Public Comment Draft Report Canada Pacific

8950 Martin Luther King Street N., Suite 202 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 USA Tel: (727) 563‐9070 Fax: (727) 563‐0207 Email: [email protected]

President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Second Re-assessment – Public Comment Draft Report

Canada Pacific Halibut (British Columbia) Fishery Hippoglossus stenolepis

Certificate No.: MRAG-F-0060

Pacific Halibut Management Association PO Box 16046, 617 Belmont Street New Westminster BC Canada V3M 6W6

MRAG Americas, Inc.

December 2018

Authors:

Joseph DeAlteris PhD, Robert J Trumble PhD

Contact: Robert J. Trumble Tel: +1 727-563-9070 Email: [email protected]

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 1 of 245

Table of Contents Glossary ...... 5 1. Executive Summary ...... 7 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 9 2.1. Assessment Team ...... 9 2.2. Peer Reviewers ...... 10 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 10 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 10 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data (million pounds dressed weight) 10 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 11 3.1.4 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 ...... 14 3.3.1 The Target Species ...... 14 3.3.2 Life History ...... 14 3.3.3 Distribution and Migration ...... 15 3.3.4 Food and Feeding ...... 15 3.3.5 Stock Status ...... 15 3.3.6 Scientific Advice ...... 28 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 29 3.4.1 Overarching Stock Assessment Policies and Procedures ...... 29 3.4.2 First Nations Fishing ...... 32 3.4.3 Recreational/Sport Fishing ...... 32 3.4.4 DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) incorporating the Precautionary Approach ...... 33 3.4.5 Sustainable Fisheries Framework strategies for species management ...... 33 3.4.6 Bycatch and Retained species ...... 37 3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species (ETP) ...... 51 3.4.8 Habitat Considerations ...... 68 3.4.9 Ecosystem Considerations ...... 79 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 83 3.5.1 Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls ...... 83 3.5.2 Recognized groups with interests in the fishery ...... 87 3.5.3 Consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan ...... 90 3.5.4 Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups ...... 92 3.5.5 Non-fishery users or activities, which could affect the fishery, and arrangements for liaison and co-ordination ...... 93 3.5.6 Objectives for the fishery ...... 93 3.5.7 Fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery ...... 95 3.5.8 Individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery, and the nature of those rights ...... 96 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 2 of 245

3.5.9 Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the objectives within a specified period ...... 96 3.5.10 Arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement ...... 96 3.5.11 Details of any planned education and training for interest groups ...... 98 3.5.12 Description of fishery’s research plan ...... 99 3.5.13 Review and audit of the management plan ...... 100 3.5.14 Scientific Advice ...... 102 3.5.15 Consultative Processes ...... 102 3.5.16 Monitoring Service Providers ...... 103 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 104 4.1. Harmonized Fishery Assessment ...... 104 4.2. Previous assessments ...... 104 4.3. Assessment Methodologies ...... 105 4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 105 4.4.1. Site Visits ...... 105 4.4.2. Consultations ...... 106 4.4.3. Evaluation Techniques ...... 106 5. Traceability ...... 107 5.1. Eligibility Date ...... 107 5.2. Traceability within the Fishery ...... 107 5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 108 5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 109 6. Evaluation Results ...... 109 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 109 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 110 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 111 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 111 References ...... 112 Appendices ...... 117 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 117 Principle 1 ...... 117 Principle 2 ...... 131 Principle 3 ...... 172 Appendix 2 Conditions ...... 202 Appendix 3. Peer Review Reports ...... 205 Appendix 4. Stakeholder submissions ...... 236 Appendix 5. Surveillance Frequency ...... 237 Appendix 6. Client Agreement ...... 238 Appendix 7. Objections Process ...... 239 Appendix 8 Supplemental Information ...... 240

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 3 of 245

Appendix 8.1 Catch Data ...... 241 Appendix 8.2 Canada Enforcement Report ...... 242

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 4 of 245

Glossary

ABC Allowable Biological Catch ACL Annual Catch Limit BC British Columbia, Canada Bmsy Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield C&P Conservation and Protection CAB Conformity Assessment Body CB Conference Board 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 EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EM Electronic Monitoring eNGO environmental Non-Governmental Organization ERAF Ecological Risk Assessment Framework ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FSC Food, Social, and Ceremonial GIAB Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board GMU Groundfish Management Unit GSSP Groundfish Science Strategic Plan HAB Halibut Advisory Board IFC International Fisheries Commission IFMP Integrated Fishery Management Plan IFQ or IQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission IVQ Individual Vessel Quota LRP Limit Reference Point MPA Marine Protected Area MSAB Management Strategy Advisory Board MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWA National Wildlife Area 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 SFF Sustainable Fisheries Framework SRB Scientific Review Board TAC Total Allowable Catch Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 5 of 245

TL Total Length

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 6 of 245

1. Executive Summary

An assessment team of Robert J. Trumble, lead assessor, and Joseph DeAlteris conducted the assessment using MSC Certification Requirements (CR) v1.3. The fishery has one unit of assessment:

The assessment team met in person in Vancouver, BC, Canada with the staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the fishery client from 14-15 November 2017, concurrent with the second surveillance. The client close-out meeting was held 15 November. The assessment team held an internal wrap up meeting on16 November. MRAG Americas posted a notice of the site visit on the MSC website, and invited stakeholders via email to present information and to meet with the team. No stakeholders requested a meeting with the assessment team or provided information.

Strengths The fishery is exceptionally well managed and is characterized by state of the art stock assessments and harvest strategies. The overarching legislation and regulations affecting Principle 1 and Principle 2 are highly developed, and applied specifically to the fisheries. The Convention between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea assures stock-wide coordination in the management of the species, and created the International Pacific Halibut Commission. The International Pacific Halibut Commission, an RFMO dedicated to science and management for Pacific halibut, brings a high degree of expertise to stock assessment and basic science. The Pacific Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans focus on integrated fishery management, resulting in the Integrated Fishery Management Plan Groundfish that applies to Pacific halibut, considers a wide range of management issues, and sets and implements effective intra-country management for Pacific halibut.

Weaknesses The fishery has few weaknesses. Life histories, productivities, and fishing impacts of some Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) species are not well known, and the fishery reached its lowest scores in this area.

The assessment team identified one performance indicator for the fishery that scored less than 80 and received a condition:

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for 1 2.3.2b rougheye rockfishes will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

All scoring issues scored >60 and all Principles scored >80:

Final Principle Scores Score Principle 1 – Target Species 93.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86.7 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 7 of 245

Principle 3 – Management System 98.1

On the basis of this re-assessment, the MRAG Americas assessment team recommended that the fishery should be recertified. The MRAG Americas decision making process reviewed the report and the recommendation, and has determined that the fishery should/should not be recertified.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 8 of 245

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

2.1. Assessment Team

Dr. Robert Trumble has wide-ranging experience in marine fish science and management, fishery habitat protection, and oceanography. Dr. Trumble joined MRAG Americas in 2000 as a senior research scientist and became Vice President in 2005. He retired from MRAG Americas in 2018. Previously, he served 14 years as Senior Biologist of the International Pacific Halibut Commission in Seattle, Washington, 10 years in various research and management positions at the Washington Department of Fisheries, and six years with the US Naval Oceanographic Office. At MRAG Americas, Dr. Trumble performed project planning, assembles research teams, and conducted research, with a focus on improving management of aquatic ecosystems and the resources and fisheries they support. He was responsible for the development and management of the core business areas and functions of the company, senior oversight on major projects, and development of new business. His projects have included managing the Pacific herring fishery for Washington state, preparation and review of fishery management and habitat management plans, review of technology to support or replace on-board observers, provision of observer services, development of bycatch management and control, preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, and conducting workshops on fishery issues. Dr. Trumble has extensive experience working with government agencies, commercial and recreational fisheries groups, Native Americans, and national and international advisory groups. He received appointments to the Scientific and Statistical Committees of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Groundfish Management Team of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the affiliate faculty of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and the Advisory Committee of the Washington Sea Grant Program. Dr. Trumble has published in peer-reviewed journals and symposium proceedings, presented invited papers at national and international meetings, and written reports for government agencies. Dr. Trumble received a B.S. degree in Oceanography from the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, an M.S. degree in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in Fisheries from the College of Fisheries, University of Washington.

Dr Trumble served as team leader.  He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries;  He has passed the MSC team leader training;  He has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2;  He has undertaken at least two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years, and  He has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 2 and Principle 3 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC Table PC3. MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Dr. Joseph DeAlteris retired from the University of Rhode Island (URI) in May of 2012, and was awarded Professor Emeritus status. In 30 years of service to URI he taught course work, conducted research, and developed outreach programs in fisheries conservation engineering, fish population dynamics and quantitative ecology, and shellfish aquaculture. He mentored more than 40 graduate students completing MS and PhD degrees. He served on numerous government committees including the National Research Council. He authored more than 35 publications in peer-reviewed journals, and also authored and co-authored numerous books, manuals, non-refereed articles, and technical reports in the fields of fisheries biology, stock assessment and fishing gear technology. Dr. DeAlteris has an international reputation as an expert in the field of stock assessment and fishing gear technology. He brings intimate knowledge of finfish and invertebrate fisheries and has considerable experience in MSC fishery evaluations. He has worked for several certifying bodies Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 9 of 245

(CBs). Dr. DeAlteris has worked the full assessment of the Louisiana blue crab and Atlantic red crab fisheries, the Echebastar Indian Ocean tuna fishery, the re-assessment of British Columbia halibut fishery, and annual audits of Dungeness crab, red crab, blue crab, Canadian haddock, Full Bay sea scallop and the shrimp fisheries. He has also conducted pre-assessments, and assessment peer reviews. He recently worked as an independent expert for the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI). He is an MSC-certified assessment team leader under FCRv.2.0.

