115,975 11,395,298 13,209,722 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5% Threshold 472,549 490,193 511,388 555,799 569,765 660,486 491,377 507,482 519,939 543,363 557,526 531,786 519,127

2011-2013 2010-2013 2009-2013 2008-2013 2008-2012 2009-2012 2010-2012 2013 Total Catch 2012 Total Catch 2011 Total Catch 2010 Total 2009 Total 2008 Total (3-yr) (4-yr) (5-yr) (6-yr) (5-yr) (4-yr) (3-yr) Main non-quota species (100% DMR) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Catch (lbs) Catch (lbs) Catch (lbs) average average average average average average average ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER 30,000 2,053 15,175 27,348 11,465 51,821 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% REDBANDED ROCKFISH na na na 123,997 170,648 287,942 na na na na na na na LONGNOSE SKATE 357,920 437,999 392,519 471,523 733,118 874,154 4.0% 4.1% 4.6% 5.0% 5.2% 4.8% 4.2% PACIFIC COD 35,981 84,779 60,064 43,144 46,922 62,100 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% BIG SKATE 204,419 213,088 234,766 272,776 238,617 293,004 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 291 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013

12 Appendix 5. Surveillance Frequency Using Table C3 in CR v1.3, the overall surveillance frequency score is greater than 2 based on the condition being related to outcome indicators; as well, not all Principle Scores are greater or equal to 85. Accordingly, a normal (annual) surveillance audit frequency will be in place for this fishery.

Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from CR Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table C3 Category on-site off-site on-site off-site surveillance 1 Remote surveillance surveillance surveillance audit and re- audit audit audit certification audit

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 292 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 13 Appendix 6. Sustainable Fisheries Checklist

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 293 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Fishery Checklist v.4 The checklist is divided into three sections. Section I contains questions specific to the target stock. Section II contains questions about non-target species and effects on habitats and ecosystems. Section III focuses mainly on management systems. This Checklist is being used to gather information on DFO-managed stocks. The data collected will be housed in a database and used for analyzing trends in fishery resource stewardship and sustainability, creating gap analyses for associated programs and reporting on sustainability. Please read “Fishery Checklist Guidance” before completing this Checklist.

Species group Date (Y/ M /D): Stock name Science completed by: Management zone FM completed by : Science Advisory Report No. Approx. annual landed tonnage C&P completed by: (most recent year) Approx. annual landed value (most Additional input from recent year) (sector): If this stock is in the critical zone, when was the rebuilding plan implemented?(Y/M/D): Retained Species- list ACROSS THEN DOWN – the most significant species caught with this fishery and retained (add quantity if known)

Discarded Species - list ACROSS THEN DOWN - the most significant species caught with this fishery but discarded (add quantity if known)

Instructions for completing the checklist • Each question is marked with “S” (Science), “FM” (Fisheries Management), “C&P” (Conservation and Protection) or a combination of these. While these indicate which group is primarily responsible for this question, g roups are strongly encouraged to fill out the Checklist together. • Answer every question unless your response to a question stipulates that you skip the next question(s). • Please do not unlock the template or change it in any way. There is a rationale/comment box at the end of the Checklist where you can provide rationale/notes. Please clearly identify the question numbers to which your comments apply in the rationale/comment box.. • If your preferred response is not available as an option, please choose the next most appropriate answer. Please do not check more than one response to a question. If necessary, the reasoning for your answer can be provided in the rationale/comment box at the end of the Checklist. • N/A = “Not applicable”. Please provide an explanation in the rationale/comment box at the end of the Checklist every time that N/A is used to justify selecting this option. Note that most questions are considered to be applicable to most stocks/fisheries. NOTE: selecting NA does not result in a penalty. • Please direct your questions on the checklist to your regional coordinator. • Questions marked with * indicate that further explanation is provided in the Guidance Document. Page 1 of 16

(FM)* What is the management regime of this stock? (Check all that apply) Competitive quota Individual Quota Individual Transferable Quotas Enterprise Allocations Competitive without Quota Other (please list in rationale box)

(FM)* Is this stock harvested with more than one gear type? Yes No **************************************** TARGET SPECIES

Information / Monitoring

1(FM)* For the purpose of managing this resource (e.g. quota management), how would you qualify the monitoring of removals from the following components of the fishery: Commercial harvesting? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Catches of this stock in other fisheries? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Discards of target species? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Aboriginal (FSC) harvesting? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Bait fisheries? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Recreational fishing? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA

2 (S/FM)*Was the following information evaluated through a formal scientific peer review process? Stock status Fully Partially Not at all NA Harvest rate used for management Fully Partially Not at all NA Impacts/risks of removal levels Fully Partially Not at all NA Impacts of management measures (e.g. mesh size, fish size, season,) Fully Partially Not at all NA

3 (S)* Are the following sources of information considered in the assessment of the status of this resource? Fishery-dependent data (e.g. catches) Yes No Not Available NA Independent surveys by fishers/hunters Yes No Not Available NA Dedicated science surveys Yes No Not Available NA Tagging information Yes No Not Available NA Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Yes No Not Available NA Other (specify in rational box) Yes No Not Available NA

4 (S)* Are there estimates of annual exploitation rates/harvests for this stock? Yes, and estimates are absolute Yes, and estimates are relative No NA Page 2 of 16

5 (S/FM)* In support of the assessment of the status of this resource, are there any outstanding issues (or concerns) with respect to the quality of the data for the following: Age determination Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Size monitoring Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Research survey Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Assessment model Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Harvest rates Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Tag returns Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA Other issues Major, urgent issues Notable issues Minor issues No issues NA (e.g. size at sex change; size at terminal moult) GO TO QUESTION 7 IF ALL ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTION ARE “MINOR ISSUES”, “NO ISSUES” OR “NA”.

6 (S)* If any major or notable issues were identified in the previous question, are they: being addressed through research? Fully Partially Not at all considered in the advice? Fully Partially Not at all (i.e., is risk/uncertainty incorporated in the advice?)

7 (S) Is the science advice for managing the fishery available through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, or through a formal scientific advisory body (e.g. from an international organization)? (Please check only one) Yes, and advice is still current (go to question 8) Yes, but advice needs updating (go to question 8) No (go to question 9)

8 (S) Scientific advice on conservation requirements is: widely/publicly available in a timely fashion (Please check only one) disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion available but not widely distributed disseminated to interested parties but sometimes late

9 (S) To what degree does the current research program cover the knowledge gaps in the following areas? Productivity of target species Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient NA Habitat Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient NA Ecosystems Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient NA Climate Change Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient NA

Stock Assessment

10 (FM)*Is the following information sufficiently documented for the following fisheries: For the commercial fishery: Fishing effort? Yes No NA Gear types? Yes No NA Number of active licenses? Yes No NA Current location of fisheries? Yes No NA Page 3 of 16 For the recreational fishery: Fishing effort? Yes No NA Gear types? Yes No NA Number of active anglers/participants? Yes No NA Current location of fisheries? Yes No NA For the Aboriginal(FSC) fishery: Fishing effort? Yes No NA Gear types? Yes No NA Number of active licenses? Yes No NA Current location of fisheries? Yes No NA For the Bait Fishery Fishing effort? Yes No NA Gear types? Yes No NA Number of active licenses? Yes No NA Current location of fisheries? Yes No NA

11 (S)* For the purpose of assessing the status of this resource or the impact of this fishery, how would you qualify the monitoring of removals from the following components of this fishery: Commercial harvesting? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Catches of this stock in other fisheries? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Discards of target species? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Aboriginal (FSC) harvesting? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Bait fisheries? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA Recreational fishing? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Unable to assess NA

12 (S)* How would you qualify the state of knowledge of the following biological characteristics of the stock: Size at maturity? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Fecundity? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Growth? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Spawning/mating season? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Location of spawning/mating areas? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Location of nursery/birth/settlement areas? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Seasonal migrations? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Population/stock structure? Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient Natural mortality Fully satisfactory Satisfactory Insufficient 13 (S)* Are estimates available for: Stock s ize/Population size? Yes, and estimates are absolute Yes, and estimates are relative No NA Spawning stock/Mature population? Yes, and estimates are absolute Yes, and estimates are relative No NA Recruitment/Young of the year? Yes, and estimates are absolute Yes, and estimates are relative No NA Page 4 of 16 14 (S) Are there measures of precision for: Stock s ize/Population size estimates? Yes No NA Spawning stock/Mature Population estimates? Yes No NA Recruitment/Young of the year estimates? Yes No NA

15 (S)* Has there been an evaluation of the assessment framework for this stock (with a look at alternative hypotheses and approaches?) Yes (go to question 16) No (go to question 17)

16 (S)* Has the assessment been shown to be robust and accurate? Yes No

Reference Points

17 (S)* Have the following stock status reference points (expressed in terms of biomass or other metrics) been identified for this stock: Upper Stock Reference (point where stock enters the healthy zone) Yes No Limit Reference Point (point below which serious harm is occurring) Yes No (go to question 19)

18 (S) Was the Limit Reference Point evaluated through a formal scientific peer review process? Yes No

Harvest Strategy

19 (S)* Have removal references been identified for when the stock is in the: Critical Zone Yes No Cautious Zone Yes No Healthy Zone Yes No

20 (FM/S)* What is the harvest rate (or harvest level) in relation to the removal reference (i.e. the maximum acceptable removal rate or approved level for the stock)?