MRAG Americas confirms that Joseph DeAlteris meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows:  He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries,  He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years  He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 and 2 assessor as described in FCR Annex PC Table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

2.2. Peer Reviewers Peer review college

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)

Species: Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) Geographical Area: West Coast of British Columbia, Canada; IPHC area 2B Method of Capture: Hook and Line (bottom longline, troll, handline) Fleet: Canadian hook and line vessels with L or FL licenses and vessels with K or FK licenses while jointly hailed out with an L or FL license. Stock: This certification assessed the US and Canada Pacific halibut stock that extends from the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands to Washington-Oregon- California. The assessment considers the health of the coast-wide stock and the effects of the Canadian-permitted harvests on that stock. Management System: International Pacific Halibut Commission; Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Eligible Fishers: All L or FL licenses and all K or FK licenses while jointly hailed out with an L or FL license. Scope: MRAG Americas confirms that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought. Rationale for UoA: The UoA is the most inclusive possible for the Canadian portion of the halibut stock and includes the entire range of the stock. All commercial halibut fishing in Pacific Canada and all fishermen who participate, except First Nations fishing under Food, Ceremonial, and Subsistence regulations or special regulations allowing sales of First Nations catch separate from general halibut regulations.

Proposed UoC The proposed UoC is the same as the UoA.

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data (million pounds dressed weight) TAC and Catch Data

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 10 of 245

TAC Year 2017 Amount 7.450 UoA share of TAC Year 2017 Amount 6.332 UoC share of total TAC Year 2017 Amount Total green weight catch by Year (most 2017 Amount 5.778 UoC recent) Year (second 2016 Amount 5.639 most recent)

3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries This fishery is not an enhanced fishery.

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) This fishery is not an introduced species.

3.2 Overview of the Fishery

Background information about the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut is provided in Scientific Certification Systems (2009), Scientific Certification Systems (2011), Scientific Certification Systems (2012), Scientific Certification Systems (2012b), and Scientific Certification Systems (2015).

Section 1 of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) provides an overview of the Pacific groundfish fisheries in Canada (including Pacific halibut) and the governance structure. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) has summarized the development of the Pacific halibut fishery, and this overview comes primarily from IPHC (2014).

Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is a flatfish that inhabits the continental shelf of the United States and Canada, ranging from California to the Bering Sea, and extending into Russia and Japan. Because a 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. In addition, halibut is a sought-after target for sport fishing enthusiasts because of its strength and large size. Fishery data presented in this report follow the IPHC convention of expressing weights in units of pounds, net weight (eviscerated, head off), followed by the metric round weight equivalent in parentheses. Pacific halibut harvests have been reported in net weight since the beginning of the commercial fishery, and those involved with the industry are accustomed to halibut weights reported in this format. However, it is recognized that the standard in many other fisheries is to report weights in “round” (whole-fish) units. The round weight can be estimated by dividing the net weight by 0.75.

Pacific halibut has been fished for hundreds of years by members of US Indian tribes and First Nations groups who inhabited what is now known as Alaska, British Columbia, and the U.S. west coast (Washington, Oregon, and California). The North American commercial fishery officially started in 1888 when halibut were landed in Tacoma, Washington by the sailing vessel Oscar and Hattie and were subsequently shipped to Boston. Two other commercial vessels fished halibut that year, and halibut’s popularity soon grew because the fish, if well-iced, could be kept for an extended time without spoiling. In the 1890s, an extensive fleet of sailing vessels fished with 2-man dories. Large, company owned U.S. and Canadian steam-powered vessels soon dominated the fishery, carrying 10 to 12 dories and as many as 35 crew, compared to two or three dories and fewer than six crew on a smaller vessel. However, by the 1910s catch rates had declined and members of the halibut fishing industry asked the governments of both the U.S. and Canada for international management of the resource. The fleet itself was integrated since there were no international boundaries pertaining to fishing at the time. Since the beginning, the fishery has used hook and line gear. Longline gear dominates the commercial, although some catch occurs with troll, jig, and handline. Recreational fishing has increased in importance, particularly in the Washington and Oregon, British Columbia, Southeast Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Alaska.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 11 of 245

The IPHC (then the International Fishery Commission) was formed in 1923 and began its management of the halibut resource in 1924 with a three-month winter closure to fishing. Over the years, fishing effort grew and the fishery contracted in time as the Commission reduced season length to maintain catches with the catch limit. The U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act extended each country’s fishery jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from shore beginning in 1977. In 1979, the Protocol to the Convention of 1953 signed by the two countries brought an end to U.S. fishing in Canadian waters in 1979 and Canadian fishing in U.S. waters in 1981. The Protocol also enabled the individual governments to make regulations pertaining to their own fleets as long as they were not in conflict with Commission regulations. The two countries started down decidedly different paths. Canada limited entry into its halibut fishery in 1979 to 435 vessels that qualified to receive a commercial halibut (or Category “L”) license, which enabled longer seasons and eased the transition to an individual quota system in 1991.

In 1989 a group of Canadian halibut vessel owners approached DFO for assistance in developing an individual quota (IQ) program. As a result, an Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ, used interchangeably with Individual Transferable Quota, ITQ) system was implemented in the halibut fishery in 1991 on a two-year trial basis with extensive input from industry participants. Under IVQ management, each commercial halibut license is granted a pre-determined share of the TAC before the fishing season starts. 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 U.S. fishery remained open access for a number of years following the Canadian IVQ; the U.S. fleet expanded and the seasons grew shorter, intensifying the “derby” or race for the fish. As the need for new management measures became clear for the fishery off Alaska, the U.S. government began considering options for limiting access. The U.S. regional councils (the North Pacific Fishery Management Council [NPFMC] in Alaska and the Pacific Fishery Management Council [PFMC] on the west coast) were given the authority in 1982 to establish limited access regulations and authority to allocate catches among user groups was given to the Councils in 1987. The NPFMC and NMFS established an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) in 1995 for Alaska.

Many First Nations participate in the commercial halibut fishery either as vessel owners, license eligibility holders or crew. Commercial halibut opportunities for First Nations are also provided via DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy Allocation Transfer Program (ATP) and the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI). Under the ATP and PICFI programs, commercial fishing licenses and/or individual quotas are voluntarily retired via market-based transfers from the commercial fishery then re-issued to a First Nations band, tribal council or organization as a communal commercial (Category FL) license. The re-issued Category “FL” communal commercial license is fished in the regular commercial fishery and the conversion from L to FL does not affect management controls. This has increased First Nations participation in the commercial fisheries without adding to existing fishing effort. Currently 92 of the 435 commercial halibut license eligibilities (21%) are designated as communal commercial.

Since 2006, the Canadian hook and line fishery for halibut has been managed on a multi-species basis, with the adoption of an integrated management approach under the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program (CGIP). There are seven distinct commercial groundfish sectors -- Halibut (L), Sablefish (K), Inside Rockfish (ZNI), Outside Rockfish (ZNO), Lingcod (Schedule II), Dogfish (Schedule II) and Groundfish Trawl (T). Under CGIP, the seven commercial groundfish sectors are managed as distinct fisheries but are managed in an integrated manner such that all mortality of “directed species” and “retained species” that are managed with a TAC must be accounted for. To account for this mortality, licence eligibility holders must reallocate ITQ between fisheries to cover all mortalities, regardless of whether the catch is kept, utilized at sea, or released at sea. As a result all “directed species” and “retained species” mortalities of groundfish species managed under a TAC are accounted for within the TAC.

For the Groundfish Trawl (Category T) sector, halibut are managed differently as vessels using trawl gear are not permitted to keep halibut. The groundfish trawl fishery is managed using a total halibut bycatch mortality cap and individual vessel bycatch quotas which are not transferable to the hook and

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 12 of 245 line and trap fisheries. All halibut bycatch mortalities in the Groundfish Trawl (T) sector are recorded and accounted for in the IPHC process to determine catch limits. To achieve socioeconomic objectives for fleet size and diversity, ITQ caps are in place to limit “directed species” and “retained species” mortalities of groundfish species managed under a TAC (DFO 2018). Trip limits are also used to manage “retained species” of groundfish that are not managed under a TAC. For these species, vessels must also record any at-sea releases or utilized at-sea mortalities in their logbooks.

As noted in Appendix 6 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO 2018), the following species are permitted to be retained under Part 1 and Schedule II, Part 2 of a Halibut licence eligibility with the appropriate amendment:  Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)  Rockfish (Sebastes spp. and Sebastolobus spp.)  Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates)  Spiny Dogfish (Squalus suckleyi)  Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria)  Skate (Rajidae)  Sole and Flounder (Pleuronectiformes other than Hippoglossus stenolepis)  Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)

Although research shows that halibut form a single genetic stock across their entire range, and abundance estimates are therefore derived for the coastwide population, management of the resource is conducted on a regulatory area basis. Regulatory areas were first defined in 1932 and were frequently redefined and reshaped. The present arrangement was established in 1990 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 IPHC Regulatory Areas from 1990 – present (Source: IPHC 2018a).

The Commission staff has monitored changes in the Pacific halibut stock and fishery since the 1930s. Removals from the Pacific halibut stock have been closely documented since the late 1800s (Figure 2). Over time, the IPHC add tracking of bycatch in other fisheries, halibut mortality from lost gear and discards from the halibut fleet (wastage), sport fishing, and personal use and subsistence: to the degree practicable, the IPHC tracks total fishing mortality for the stock. The majority of the stock biomass, and therefore the commercial fishery, has been located in the Gulf of Alaska in recent years.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 13 of 245

Figure 2 Total removals from the Pacific halibut resource since the commercial fishery began in 1888 through 2017 (IPHC 2018a).

The halibut stock has undergone many fluctuations in abundance with consequent effects on the commercial fishery removals. These fluctuations are understood to be linked to changes in recruitment (the number of young halibut entering the population each year), which appears to be linked to the productivity of the northeastern Pacific Ocean, specifically, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Population fluctuations are also linked to the size-at-age of Pacific halibut, which has gone through marked changes over the last 100 years, from fish that were quite small for their age in the 1920s and 1930s, to much larger fish in the 1960s through 1980s, and back to relatively small fish in the current stock. The mechanisms creating these changes are poorly understood, but may represent a combination of density-dependent competition for food, ocean productivity, fishing effects, and other natural and anthropogenic factors. Such changes in size-at-age can result in fluctuations in the catch, even when similar numbers of fish are being removed from the stock. These changes in stock abundance have not been identical among all regulatory areas, with some showing much more pronounced trends and others more stability.

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 The Target Species

The fishery targets Pacific halibut, a flatfish that 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

The life history of Pacific halibut is summarized in IPHC 2014. Pacific halibut are among the largest teleost fishes in the world with lengths reported up to 9 ft (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 600 to 1400 ft (about 200 to over 450 m). A 50 lbs (22.6 kg) female will spawn close to a half a million eggs while a female over 200 lbs (90.7 kg) 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 14 of 245 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. 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 ft (about 96.8 to 193.5 m), but have been known to occur at depths as great as 1,500 ft (483 m). Egg hatching is moderated by temperature occurring around 15 to 20 days at 5-6o C, and 12 to 14 days at 7-8o C. 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.

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 m (IPHC, 2014).

Halibut are demersal, living on or near the bottom. Halibut are most often caught between 90 and 900 ft (27 and 274 m), but have been caught as deep as 1,800 ft (548 m). 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 two or three-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 (IPHC 2014).

3.3.5 Stock Status

The most recent assessment of the stock status of Pacific halibut is presented in Stewart et al. (2017), and the following sections on stock status are taken from that summary. The IPHC conducts an annual coastwide stock assessment of Pacific halibut and sets the 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 (CEY). The IPHC jurisdiction encompasses waters from the coast out to the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nm. Coastwide 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 UoC is area 2B, British Columbia, Canada. The Gulf

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 15 of 245 of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Washington were initially MSC certified in 2006, and re-assessed in 2013. Relevant Principle 1 issues in that audit have been harmonized with this re-assessment report.

3.3.5.1 Catch of sublegal halibut

IPHC Staff (2017) discuss the bycatch of sublegal halibut in the directed halibut fishery and how it is addressed in the process to determine area catch limits. This mortality used to be called wastage in many International Pacific Halibut Commission publications and is now termed commercial discard mortality. Wastage or commercial discard mortality is: 1. Pacific halibut that are smaller than the commercial minimum size of 32 inches (81.3 cm)1, known as U32s, that must be released by regulation and subsequently die, 2. fish of all sizes estimated to have been captured by fishing gear that were subsequently lost or abandoned during fishing operations, 3. fish that are discarded for regulatory reasons (e.g. the vessel’s trip limit has been exceeded).

Different mortality rates are applied to each category: released Pacific halibut have a 16% mortality rate and Pacific halibut mortality from lost gear is 100% (IPHC 2018c). Total wastage estimates in Area 2B continues to be relatively low compared to historic levels over the past three decades (IPHC 2018c).

Prior to 2011, wastage or commercial discard mortality of fish longer than 32 inches (O32) was directly deducted to determine the fishery CEY and the mortality of halibut under 32 inches (U32) was accounted for when setting exploitation rates. Canada would deduct the O32 wastage from the directed commercial halibut fishery allocation prior to setting the TAC and determining ITQ amounts. Thus, the hook and line commercial halibut fishery was accountable for all its O32 mortalities.

Starting in 2011, wastage mortality of O32 halibut and halibut between 26 and 32 inches were directly deducted in the IPHC determination of each regulatory area’s fishery CEY and the mortality of halibut under 26 inches was accounted for when setting exploitation rates. Canada now deducts all over 26 inch (O26) wastage mortalities from the directed commercial halibut fishery allocation prior to setting the TAC and determining ITQ amounts (DFO 2018). Thus, the directed hook and line halibut fishery is now accountable for all hook and line and trap O26 mortalities.

3.3.5.2 Assessment data

According to Stewart et al. (2017), known Pacific halibut removals (mortality) consist of target fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and bycatch mortality in fisheries targeting other species (where Pacific halibut retention is prohibited). Over the period 1918-2017 removals have totalled 7.2 billion pounds (~3.2 million metric tons, t), ranging annually from 34 to 100 million pounds (16,000-45,000 t) with an annual average of 63 million pounds (~29,000 t; Figure 2. Annual removals were above this long-term average from 1985 through 2010 and have been relatively stable near 42 million pounds (~19,000 t) since 2014.

Coastwide commercial Pacific halibut fishery landings in 2017 were approximately 26.2 million pounds (~11,900 t), up from a low of 23.7 million pounds (~10,700 t) in 2014. Bycatch mortality was estimated to be 6.0 million pounds in 2017 (~2,720 t), the lowest level in the estimated time series, beginning with the arrival of foreign fishing fleets in 1962, and just over one million pounds (~450 t) less than estimated for 2016. The total recreational removals was estimated to be 8.1 million pounds (~3,675 t), up 10% from 2016. Removals from all sources in 2017 were estimated to be 42.4 million pounds (~19,200 t), up slightly from 41.8 million pounds in 2015 (~18,960 t).

Data are initially compiled by IPHC Regulatory Area and then aggregated to the coastwide level and to four biological Regions: Region 2 (Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C), Region 3 (Areas 3A, 3B), Region 4 (4A,

1 There is a 32 inch size limit in place for head-on halibut. By regulation, all fish under 32 inches must be released. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 16 of 245

4CDE) and Region 4B (Figure 1). In addition to the removals (including all sizes of Pacific halibut), the assessment includes data from both fishery dependent and fishery independent sources as well as auxiliary biological information collected over the last 10 years, with the most spatially complete data available since the late-1990s. Primary sources of information for this assessment include indices of abundance from the IPHC’s annual fishery-independent setline survey (numbers and weight) and commercial Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (weight), and biological summaries (length-, weight-, and age-composition data). Efforts to improve the data sources included in the assessment have been ongoing since 2013, with a complete reprocessing of all inputs completed for 2015. Further improvements in 2016 included the transition to model-based setline survey indices (Webster 2017b). For 2017, additional data were included in the form of age data from setline survey expansions and additional stations sampled historically, individual Pacific halibut weights collected during port sampling of commercial fishery landings as well as an extended time-series (1993-2017) from the setline survey modelling ( Webster 2017a ) making use of 6 additional years of data (1993-1997 and 2017). As is standard practice, all mortality estimates and existing time-series were updated for 2016 and extended to include 2017 observations. All available information was finalized on 9 November 2017 in order to provide adequate time for analysis and modelling. As has been the case in all years, some data are incomplete, or include projections for the remainder of 2017. These include commercial fishery WPUE, commercial fishery age-composition data, and 2017 removals for all fisheries still operating after late-October 2016.

The 2017 IPHC’s fishery-independent setline survey detailed a coastwide aggregate legal (O32) WPUE which was 10% lower than the value observed in 2016, with individual IPHC Regulatory Areas varying from a 1% increase (Regulatory Area 2C) to a 32% decrease (Regulatory Area 3B; Figure 3). Setline survey NPUE showed a more pronounced decrease from 2016 to 2017 (24% coastwide), with individual Regulatory Areas ranging from a 1% increase (Regulatory Area 4A) to a 44% decrease (Area 2A; Figure 4). Commercial fishery WPUE (based on extensive, but still incomplete logbook records available for this assessment) was slightly increased (5%) at the coastwide level with mixed trends among Regulatory Areas (Figure 5). Based on review by the IPHC’s Scientific Review Board (SRB), a bias correction for each Regulatory Area was developed using the last five years of post-assessment revisions resulting from additional logbooks available after the assessment deadline in early November. Applying these corrections reduced the increase in coastwide commercial fishery WPUE to only 3% and negative trends were predicted for all Regulatory Areas except Area 4D (+71%), Area 4C (+20%) and Regulatory Area 3A (+6%). Tribal and non-tribal commercial fishery trends in Regulatory Area 2A are reported separately this year in response to important differences in the timing and spatial extent of the two components. Tribal fishery WPUE has been increasing since 2014 in that Area, and non-tribal WPUE has been declining over the same period, although a small increase (5%) from 2016 to 2017 was observed. The very large increase in WPUE observed in Regulatory Area 4D appears to be a function of much higher catch-rates around St. Matthew Island (also observed in the setline survey) and a shift of 25% of the catch previously occurring along the shelf-edge to the waters around that island in 2017. Age distributions in 2017 show a 2005 cohort somewhat stronger than those in adjacent years, and weak recruitments from 2006 onward. At the coastwide level, individual size-at-age continues to be very low relative to the rest of the time-series, although there has been little change over the last several years.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 17 of 245

Figure 3 Trends in setline survey legal (O32) WPUE by IPHC Regulatory Area, 1993-2017. Percentages indicate the change from 2016 to 2017. Shaded zones indicate approximate 95% credibility intervals.

Figure 4 Trends in setline survey all-sizes NPUE by IPHC Regulatory Area, 1993-2017. Percentages indicate the change from 2016 to 2017. Shaded zones indicate approximate 95% credibility intervals (Stewart et al 2017).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 18 of 245

Figure 5 Trends in commercial fishery WPUE by Regulatory Area, 1984-2017. Percentages indicate the uncorrected change from 2016 to 2017 (see text above). Vertical lines indicate approximate 95% confidence intervals (Stewart et al 2017).

3.3.5.3 Stock distribution

During 2017, there was extensive consideration by the IPHC Secretariat of what constitutes a biologically-based stock distribution estimate (Hicks and Stewart 2017). Although IPHC Regulatory Areas have been used for distributional summary historically, there is no biological basis for that level of resolution. Instead, population-level information suggests that broader regions (with the exception of Regulatory Area 4B) are more biologically meaningful (Seitz et al. 2017).