Harvest rate above removal reference for zone occupied Harvest rate at or below removal reference for zone occupied No removal reference in place but harvested within approved levels No removal reference in place and not harvested within approved levels Unknown

Harvest Control Rules and Tools

21 (S/FM)* For this stock, harvest /decision rules that aim to control exploitation: have not been developed (go to question 25) have been developed but not implement/evaluated have been developed, implemented/evaluated

Page 5 of 16 22 (S /FM)* Do these harvest decision rules imply/state that the removal reference is reduced (as a function of stock abundance) when the stock shows evidence of decline but not yet depleted (i.e. is in the Cautious Zone)? Yes No

23 (S /FM) When the stock shows evidence of depletion (i.e. in the Critical Zone), do these harvest decision rules imply/state that stock growth is promoted by keeping catches to the lowest possible level until the stock has shown evidence of rebuilding (i.e. has cleared the Critical Zone)? Yes No

24* (S/FM) How effective is the harvest decision rule in improving stock status as the limit reference point is approached? Very effective Somewhat effective Not effective Unknown NA

Stock Status and Rebuilding

25 (FM) * Does the current status of this stock (target species) correspond to one of the following situations? Subject to a moratorium Yes No SARA/CITES listed or COSEWIC assessed species ? Yes No

26 (S) What is the current status of this stock? Critical (serious harm likely) Cautious (serious harm possible) Healthy (serious harm unlikely) Unknown (If «Unknown », go to question 32)

27 (S) * Is the advice formulated in relation to the departmental Precautionary Approach framework? Yes Partially No

28 (S) Is your evaluation of stock status based on a quantitative assessment or is it based on a best appreciation of what the situation is? Quantitative Best Appreciation

29 (S/FM) If this stock is in the Critical Zone, has a rebuilding plan been implemented? Yes No (go to question 31) NA (go to question 31)

30 (S)* How likely is the rebuilding plan to successfully rebuild the species/stock within a reasonable time frame? Highly likely Likely with evidence Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown

31 (S) What is the likelihood that harvesting at current levels will seriously harm reproductive capacity by disrupting the following population processes or biological characteristics? Migration Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Spawning or reproductive activities Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Age composition Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Sex composition Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Spawning components Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Genetic diversity Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA Other Likely Possible Unlikely Unknown NA

Page 6 of 16

BYCATCH – RETAINED AND DISCARDED SPECIES . Bycatch refers to any non-target retained and/or discarded species To understand how bycatch-related terminology is used in the Checklist, please refer to the DRAFT "Policy Framework on Managing Bycatch and Discards"

32 (FM) Is there retained bycatch and/or discards in this fishery? Yes No (Go to #49)

33 (FM) Is data collected on the following sub-components of the catch: Non-target species retained? Fully Partially None NA Non-target species discarded? Fully Partially None NA SARA/CITES listed or COSEWIC assessed species? Fully Partially None NA IF THE ANSWER FOR ALL IN #33 IS NONE GO TO 35

34 (FM) How reliable are the data on the following sub-components of the catch: Non-target species retained? Very Partially Unreliable NA Non-target species discarded? Very Partially Unreliable NA SARA/CITES listed or COSEWIC assessed species? Very Partially Unreliable NA

35 (S/FM)* Has the impact of the fishery been evaluated for any non-target bycatch species? Yes, for all Yes, for some No (Go to 39)

36 (S/FM)* If yes, does the evaluation conclude that the fishery is a significant source of mortality? Yes for all` Yes for most Yes for some No (Go to 39)

37 (S/FM) * For non-target species where the fishery is a significant source of mortality, has a reference point(s) to determine sustainable fishery levels been developed (i.e. safe biological limits and/or sustainable bycatch mortality rates, etc.)? Yes for all Yes for most Yes for some No (Go to 39)

38 (S /FM) Is mortality from the fishery at or below the reference point(s)? Yes, for all Yes, for most Yes, for some No Unknown