Trends over the last five years indicate that population distribution, measured either via the O32 component of the setline survey catch or all sizes, has been relatively stable (Figure 6, Table 1). However, over a decadal time-period (setline survey data prior to 1993 is insufficient to provide stock distribution estimates) there has been an increasing proportion of the coastwide stock occurring in Region 2 and a decreasing proportion occurring in Region 3. It is unknown to what degree either of these periods corresponds to historical distributions from the mid-1900s or to the average distribution likely to occur in the absence of fishing mortality.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 19 of 245

Figure 6 Estimated stock distribution (1993-2017) based on setline survey catch of O32 (black series) and all sizes (blue series) of Pacific halibut. Shaded zones indicate approximate 95% credibility intervals (Stewart et al 2017).

Table 1 Recent regional stock distribution estimates based on modelling of the fishery- independent setline survey data (Stewart et al 2017).

O32 stock distribution All sizes stock distribution Year Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region (2A, 2B, (3A, 3B) (4A, 4B (2A, 2B, (3A, 3B) (4A, 4B 2C) 4CDE) 2C) 4CDE) 2013 29.6% 45.9% 18.7% 5.8% 25.4% 50.1% 19.6% 4.9% 2014 28.8% 46.5% 19.8% 4.9% 24.2% 52.8% 19.1% 4.0% 2015 30.4% 44.2% 20.5% 4.9% 25.7% 51.4% 18.9% 4.0% 2016 30.0% 46.8% 18.6% 4.5% 25.9% 52.8% 17.4% 3.9% 2017 29.7% 45.6% 20.0% 4.8% 25.9% 50.7% 19.2% 4.2%

3.3.5.4 Stock Assessment

The stock assessment was implemented using the generalized software stock synthesis (Methot and Wetzel 2013 ), and consists of an ensemble of four equally-weighted models; the basic approach remains unchanged since 2014.The ensemble is comprised of two long time-series models, reconstructing historical dynamics back to the beginning of the modern fishery, and two short time- series models incorporating data only from 1996 to the present when all sources of removals and surveys are available for all regions. For each time-series length there are two models: one fitting to coastwide aggregate data, and one to data disaggregated into the four geographic regions. This combination of models also includes uncertainty in natural mortality rates (estimated in the long time- series models, fixed in the short time-series models), environmental effects on recruitment (estimated in the long time-series models), and other model parameters.

As has been the case since 2012, the stock assessment is based on the approximate probability distributions derived from the ensemble of models, thereby incorporating the uncertainty within each model as well as the uncertainty among models. This approach reduces the potential for abrupt Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 20 of 245 changes in management quantities as improvements and additional data are added to individual models, and provides a more realistic perception of uncertainty than any single model, and therefore a stronger basis for risk assessment. For 2017, the four models were equally weighted, as work-to- date on retrospective and predictive performance continues to suggest that each can be considered approximately equally plausible. Within-model uncertainty from each model was propagated through to the ensemble results via an asymptotic approximation. Point estimates reported in this stock assessment correspond to median values from the ensemble, and can therefore be described probabilistically.

It must be noted that the SCS 2015 assessment of the US portion of this fishery and the SCS 2015 assessment of the BC portion of this fishery was based the Stewart and Martel (2013) stock assessment (based on data through 2012). In the five year since that 2012 assessment, the science supporting the management of the halibut fishery has improved markedly as described in the previous paragraphs. This has resulted in some differences in the Principle 1 scoring of the fishery in this report.

In 2012, the IPHC commissioned an independent Performance Review of the Commission to build upon its work to-date and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness (McCreary and Brooks 2012). Among other things, the Performance Review recommended a regular peer review of the IPC stock assessment. In response, the IPHC in 2013 set up the Scientific Review Board (SRB; https://iphc.int/library/documents/meeting-documents/scientific-review-board-srb), composed of three independent scientists, to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and to support and strengthen the stock assessment process. Initially, this standing peer review process focused on a review of the annual stock assessment model and harvest policy prepared by the IPHC staff. Over time, this emphasis shifted to a broader review of scientific programs, including outputs from the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board, in addition to the annual stock assessment results and advice. The IPHC staff conducts ongoing review of the stock assessment to bring in new methods, new biological information, and perform diagnostics.

3.3.5.5 Biomass and Recruitment Trends

The results of the 2017 stock assessment indicate that the Pacific halibut stock declined continuously from the late 1990s to around 2010 (Figure 7). That trend is estimated to have been largely a result of decreasing size-at-age, as well as somewhat weaker recruitment strengths than those observed during the 1980s. Since the estimated female spawning biomass (SB) stabilized near 200 million pounds (~90,100 t) in 2010, the stock is estimated to have increased gradually to 2017. The SB at the beginning of 2018 is estimated to be 202 million pounds (~91,600 t), with an approximate 95% confidence interval ranging from 148 to 256 million pounds (~67,100-116,100 t; Figure 8). Comparison with previous stock assessments indicates that the 2017 results are very consistent (although slightly lower) with estimates from 2012 through 2016, all of which lie inside the 50% interval (Figure 9). The 2017 SB estimate from the 2017 stock assessment is only 2% below the estimate from the 2016 stock assessment.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 21 of 245

Figure 7 Estimated spawning biomass trends (1996-2018) based on the four individual models included in the 2017 stock assessment ensemble. Series indicate the maximum likelihood estimates; shaded intervals indicate approximate 95% confidence intervals (Stewart et al. 2017).

Figure 8 Cumulative distribution of the estimated spawning biomass at the beginning of 2018. Curve represents the estimated probability that the biomass is less than or equal to the value on the x-axis; vertical line represents the median (202 million pounds; ~91,600 t) (Stewart et al. 2017).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 22 of 245

Figure 9 Retrospective comparison among recent IPHC stock assessments. Black lines indicate estimates of spawning biomass from assessments conducted from 2012-2016 with the terminal estimate shown as a point, the shaded distribution denotes the 2017 ensemble: the dark blue line indicates the median (or “50:50 line”) with an equal probability of the estimate falling above or below that level; colored bands moving away from the median indicate the intervals containing 50/100, 75/100, and 95/100 estimates; dashed lines indicating the 99/100 interval (Stewart et al. 2017).

Based on the two long time-series models, average Pacific halibut recruitment is estimated to be higher (41 and 76% for the coastwide and AAF models respectively) during favorable Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) regimes, a widely used indicator of productivity in the north Pacific. Historically, these regimes included positive conditions prior to 1947, poor conditions from 1947-77, positive conditions from 1978-2006, and poor conditions from 2007-13. Annual averages from 2014 through October 2016 have been positive; however, many other environmental indicators, current and temperature patterns have been anomalous relative to historical periods. Further, observed declines in Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the Gulf of Alaska, seabird mortality events and other conditions suggest that historical patterns of productivity related to the PDO may not be relevant to the most recent few years. Pacific halibut recruitment estimates show the largest recent cohorts in 1999 and 2005. Cohorts from 2006 through 2013 are estimated to be smaller than those from 1999- 2005 (Figure 10). This indicates a high probability of decline in both the stock and fishery yield as recent recruitments become increasingly important to the age range over which much of the harvest and spawning takes place.

Figure 10 Estimated age-0 recruitment trends (1996-2013) based on the four individual models included in the 2017 stock assessment ensemble. Series indicate the maximum likelihood estimates; vertical lines indicate approximate 95% confidence intervals (Stewart et al. 2017).

3.3.5.6. Harvest Policy and Other Reference Points

There is no explicit stock recruitment relationship for Pacific halibut; therefore it is difficult to interpret the level at which recruitment would be impaired. Annual recruitment is estimated as a free parameter. Based on previous models used for developing the reference points, they are assumed here to be stationary, and that B30% is an appropriate target reference point (TRP) and that B20% is an appropriate limit reference point (LRP) (Clark and Hare 2006).

A comparison of the median 2018 ensemble SB to reference levels specified by the interim management procedure suggests that the stock is currently at 40% (approximate 95% credible range = 26-60%) of specified unfished levels (relative to the SB specified by the current management procedure). The probability that the stock is below the SB30% level is estimated to be 6%, with less than a 1% chance that the stock is below SB20% (Table 2). Consistent with the interim management procedure (while improvements are ongoing), estimates of spawning biomass are compared to equilibrium values representing poor recruitment regimes and relatively large size-at-age. Alternative

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 23 of 245 reference points include the spawning biomass estimated to have occurred at the lowest point in the historical time-series (1977-78), as well as the spawning biomass that would be estimated to occur at present (given recent recruitment and biology) in the absence of fishing (dynamic SB0; Hicks and Stewart 2017). The two long time-series models provide a comparison with SB levels estimated to have occurred during the historically low stock sizes of the 1970s: the AAF model suggests that recent stock sizes are at 96% of those levels, and the coastwide model at 215%. The estimates of current spawning biomass relative to the dynamic reference point range from 26-43% among the four stock assessment models, with an average value of 33%. Relatively large differences among models reflect both the uncertainty in historical dynamics as well as the importance of spatial patterns in the data and population processes, for which all of the models represent only simple approximations.

3.3.5.7. Major Sources of Uncertainty

The stock assessment includes uncertainty associated with estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (e.g., short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models included in the ensemble. Although this is an improvement over the use of a single assessment model, there are important sources of uncertainty that are not included.

Two uncertainties in the current understanding of the Pacific halibut resource are:

1) The sex-ratio of the commercial catch (not sampled due to the dressing of fish at sea), which serves to set the scale of the estimated female abundance in tandem with assumptions regarding natural mortality. Voluntary marking in tandem with genetic sampling of all Pacific halibut sampled from the commercial landings will allow an estimate of the 2017 landings to be available for the next stock assessment. It will take several years to generate enough information on the sex ratio of the landings to begin to meaningfully inform the stock assessment models; however, this represents a crucial step toward addressing this source of uncertainty for future stock assessments. The uncertainty in the historical time-series will remain.

2) The treatment of spatial dynamics and movement rates among Regulatory Areas, which are represented via the coastwide and AAF approaches, have large implications for the current stock trend. In addition, movement rates for adult and younger Pacific halibut (roughly ages 0-6, which were not well-represented in the PIT-tagging study), particularly to and from Area 4, are necessary for parameterizing a spatially explicit stock assessment. Current understanding of these rates has now been summarized, but remains problematic for tactical stock assessment modelling.

Other important contributors to assessment uncertainty and potential bias include recruitment, size- at-age, and fishery removals. The link between Pacific halibut recruitment strengths and environmental conditions remains poorly understood, and there is no guarantee that observed correlations will continue in the future. Therefore, recruitment variability remains a substantial source of uncertainty in current stock estimates due to the lag between birth year and direct observation in the fishery and survey data (6-10 years). Reduced size-at-age relative to levels observed in the 1970s is the most important driver of recent stock trends, but its cause also remains unknown. The historical record suggests that size-at-age changes relatively slowly; therefore, although projection of future values is highly uncertain, near-term values are unlikely to be substantially different than those currently observed. Data suggest that the decreasing trend in size-at-age has slowed and coastwide values have been relatively stable over the last decade. Like most stock assessments, estimated removals from the stock are assumed to be accurate. Therefore, uncertainty due to bycatch mortality estimation (observer sampling and representativeness), discard mortality rates, and any other unreported sources of removals in either directed or non-directed fisheries could create bias in this assessment. Ongoing research on these topics may help to inform our understanding of these processes in the long-term, but in the near-future it appears likely that a high degree of uncertainty in both stock scale and trend will continue to be an integral part of the annual management process.

The IPHC Secretariat (2018b) identified fishery removals as an important contributor to assessment uncertainty and potential bias. The report notes, “Like most stock assessments, estimated Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 24 of 245

removals from the stock are assumed to be accurate. Therefore uncertainty due to bycatch mortality estimation (observer sampling and representativeness), discard mortality rates, and any other unreported sources of removals in either directed or non-directed fisheries could create bias in this assessment.”

There is significant variation in the levels of monitoring between the IPHC regulatory areas and the fisheries within each area, and the accuracy of bycatch information for fisheries also varies significantly.2 In past years it has been noted that monitoring objectives may be insufficient to accurately estimate bycatch in Alaska (Areas 2C, 3 and 4)3, with recent emphasis on IPHC Regulatory Area 3. As noted in IPHC Secretariat 2018c:

IPHC Regulatory Area 3 remains the area where bycatch mortality is estimated most poorly. Observer coverage for most fisheries is relatively low. Tendering, loopholes in trip cancelling, and safety considerations likely result in observed trips not being representative of all trips (observed and unobserved) in many regards (e.g. duration, species composition, etc. This, plus low coverage, leads to increased uncertainty in these bycatch estimates and to potential for bias.

In contrast, the catch monitoring program in Canada’s Pacific commercial halibut fishery [and all commercial groundfish fisheries on Canada's Pacific coast] “… is one of the most rigorous in the world” (Scientific Certification Systems, 2015). All “directed species”, “retained species” and “bycatch species” mortalities of halibut in Canada’s Pacific groundfish fisheries are accurately accounted for under the monitoring programs and management regime in place. This reduces uncertainty around the halibut mortality attributed to all commercial groundfish hook and line, trap and trawl fisheries in IPHC regulatory Area 2B.

The stock assessment contains a broader representation of uncertainty in stock levels relative to analyses for many other species. Although the data available for this stock assessment has narrowed both the historical and projected confidence intervals for stock size and trend relative to last year’s assessment and projections, the considerable remaining uncertainty can be seen in the distribution for spawning biomass estimated at the beginning of 2017 (Figure 8), such that the small differences between the estimate from the 2017 and recent assessments (Figure 9) are not statistically significant.

3.3.5.8 Harvest Policy Decision Table

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 2013 harvest advice, IPHC moved to the risk-benefit decision table approach (Table 2) for providing harvest advice to implement the control rule. The default exploitation rate of 20% of the exploitable biomass has been shown to achieve management objectives.

Stock projections were conducted using the integrated results from the stock assessment ensemble, summaries of the 2017 directed fisheries and other sources of mortality. The harvest decision table (Table 2) provides a comparison of the relative risk (in times out of 100), using stock and fishery metrics (rows), against a range of alternative harvest levels for 2018 (columns). The orientation of this table has changed from previous analyses in order to make the comparison of additional metrics easier (the second year of projection is now explicitly included), and to increase consistency with the

2 Halibut Bycatch Project: Progress Update, IPHC Annual Meeting Presentation, January 21-25, 2013, Page 12. http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events/annual-meeting/am-archive/20-meetings-and-events/meetings/309- amdocs2013.html 3 Halibut Bycatch Project: Progress Update, IPHC Annual Meeting Presentation, January 21-25, 2013, Page 22. http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events/annual-meeting/am-archive/20-meetings-and-events/meetings/309- amdocs2013.html Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 25 of 245 results produced from the Management Strategy Evaluation (Hicks and Stewart 2017). The block of rows entitled “Stock Trend” provides for evaluation of the risks to short-term trend in spawning biomass, independent of all harvest policy calculations. The remaining rows portray risks relative to the spawning biomass reference points (“Stock Status”) and fishery performance identified in the interim management procedure. The alternatives (columns) provided include several coarsely spaced levels of mortality intended to provide for evaluation of stock dynamics including:

 No mortality (useful to evaluate the stock trend due solely to population processes),  A 10 million pound (~4,500 t) 2018 Total Constant Exploitation Yield (TCEY)  A 50 million pound (~22,700 t) 2018 TCEY  A 60 million pound (~27,200 t) 2018 TCEY  The removals consistent with the reference SPR (F46%) level.

The TCEY corresponds approximately to the mortality comprised of Pacific halibut greater than 26 inches (66 cm) in length. A finer grid of alternative TCEY values is provided around the column corresponding to the reference level of fishing intensity (SPR=46%; for 2018 a TCEY of 31 million pounds, ~14,060 t).

For each row of the decision table, the total mortality of all sizes and from all sources, the coastwide TCEY and the associated level of fishing intensity (median value with the 95% credible range below; measured via the Spawning Potential Ratio) are reported. Fishing intensity reflects the relative reduction in equilibrium (long-term) spawning biomass per recruit from all sources and sizes of removals, reported as Fx%, (where x = the SPR) for comparison to other management processes in both nations where harvest rate targets and limits are commonly reported in these units. As in previous years, it is expected that additional alternatives will be produced during the IPHC’s annual process such that all management alternatives considered for 2018 can be directly evaluated in terms projected total mortality and risk.

The stock is projected to decrease gradually over the period from 2018-20 for removals around the reference SPR level (Figure 11). The risk of stock declines begins to increase rapidly for TCEYs above 31 million pounds (~14,060 t), becoming more pronounced by 2020 (Table 2). The reference SPR corresponds to a 78/100 (78%) chance of stock decline through 2019, and a 46% chance of at least a 5% decline through 2021 at that constant level of TCEY. TCEYs corresponding to recent levels of fishing mortality correspond to probabilities of stock decline over the next one to three years greater than 95%. There is a relatively small chance (<21/100; 21%) that the stock will decline below the threshold reference point (SB30%) in projections for all the levels of TCEY up to 40 million pounds (~18,100 t) evaluated over three years; for TCEYs exceeding that level, the probability begins to increase rapidly.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 26 of 245

Table 2 Harvest decision table for 2018. Columns correspond to yield alternatives and rows to risk metrics. Values in the table represent the probability, in “times out of 100” (or percent chance) of a particular risk (Stewart et al. 2017).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 27 of 245

Figure 11 Three-year projections of stock trend under alternative levels of mortality: no removals (upper panel), Reference SPR=46% (32.8 million pounds, ~14,900 t; middle panel) and a TCEY of 60 million pounds (~27,200 t; lower panel) (Stewart et al. 2017).

3.3.6 Scientific Advice

Sources of mortality: In 2017, total removals were below the 100-year average, and have been stable near 42 million pounds (19,050 t) from 2014-17 (Figure 2). In 2017, 83% of the total removals from the stock were retained compared to 80% in 2016.

Fishing intensity: The 2017 mortality from all sources corresponds to a point estimate of SPR = 40% (there is a 75% chance that fishing intensity exceeded the IPHC’s reference level of 46%). In order to reach the interim reference level, catch limits would need to be reduced for 2018. The Commission does not currently have a coastwide limit fishing intensity reference point.

Stock status (spawning biomass): At the end of 2017, the current female spawning biomass is estimated to be just above 200 million pounds (90,700 t), which corresponds to only a 6% chance of being below the IPHC threshold (trigger) reference point of SB30%, and less than a 1% chance of being below the IPHC limit reference point of SB20%. Therefore, no adjustment to the target fishing intensity was required, and the stock was not considered to be ‘overfished’. Projections indicate that the target fishing intensity was likely to result in similar, but declining biomass levels in the near future (Figure 11).

Stock distribution: Regional stock distribution has been stable within estimated credibility intervals over the last five years (Figure 6). Region 2 currently represents a greater proportion, and Region 3 a lesser proportion of the coastwide stock than observed in previous decades.

2018 Catch Limits: As noted in the Report of the 94th Session of the IPHC Annual Meeting (IPHC Secretariat 2018d), there was a lack of agreement on catch limits for 2018, which under the Convention means the status quo catch limits set for the previous year (2017) fishing periods will apply for 2018. However, both countries agreed to and applied more restrictive measures as permitted under the Convention. Canada reduced its total catch limit (TCEY) by 15% and the US reduced its total catch limit (TCEY) by 7%. The Commissioners agreed to convene a meeting as soon as possible to initiate discussion regarding alternatives to the current method of stock distribution modelling (formerly apportionment) and to consider how any such work will be linked to the IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation. The discussions between the two countries are ongoing.