39 (S/FM)* How would you qualify the chances of this fishery causing serious or irreversible harm? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown

40 (FM) *Are there measures in place to manage the retained bycatch? (e.g. Quota trading, closures) Yes for all Yes for most Yes for some No (Go to 42) NA (Go to 42)

41(FM)* Are the/these measure(s) adequate to manage the retained bycatch in this fishery? Fully Partially No Unknown

42 (FM)* Are there measures in place for minimizing the capture and mortality of species and specimens that are discarded: -For the explicit purpose of managing target species discards, such as: Discards monitored through observers? Yes No NA Discards monitored through logbooks? Yes No NA Quota trading system? Yes No NA Gear selectivity measures? Yes No NA Season/Area closures? Yes No NA Small fish protocols? Yes No NA Other measures Yes No NA

Page 7 of 16 43 (FM) -For the explicit purpose of managing non-target species discards, such as: Discards monitored through observers? Yes No NA Discards monitored through logbooks? Yes No NA Quota trading system? Yes No NA Gear selectivity measures? Yes No NA Season/Area closures? Yes No NA Fishing protocols based on maximum discard limit? Yes No NA Other measures (such as avoidance strategies)? Yes No NA

BYCATCH – ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

44 (FM) Do any bycatch species captured in the context of this fishery correspond to one of the following situations? Subject to a moratorium Yes No Currently assessed by COSEWIC as endangered, threatened or special concern? Yes No Listed under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) Yes No

45 (FM) Is there bycatch of Species-at-Risk (listed under SARA as endangered, threatened or special concern) in this fishery? Yes (go to 46) No (go to 49) Unknown (go to 49)

46 (FM) Is the bycatch of Species-at-Risk (under SARA) consistent with the allowable harm identified in the recovery strategy or management plan? Yes No

47 (FM) The fishery is operating within the bounds of SARA requirements for: All SARA species some SARA species none of the SARA species

48 (FM) In the recovery strategy, have critical habitats (physical and biological) of any extirpated, endangered or threatened species been identified within the geographical extent of this fishery? Yes for all Yes for some No

HABITA T

Benthic Habitat

49(FM)* In this fishery, does gear contact the bottom? Yes No (go to 57)

50 (FM)* Is there a strategy in place consistent with the Sensitive Benthic Areas policy to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to sensitive benthic areas within the geographic extent of this fishery? Yes No

51 (FM) Has the location of fishing activity been mapped? Fully Partially Marginally / Not at all

52 (FM) Have sensitive benthic areas been mapped? Fully Partially Marginally / Not at all Page 8 of 16

53 (FM) Has a risk assessment been conducted? Fully Partially Marginally / Not at all (go to 55)

54 (S) How likely is it that this fishery is causing serious or irreversible harm to sensitive benthic habitat, communities or species? Evidence of unlikely Unlikely Possibly Unknown

55 (FM) Are there specific management measures in place to mitigate the impact of the fishery on sensitive benthic areas (e.g.., closures under the Fisheries Act or other management measures)? Fully Partially Marginally / Not at all (go to 57)

56 (FM) Are the measures monitored to see if they are meeting objectives? Fully Partially Marginally / Not at all

Habitats of Significance (non-benthic)

57 (FM)* Is there a process in place to identify non-benthic habitats of significance (such as spawning areas, nursing areas, overwintering areas and migration routes) to this stock within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes (go to 58) No (go to 62)

58 (FM)* Are there non-benthic habitats of particular significance to the stock within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes (go to 59) No (go to 60) Unknown (go to 62)

59 (FM)* Is there a strategy in place to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to non-benthic habitats of significance to the stock? Yes No

60 (FM)* Are there specific measures (e.g.., closures) to mitigate the impact of the fishery on these non-benthic habitats? Yes No (go to 62)

61 (FM)* Are the fishery operations adhering to these measures? Yes Partially No Unknown

62 (FM/S)* How likely is it that this fishery is causing serious or irreversible harm to non-benthic (spawning areas, migration routes) habitats of significance to the stock? Not at all Unlikely Possibly Unknown

63 (FM)* Are there Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCAs), Marine Parks or other protected areas within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes (go to 64) No (go to 65)

64 (FM) Are the fishery operations consistent with the conservation framework established for these MPAs, NMCAs Marine Parks or other protected areas.? Yes Partially No

Page 9 of 16 ECOSYSTEMS 65 (S)* Are the following elements sufficiently understood to provide advice on their impacts on population dynamics of the target species? Physical conditions Of habitat or seafloor structure Yes Partially No Of water properties (pH, oxygen, temperature, salinity, etc.) Yes Partially No Biological components Primary productivity Yes Partially No Secondary productivity Yes Partially No Species interactions Predator/prey interactions Yes Partially No Aquatic Invasive Species Yes Partially No Critical habitat requirements for COSEWIC assessed Yes Partially No or CITES/SARA listed species The role of the target species in the ecosystem Yes Partially No The consequences of climate variability Yes Partially No

66 (FM)* Has advice on the following been taken into account in establishing TACs or other management controls: Oceanographic conditions? Yes No Freshwater conditions? Yes No Other Environmental conditions? Yes No

67 (FM) Is lost gear an issue in this fishery? Yes No go to 77 Unknown (Go to 74)

68 (S /FM) Has the loss of fishing gear been quantified? Yes Partially No

69 (S /FM) Has the impact of the loss of fishing gear been studied? Yes Partially No

70 (S/FM)* The occurrence of lost gear is considered to be: Significant Moderate Negligible Unknown

71 (S /FM)* The impact of lost gear on biodiversity (ghost fishing) is considered to be: Significant Moderate Negligible Unknown

72 (S/FM)*Do the fishing practices and management measures minimize the loss of fishing gear? Yes Partially No

73 (S/FM)*Are there effective measures in place to mitigate the impact of lost gear (e.g. biodegradable components, programs for recovery of lost gear)? Yes Partially No NA

74 (S) How likely is it that the fishery is causing serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem structure and function? Evidence of Unlikely Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown

Page 10 of 16

75 (FM) Are there measures in place to ensure that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem structure and function? Yes Partially No

76 (S /FM) How would you qualify the chances of this fishery causing serious or irreversible harm to the following non-target species groups: fish species? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown invertebrate species? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown corals? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown marine mammals? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown sea turtles? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown sea birds? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown sponges? Negligible Unlikely Possible Likely Unknown

GOVERNANCE, POLICY AND FISHERY-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

77 (FM) Is this fishery known (or suspected) to have a negative impact on any COSEWIC assessed, CITES/ SARA listed species and/or its critical habitat? Yes No (go to 80)

78(FM) *Is a recovery strategy, or Action Plan available for these extirpated, endangered, or threatened species? For all species For some species For no species NA

79 (FM) Does management of this stock (the subject of this Checklist) include measures that reduce or eliminate destructive impacts on the critical habitat (physical or biological) of SARA-listed species? Fully Partially No

80 (FM) Is the directed fishery on this stock currently under moratorium or closed? Yes Partially No

81 (FM)* Are the management decisions related to conservation objectives (e.g. harvest controls, escapement and effort controls) and their rationale clearly documented? Yes No (go to 83)

82 (FM)* Are these decisions and their rationale made available publicly? Yes No

83 (FM)* Is there an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP)?

Yes, current using new template (go to 85) Yes, current using old template (go to 85) Yes, but out-of-date (go to 84) No (go to 84)

84 (FM) Is there a harvest plan in place (i.e., Conservation Harvesting Plans, fishing plans within an IFMP, or fishing plans not associated with an IFMP)? Yes, current (go to 85) Yes, but out-of-date (go to 85) No (go to 89)

85 (FM)* Is the IFMP or harvest plan widely available and easily accessible? Yes No

Page 11 of 16 86 (FM)* Does the IFMP or harvest plan: Identify clear short- and long- term objectives: For target species? Yes No NA For COSEWIC assessed or SARA listed species and/or their critical habitat? Yes No NA For by-catch species, other than SARA listed? Yes No NA For sensitive areas/habitat within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes No NA For monitoring and stock assessment requirements? Yes No NA For ecosystem structure and function Yes No NA Include concrete measurements of the degree to which these objectives are met: For target species? Yes No NA For COSEWIC assessed or SARA listed species and/or their critical habitat? Yes No NA For by-catch species, other than SARA listed? Yes No NA For sensitive areas/habitat within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes No NA Incorporate a research plan with information needs: For target species? Yes No NA For COSEWIC assessed or SARA listed species and/or their critical habitat? Yes No NA For by-catch species, other than SARA listed? Yes No NA For sensitive areas/habitat within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes No NA Reference Traditional Ecological Knowledge? Yes No NA Explicitly reference the science advice: For target species? Yes No NA For COSEWIC assessed or SARA listed species and/or their critical habitat? Yes No NA For by-catch species, other than SARA listed? Yes No NA For sensitive areas/habitat within the geographic extent of the fishery? Yes No NA