2018 Management Strategy Evaluation update: In 2013, the IPHC endorsed the development of a program of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for the Pacific halibut resource occurring within the Convention Area. MSE is a process to evaluate the consequences of alternative management options, known as harvest strategies. MSE uses a simulation tool to determine how alternative harvest strategies perform given a set of pre-defined fishery (including conservation) objectives, taking into account the uncertainties in the system and how likely candidate harvest strategies are to achieve the chosen management objectives. MSE is a simulation technique based on modeling each

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 28 of 245 part of an adaptive management cycle. The MSE uses an operating model to simulate the entire population and all fisheries, factoring in management decisions, the monitoring program, and potential ecosystem effects using a closed-loop simulation.

The MSE process involves:

1. Defining fishery (including conservation) objectives with the involvement of stakeholders and managers; 2. Identifying harvest strategies (a.k.a. management procedures) to evaluate; 3. Simulating a Pacific halibut population using those harvest strategies; 4. Evaluating and presenting the results in a way that examines trade-offs; 5. Applying a chosen harvest strategy; 6. Repeating this process in the future in case of changes in objectives.

As of 2017, the results of the MSE have indicated that: 1. Stock status declines with SPR, but the reduction in fishing intensity, when below the threshold, lessens the continued decline, the 40% threshold lessens the decline sooner, variability in stock status is less at low SPR (higher fishing intensity); 2. Total mortality increases with lower SPR; 3. Variability in total mortality also increases at low SPR; 4. The ramping down of fishing intensity results in a lower realized SPR than the procedural SPR.

Based on the MSE results to date, the IPHC concludes that: 1. Total Mortality does not increase much at SPR values less than 40%; 2. Average annual variability (AAV) in total mortality shows a large increase at SPR of 30%; 3. Stock status reductions lessened at SPR less than 40%; 4. These conclusions are “best case” because using perfect information; 5. More comprehensive simulations will be done in 2018.

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 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.

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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 29 of 245 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- website (Available at http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/index-eng.asp ) 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 and the schedule is available at: http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/events-evenements/index-eng.asp. DFO policy is as follows: “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.”

3.4.1.1 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, which must all be counted and weighed), a subsample of not less than 225 pieces must be counted and weighed. All halibut landed are tagged with a unique serial number. A licensee'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 are 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:

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 30 of 245

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.

Logbook counts of retained species are totaled 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 decision options.

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.

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 has 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 2017 included: halibut, sablefish, rockfish (individuals species must be identified, but scores are aggregates for all rockfish species), lingcod, spiny dogfish, big skate, and long nose 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.

3.4.1.2 Species of Interest and Catch Audits

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 31 of 245

Species of Interest are reviewed in the audit process to the same standard as testable species. However, vessels with 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, long nose 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.

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 licenses, including regulations on catch amounts and reporting. Currently, 53 First Nations have communal FSC licenses 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 pounds 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).

3.4.3 Recreational/Sport Fishing

The current domestic sharing arrangement between commercial and recreational fisheries is 85% of the resource allocated to the commercial sector and 15% to the recreational sector, after accounting for First Nations’ Food, Social, and Ceremonial requirements. The 15% recreational share in 2017 equates to a total allowable catch of 1,118,029 pounds. The recreational total catch for 2017 was 1,137,867 pounds (19,838 pound overage). The estimated harvest by pieces is 68,127. The 2017 season opened on February 1 and closed on September 6. Traditional monitoring and reporting programs, such as logbooks, lodge manifests and recreational creel surveys, collected catch, effort and biological data during peak months and areas of the fishery. Estimates of catch in months and areas not monitored by traditional programs were generated from data collected during DFO’s internet-based recreational survey (iREC). Initiated in 2012, the iREC survey collects catch and effort information from recreational licence holders on a monthly basis throughout the recreational fishing year.

Since 2011, recreational harvesters have been allowed to apply for an experimental license and lease quota from the commercial sector and fish beyond the limits of the standard recreational fishing license or to fish when the recreational fishery is closed. Experimental license 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. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 32 of 245

In 2012, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada confirmed that the experimental licence would continue to be available and announced the Department was moving forward with a regulatory proposal to continue the experimental fishery for the long term. In 2017, the experimental fishery commenced April 1 and remained open until December 31, 2017. For the 2017 season, 11,287 pounds of halibut quota was transferred from the commercial sector to experimental licence holders, of which 5,942 pounds of halibut was caught.

To address monitoring gaps in the recreational fishery the Department has been using and enhancing an online survey since 2012. The Internet Recreational Effort and Catch (iREC) survey was peer reviewed by the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) in 2015. The iREC survey was developed to provide catch and effort estimates for all areas, months, fishing methods, and species harvested by the recreational sector. To minimize the effect of potential biases in iREC survey estimates, a calibration procedure was developed to relate iREC survey estimates and creel survey estimates in areas and times not covered by a creel survey.

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 (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm) 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 SSF 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)

More Information about the SFF can be found at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

3.4.5 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 IVQ for several species (output controls). Each vessel is allocated quota for the target species stipulated in their license condition as well as additional quota for certain non-target species. Vessel owners can transfer 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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 33 of 245

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 Food and Agriculture of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm), and the 1996 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries: Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions, (Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3592e/w3592e00.htm ) The IFMP reiterates this and stipulates that “stock assessments will be written in a manner consistent with the Departments’ Precautionary Approach”(DFO, 2013a).

Managing the species that interact with the Pacific halibut fishery uses (1) the Commercial Groundfish Integration Program (CGIP); (2) extensive catch accounting through mandatory fishing logbooks, 100% at-sea monitoring to record catch composition and location while fishing operations are underway and 100% dockside monitoring of all landings; (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by DFO and IPHC; (4) scheduled stock assessments as part of the Groundfish Strategic Science Plan that includes all main retained species as well as other retained species; and, (5) the DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework’s fishery decision making framework that takes into account risk and uncertainty when developing stock reference points for species by using the Precautionary Approach.

Under CGIP, all Canada Pacific commercial groundfish sectors are managed as distinct fisheries but are integrated as they must reallocate ITQ between fisheries to cover all “directed species” and “retained species” mortalities of groundfish species managed under a TAC or adhere to input controls such as trips limits for species that are not managed under a TAC. As a result, all catch of “target species” and “retained species” groundfish species are managed to adhere to output controls and/or input controls in place. This information is used in scientific stock assessments and considered when determining catch limits. The CGIP and management measures in the fishery are discussed in the Background section.

The mandatory logbook and 100% at-sea and 100% dockside monitoring programs ensure that all groundfish “directed species” and “retained species” mortalities (including fish kept, utilized at-sea or released at-sea) are verified and accurate. The catch reporting and monitoring programs are discussed in the Background section. The accurate accounting of all removals is designed to ensure the fishery does not exceed scientifically-determined allowable harvest limits or acceptable levels and thereby pose an unacceptable risk to the “target species” and the “retained species”.

The current management regime (i.e., TACs, ITQs, trip limits, accountability for all mortalities) and comprehensive monitoring programs (i.e., logbooks, 100% at-sea monitoring, 100% dockside validation) in place allow DFO to mitigate the risks to any “retained species” associated with the directed hook and line fishery for Pacific halibut. The comprehensive monitoring programs in place provide the Department with accurate and almost real time mortality data on all 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 independent survey programs conducted by DFO and IPHC are discussed in Section 6.5.2 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) and in IPHC Secretariat 2018e.

The DFO Groundfish Stock Assessment Program and the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan are discussed in Sections 3.4.5.1 and 3.4.5.3. DFO Science has started a process to review and update the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan.

The DFO Sustainable Fishery Framework, including its fishery decision making framework, incorporates an ecosystem and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada and is discussed in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 34 of 245

3.4.5.1 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 IFMP. The Groundfish IFMP is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. IFMP review begins with consultation with Groundfish advisory bodies in the fall of each year and in the case of Halibut is completed at the conclusion of the IPHC Annual Meeting when the Area 2B share is determined. Updates of the IFMP also frequently occur in- season if there are significant updates in Groundfish management to implement and report. For example, in 2017, there were 3 versions of the IFMP (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) that were posted in sequence as updates were made. The most recent IFMP is effective February 21, 2018. 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 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 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.” The most recent IFMP can be found at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2017/ground-fond-sm-2018-eng.pdf.

3.4.5.2 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 TAC and setting IVQ within the constraints of the TAC for each vessel. The IFMP stipulates that reallocation of quota among vessels (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 summaries (available at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/commercial/ground-fond/index-eng.html).

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 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995).

Catch accounting for input controlled species occurs via 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 recorded by dockside validators when a particular species happens to be landed with the commercial catch.

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:

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 35 of 245

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.

IPHC Longline Surveys Fishery-independent data are generated each year by the IPHC’s setline survey, covering most of the range of Pacific halibut habitat from the northern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands to California, and depths of 20-275 fathoms (Soderlund et al. 2012; Figure 1). The setline survey generates catch rate information, as well as biological samples from individual fish sampled randomly from the catch including: sex, length, age, maturity, the presence of prior hooking injury, and recently a small subsample of individual fish weights. Data are initially compiled by IPHC Regulatory Area, and then aggregated to the coastwide level, and into four biological Regions: Region 2 (Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C), Region 3 (Areas 3A, 3B), Region 4 (4A, 4CDE) and Region 4B. During 2017, there was extensive consideration by the IPHC Secretariat of what constitutes a biologically-based stock distribution estimate (Hicks and Stewart 2017). Although IPHC Regulatory Areas have been used for distributional summary historically, there is no biological basis for that level of resolution. Instead, population-level information suggests that the broader regions (with the exception of Area 4B) are more biologically meaningful (Seitz et al. 2017).

The coastwide O32 setline survey WPUE index is estimated to have decreased by 10% from 2016 to 2017 (Appendix A, Figures 2-3). This follows slight increases in the three previous years, and results in a relatively flat coastwide trend in WPUE since 2010. Decreases ranged from 4% to 13% among Regions, with Region 2 decreasing by 11% after 7 years of increase, and all other Regions near historical lows. The three largest decreases from 2016 to 2017 by Regulatory Area occurred in Areas 2A (-22%), 2B (-23%), and 3B (-32%); Area 2C showed the sole increase at +1%. The patterns were similar, but the magnitude larger for the WPUE for all sizes of Pacific halibut, which was down 17% at the coastwide level and ranged among Regulatory Areas from +1% (4A) to -36% (3B; Figures 4-5).

Setline survey NPUE showed a more pronounced decrease from 2016 to 2017 (-24% coastwide), with the most pronounced decrease in Region 2 (-27%; Figure 6). Region four decreased by only 10%; however, that decrease follows a seven year period of overall declines. Individual Regulatory Areas ranged from a 1% increase (Area 4A), to a 44% decrease (Area 2A), with Areas 2A, 2B, and 3B showing the largest one year declines, all of which were equal or greater than the largest single year changes observed in the estimated time-series (Figure 7).

DFO Hook and Line Surveys The hook and line surveys program consists of three distinct components (DFO 2018): 1. Inside waters hard bottom hook and line survey using a DFO research platform, staffed by DFO staff; 2. Outside waters hard bottom hook and line survey supported through a use of fish agreement with Pacific Halibut Management Association (PHMA), chartered survey vessels, and contracted sea-going technicians; and 3. Deployment of an additional technician aboard chartered survey vessels during the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s (IPHC) annual coastwide stock assessment survey.

Since 2003 the Inside waters research survey has been conducted aboard the R/V CCGS Neocaligus. This survey is designed to cover the inside (Strait of Georgia) waters over two years, rotating between northern and southern portions. These surveys are conducted over hard bottom between 41 and 100 m in depth to determine the catch by species and to collect biological samples. These surveys were initiated in 2003 in Areas 12 and 13, and have alternated with more southern management areas since then.

In 2006, the Outside waters research survey was initiated in collaboration with the research committee of the Pacific Halibut Management Association. This survey is part of an effort to index groundfish populations in all areas of the coast. The survey grid developed for hard bottom areas are matched alongside those developed for the coastwide trawl surveys. Data from both the longline and

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 36 of 245 trawl surveys will provide coastwide abundance indices and ancillary biological data for the more commonly caught species and provide general distributional data for all the others.

Employing a depth stratified random design, hard bottom areas coastwide is surveyed with longline gear over a two year period, alternating between northern and southern portions of Canada’s Pacific coast. A target of 200 fishing sets are selected in each year and up to three commercial fishing vessels are chartered to fish in one of three areas within the northern or southern portion of the coast each year. The southern portion of the coast is scheduled to be surveyed in even years, and the northern portion of the coast in odd years.

In 2003, cooperative work with industry and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) was initiated to collect data on catch other than Halibut on the annual survey in B.C. waters. A third technician has been employed in B.C. waters to collect hook by hook catch information as well as biologically sample rockfish species caught on the survey.

DFO Trawl Survey Since 2003, a series of Groundfish Trawl Multi-species surveys have been conducted jointly between the Department and the groundfish industry through the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society (DFO 2018). The purpose of the surveys is to gather fishery independent data to provide usable relative abundance indices for as many benthic and near benthic fish species as is reasonable and obtain supporting biological samples of size and age composition.

This survey program is comprised of five area specific surveys. Three areas, the Strait of Georgia, the west coast of Vancouver Island and Hecate Strait are surveyed using a DFO research vessel (historically the CCGS WE Ricker, but a new DFO research trawler is scheduled to come online after 2018), staffed with DFO science personnel. The two remaining areas, Queen Charlotte Sound and the West Coast of Haida Gwaii are surveyed with chartered commercial fishing vessels supplied by industry through the CGRCS and staffed with a combination of DFO and contracted sea going personnel. Areas are surveyed on a biennial rotation with Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait being surveyed in odd years and the West Coast of Vancouver Island and the west coast of Haida Gwaii being surveyed in even year. The Strait of Georgia is surveyed on a triennial rotation.

These surveys employee a depth stratified random design, target trawlable bottom coastwide and integrate with the longline hard bottom survey to provide comprehensive coverage between 50 and 500 m depth coastwide.

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). 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).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 37 of 245

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 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, five most recent years of fishery data were evaluated (years 2013 to 2017). The weight of the fishery catch was estimated and included the all species retained, released or utilized at sea. The average annual catch from years 2013 to 2017 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.

The fishery interacts with and retains several species, but most are in very small quantities (less than 10 pieces). These were not considered as scoring elements. The entire demersal longline halibut fishery itself is a relatively small proportion relative to other Canadian fisheries (<1% of total), so the volume was not considered so large as to cause concern for those species infrequently encountered (<5% of the total catch). The catch composition data for the period 2013-2017 based on observer coverage, log books, and landings for the BC halibut fishery longline fishery was provided by Canada DFO (see Appendix 8.1 for the complete list of species), and was analyzed to estimate the percentage of the catch of species and year, and for 3 and 5 year averages. These are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, and can be compared to the 3 and 5 average catch composition data presented in the 2015 re-assessment report in the same format Table 5. In essence, the 3 and 5 years average catch composition has remained the similar, but there have been changes in the percent distribution by species, and this has resulted in differences in the species evaluated and main and minor. Considering the annual data, there is a continuing trend of a decrease in spiny dogfish catch, and the combined catch of rockfish including yelloweye and rougheye rockfish, two ETP species, remains at a small but constant level of about 5% of the overall catch of the fishery.

Based on percentage catch distribution data present in Table 4 for the last five years (2013-2017), there are no main retained or bycatch species. 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 minor bycatch species. Other species considered as minor bycatch species include big skate and longnose skate. Other minor species considered potentially relevant to scoring are sablefish, lingcod, Bocaccio, and canary rockfish. Two species of rockfish are currently under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) protections and are therefore considered under the ETP performance indicators. The MSC designation for the species distribution of the catch in the BC halibut fishery is summarized in Table 6. Note species that are less than 0.05% of the catch are considered negligible, and not presented in the catch distribution tables. Species that represent less than 1% of the catch are not considered in the scoring tables because the total catch of these species is so small relative to other sources of mortality for these species, that the impact of the halibut fishery is considered negligible. For example, the 2017 catch of silvergray rockfish by the halibut longline fleet was 36,922 pounds, representing 0.5% of the total catch of the halibut longline fishery, but this catch was only 1.0% of the total catch of this species within the region. Similarly, the 2017 catch of Pacific cod by the halibut longline fleet was 8,576 pounds, representing 0.1% of the total catch of the halibut longline fishery, but this catch was only 1.0% of the total catch of this species within the region. This approach with respect to the identification of negligible species is consistent with the previous MSC assessment of this fishery (SCS, 2015, https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/canada-pacific-halibut-british- columbia/@@assessments).

Table 3 Catch composition by species and year (period 2013-2017) for the BC halibut, longline

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 38 of 245 fishery in pounds. Catches of species less than 0.05% of the total catch are not presented. The category of Total QB, CO, CH, TG represents quillback, copper, china and tiger rockfishes.

Species 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 PACIFIC HALIBUT 7,703,368 7,518,757 7,114,407 7,205,316 7,422,472 SABLEFISH 381,149 355,702 346,331 221,500 176,228 SPINY DOGFISH 89,055 134,066 155,616 203,138 196,319 LONGNOSE SKATE 115,114 105,072 88,632 195,341 164,827 BIG SKATE 22,378 27,970 31,160 39,581 55,259 LINGCOD 301,603 366,786 470,832 352,708 455,394 CANARY ROCKFISH 18,992 34,873 41,365 24,964 25,443 SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 36,922 32,569 42,451 58,105 77,074 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 125,342 180,224 259,919 252,785 297,297 Total QB, CO, CH, TG 55,735 59,857 87,070 88,017 96,893 ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 253,705 231,435 223,894 226,338 182,539 SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 78,631 67,302 101,380 85,277 59,680 SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 58,962 53,029 61,859 50,348 37,149 REDBANDED ROCKFISH 161,548 150,961 143,971 198,499 167,250 SANDPAPER SKATE 5,111 3,698 1,493 14,443 9,595 PACIFIC COD 8,576 16,803 5,794 6,335 7,177 BOCACCIO 3,969 4,269 3,435 6,189 6,665 YELLOWMOUTH ROCKFISH 8,697 4,778 5,426 3,755 VERMILION ROCKFISH 2,939 1,466 1,029 3,364 BLACK ROCKFISH 641 525 315 399 2,166 ROSETHORN ROCKFISH 841 829 635 721 1,174 YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH 3,376 951 1,038 1,136 Table 4 Catch composition by species and year (period 2013-2017), with 3 and 5 year averages for the BC halibut, longline fishery expressed as a percentage of the total catch. Catches of species less than 0.05% of the total catch are not presented. Species representing <1% of the total catch are not scored. The category of Total QB, CO, CH, TG represents quillback, copper, china and tiger rockfishes.

PERCENTAGE OF CATCH WEIGHT BY AVERAGE AVERAGE SPECIES AND YEAR PERCENT PERCENT 2015‐ 2013‐ Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2017 2017 PACIFIC HALIBUT 81.60 80.43 77.42 77.99 78.54 80.12 79.21 SABLEFISH 4.04 3.81 3.77 2.40 1.86 3.89 3.17 SPINY DOGFISH 0.94 1.43 1.69 2.20 2.08 1.36 1.67 LONGNOSE SKATE 1.22 1.12 0.96 2.11 1.74 1.11 1.43 BIG SKATE 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.43 0.58 0.29 0.38 LINGCOD 3.19 3.92 5.12 3.82 4.82 4.09 4.17 CANARY ROCKFISH 0.20 0.37 0.45 0.27 0.27 0.34 0.31 SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 0.39 0.35 0.46 0.63 0.82 0.40 0.53 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 1.33 1.93 2.83 2.74 3.15 2.03 2.39 Total QB, CO, CH, TG 0.59 0.64 0.95 0.95 1.03 0.73 0.83 ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 2.69 2.48 2.44 2.45 1.93 2.54 2.40 SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 0.83 0.72 1.10 0.92 0.63 0.89 0.84 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 39 of 245

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 0.62 0.57 0.67 0.54 0.39 0.62 0.56 REDBANDED ROCKFISH 1.71 1.61 1.57 2.15 1.77 1.64 1.76 SANDPAPER SKATE 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.07 PACIFIC COD 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.10 BOCACCIO 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.05 YELLOWMOUTH ROCKFISH 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 VERMILION ROCKFISH 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 BLACK ROCKFISH 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 ROSETHORN ROCKFISH 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 40 of 245

Table 5 Catch composition by species and 3 and 5 year averages (period 2009-2013) for the BC halibut, longline fishery expressed as a percentage of the total catch, taken from the 2015 SCS re-assessment report. Catches of species less than 0.5% of the total catch are not presented. The category of Total QB, CO, CH, TG represents quillback, copper, china and tiger rockfishes.