87 (FM) Are there outstanding allocation issues that significantly impede our ability to implement the IFMP or harvest plan? Yes No

88 (FM) Is there an annual process to review the performance of this plan, i.e., to assess management measures against objectives? Yes No

89 (FM) Do stakeholders have an opportunity to play a role in: The collection of information on the fishery (landing, bycatch, discard) Yes Partially No Decision making Yes Partially No Stock assessment process Yes Partially No

90 (FM) Do stakeholders actively participate in: The collection of information on the fishery (landing, bycatch, discard) Yes Partially No Decision making Yes Partially No Stock assessment process Yes Partially No

Page 12 of 16

91 (FM)* How would you qualify the engagement of the following groups in the development of the IFMP, IMAP, or harvest plan? Aboriginal groups? Formal / planned As needed Rare Commercial sector? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Recreational sector? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Environmental NGOs? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Other NGOs? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Local communities? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Processing sector? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Wildlife Management Boards? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA General public? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Fish farmers / aquaculture? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Other users? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Provincial/Territorial governments? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA Other federal departments? Formal / planned As needed Rare NA

92(FM)* Is there a process in place to evaluate the performance of the formal engagement with stakeholders? Yes No

93 (FM)* Are interactions between this fishery and the following user groups managed so that any potential negative impacts on conservation are avoided or minimized? Aquaculture/Mariculture Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Oil and Gas Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Renewable Energy Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Offshore Mining Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Tourism/Recreation Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Shipping and Transportation Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Other domestic fisheries Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA Other (please specify in Rationale box) Satisfactorily managed Unsatisfactorily managed No NA

94 (FM) * Are there any international or bilateral fisheries agreements in place for managing this stock? Yes No (go to 98) NA (go to 98)

95(FM) * Are the international or bilateral management measures consistent or compatible with Canada’s management measures/policies/approaches for sustainability? Yes (go to 98) No

96(FM)* Is Canada attempting to resolve these discrepancies? Yes Partially No

97(FM) Is there compliance with the International measures by all of the parties? Yes No

Page 13 of 16 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT This section should be completed by C&P, in consultation with FM. Please refer to the Guidance document for explanation for each question. For C&P responses, a scale from 0 – 10 is provided where 0 is the most negative response and 10 is the most positive. (Please check only one for each question)

98 (C&P)* To what extent has a risk-based compliance management plan been developed for this stock? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

99 (C&P)* How would you rate the C&P education and engagement activities aimed at increasing the level of understanding and buy-in in this fishery? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

100 (C&P)* How would you rate the effectiveness of the following controls At Sea or Field Observers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

Dockside Monitoring 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Mandatory Logbooks 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Hailing in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

Hailing out 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

Video Monitoring 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Other (please specify in comments section) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Creels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

101 (C&P)* What is the current level of coverage by Fishery Officers in the following three categories?

Air surveillance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA At-Sea surveillance (program vessels and CCG ships) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

Land Based surveillance (dockside or other) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

102 (C&P)* To what extent are enforcement actions taken when violations are detected? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

103 (C&P)* To what extent are deterrents (sanctions) effective at dealing with non-compliance? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Page 14 of 16

104 (C&P)* What is the level of compliance with regulations, license conditions and management measures? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

105 (C&P)* Are there processes in place to detect and/or measure unreported/misreported catches? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

106 (C&P)* To what extent is the level of unreported/misreported catches in this fishery considered to be insignificant (with 0 being the most negative response where a very high level of unreported/misreported catches is suspected)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA

Comments or rationale related to any of the compliance and enforcement questions above.

Page 15 of 16 RATIONALE/COMMENT BOX: Please provide rationale and comments in the field provided below, clearly indicating the question to which the comment refers.

Page 16 of 16 14 Appendix 7. Client Agreement

The Pacific Halibut Management Commission has accepted the report. The condition to certification is the responsibility of the management agency, DFO, who has agreed to the timeframes stipulated in this report and evidenced by the letter in appendix 1.1. In order to maintain MSC certification, the PHMA will need a to complete surveillance audits in accordance with the schedule in Appendix 5.

15 Appendix 8. Objections Process To objection period began 4 June 2015 and concluded 24 June 2015 after a period of 15 working days. No objections were received and the fishery was re-certified 30 June 2015.

―End Report―

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 294 Canada Pacific Halibut Hook-and-Line Fishery Re-Assessment © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013