3 YEAR 5 YEAR AVERAGE AVERAGE SPECIES PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE Year 2011‐2013 2009‐2013 PACIFIC HALIBUT 77.60 75.50 SABLEFISH 2.10 2.30 SPINY DOGFISH 3.40 6.10 LONGNOSE SKATE 2.20 2.50 BIG SKATE 0.90 1.00 LINGCOD 4.50 4.00 CANARY ROCKFISH 0.20 0.20 SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 0.70 0.60 YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 3.00 2.80 Total QB, CO, CH, TG 0.90 0.80 ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 1.80 1.60 SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 0.60 0.50 SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 0.40 0.40 REDBANDED ROCKFISH 1.40 0.80 PACIFIC COD 0.50 0.40

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 41 of 245

Table 6 MSC species designation for of the BC halibut fishery based on the five year average (2013-2017) of the catch distribution, noting target, main, minor, and ETP species, and retained and bycatch. Species that are less than 0.05% of the catch are not included. Species that are less than 1% are not scored

Target / Main / retained / Minor / bycatch / Period ETP ETP 2013‐ Year 2017 PACIFIC HALIBUT 79.21 Target Retained SABLEFISH 3.17 Minor Retained SPINY DOGFISH 1.67 Minor Bycatch LONGNOSE SKATE 1.43 Minor Bycatch BIG SKATE 0.38 Minor Bycatch LINGCOD 4.17 Minor Retained CANARY ROCKFISH 0.31 Minor Retained SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 0.53 Minor Retained YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 2.39 ETP ETP Total QB, CO, CH, TG 0.83 Minor Retained ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 2.40 ETP ETP SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 0.84 Minor Retained SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 0.56 Minor Retained REDBANDED ROCKFISH 1.76 Minor Retained SANDPAPER SKATE 0.07 Minor Bycatch PACIFIC COD 0.10 Minor Retained BOCACCIO 0.05 Minor Retained YELLOWMOUTH ROCKFISH 0.05 Minor Retained VERMILION ROCKFISH 0.02 Minor Retained BLACK ROCKFISH 0.01 Minor Retained ROSETHORN ROCKFISH 0.01 Minor Retained YELLOWTAIL ROCKFISH 0.01 Minor Retained *Bycatch is considered as those species with >50% discards.

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). There are no main, retained species in the BC halibut longline fishery. The following minor retained species that are addressed in this report represent less than 5% of the catch, but more than 0.05% of the catch: sablefish, lingcod, canary rockfish, silvergray rockfish, shortraker rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, redbanded rockfish, Pacific cod, bocaccio, and yellowmouth rockfish. Only those species representing more than 1.0% of the total catch are considered in the Principle 2 scoring. Species captured at rates less than 1% of the total catch are believed to be so small, that the impact of the fishery of these stocks is negligible.

Sablefish (Anaplopoma fimbria)

Sablefish are 3.2% are of the total longline halibut catch in the last five years (2017-2013), and therefore considered a minor retained species (Table 4).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 42 of 245

Sablefish are caught in directed longline trap and hook and trawl fisheries, and are also intercepted by the non-directed longline hook fisheries targeting Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), Rockfishes (Sebastes sp.) and Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus). Sablefish fisheries in BC are managed through Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ) that are allocated annually to 48 sablefish license eligibilities (accounting for 91.25% of the total allowable catch (TAC)), and 142 groundfish trawl license eligibilities (8.75% of TAC). Harvesters in the directed fisheries (those targeting sablefish) and the non-directed commercial groundfish fisheries are required to acquire ITQ to account for landed and discarded sablefish mortalities. Halibut vessels are not permitted to retain a sablefish that is less than 55 cm in length (measured from the tip of the nose to the fork of the tail) or where the head has been removed, 39 cm in length (measured from the origin of the first dorsal fin to the fork of the tail). Sub-legal sablefish releases must be recorded in logbooks and are monitored by the 100% at-sea monitoring program. These sublegal mortalities are not deducted from ITQ holdings. The sub-legal mortality data are considered in the stock assessment and science advice process as well as fisheries management decisions.

The BC Integrated Groundfish Fishery (DFO 2018) operates on a February 21 to February 20 fishing year, with allowances for carryover of quota overage and underage. The TAC for the 2018/19 fishing year, excluding overages and underages, was set at 2,526 metric tonnes (t) fresh, round weight.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the British Columbia (BC) sablefish fishing industry collaborate on a management strategy evaluation (MSE) process intended to develop and implement a transparent and sustainable harvest strategy. Sustainability of harvest strategies is determined by simulation testing alternative management procedures against operating models (OM) that represent a range of hypotheses about uncertain sablefish stock dynamics. Performance of management procedures used in these tests is measured against pre-agreed conservation and catch objectives for the stock and fishery. In addition the assessment models are periodically reviewed and revised, so as to optimize precision of estimates and to best incorporate uncertainties. The OM for the sablefish MSE underwent revisions in 2015-2016 that account for structural mis-specifications and lack of fit to key observations recognized in the 2010 operating model (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_015-eng.html). A regional peer review meeting was held on January 10, 2017, to evaluate the performance of the current Sablefish management procedure and alternative procedures using the revised 2016 OM (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2017/2017_017-eng.html). The two reports on the revisions to the OM and the regional peer review of the revisions are in process of finalization for use in the MSE process, so are not yet official.

The current MP uses a harvest control rule with a maximum harvest rate set at the estimated harvest rate at maximum sustainable yield (UMSY), as well as a minimum total allowable catch (TAC) floor of 1,992 tonnes (t) and a minimum size limit of 55 cm (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2017/2017_017-eng.html). Nine alternative MPs that differed in their use of TAC floors (0; 1,800; or 1,992 t), phase-in periods to a new maximum harvest rate (0, 3, 4 or 5 years), and sub-legal release regulations (release Sablefish < 55 cm or full retention with all Sablefish catch counted towards the TAC) were also evaluated. Each of the alternative MPs had a maximum harvest rate of 5.5%.

The revised Sablefish OM was fitted (or conditioned) to stock monitoring and fishery data collected between 1965 and 2016. Five operating model scenarios were used to capture uncertainty in both stock productivity and female spawning biomass in 2016 (fSSB2016). The base case OM used the mean or expected combination of productivity and fSSB2016, while the other four OM scenarios represented the following combinations:

1. high productivity, mean fSSB2016 (hiProd/expSSB); 2. low productivity, mean fSSB2016 (loProd/expSSB); 3. mean productivity, high fSSB2016 (expProd/hiSSB); and 4. mean productivity, low fSSB2016 (expProd/loSSB).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 43 of 245

Estimates of female spawning stock biomass in 2017 (fSSB2017) were above the limit reference point (LRP) of 0.4BMSY but below the long-term target of BMSY in four of the five OM scenarios, where BMSY is the female spawning biomass at maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Estimated fSSB2017 in the expProd/loSSB scenario was below the LRP (fSSB2017/BMSY = 0.38). Estimates of fSSB2017/BMSY ranged from 0.42 to 0.46 among the other four OM scenarios.

The 2018 prediction of Sablefish biomass (Figure 12) suggests that the stock is in the “healthy” zone, under the DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework. DFO Science produced the figure in January 2018 as part of annual advice on Sablefish TAC to the Sablefish Advisory Committee. The figure plots predicted 2018 biomass (based on the current management procedure and research survey in the fall of 2017) relative to limit (1) and upper (2) stock reference points which delineate critical, cautious and healthy stock status zones under Canada’s “A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach” framework. However, it should be noted that this estimate should not be considered analogous to a formal status assessment. This is because the management procedure that is used to provide annual harvest advice is based on a surplus production model as opposed to an age- and sex-structured model. An age- and sex-structured model is used to formally assess Sablefish stock status and to condition the Operating Model that is used in the Sablefish MSE to evaluate candidate management procedures.

The next formal Sablefish status assessment/stock assessment is scheduled to be completed in May 2019, consistent with the intent is to do a formal stock assessment (and updated MSE) every three years. Previous MSE simulations suggested a long time horizon to rebuild to the healthy zone under the current management procedure; however, they were based on Sablefish survey data up to 2014. These data showed no real evidence of significant recruitment for many years. As a result, stock productivity was estimated to be relatively low. Since these simulations were done there has been evidence of strong recruitment event(s), which have translated into higher biomass estimates (e.g., in 2018) than would have been predicted by the MSE simulations back when they were last run. It is anticipated this strong recruitment will almost certainly increase estimates of stock productivity when they are quantified during the updated MSE in Spring 2019.

Figure 12 Estimated 2018 sablefish biomass and resulting harvest rate under the sablefish management procedure (DFO, pers. com.).

Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates)

Lingcod are about 4.2% of the catch if the BC halibut longline fishery in the last five years (2017- 2013), and are therefore considered a minor retained species. Aside from updated catch data, there

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 44 of 245 are no substantive changes to the stock status of and management measures in place in the hook and line fishery for halibut for this species since the recertification of the fishery and the first annual audit (see SCS 2015 and MRAG Americas 2016).

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 caps, size limits, winter closure (mid-November to mid-March), and a minimum size limit of 65 cm was implemented in the 2009/10 fishing season. There is also a cap in place of 30,000 pounds (cap increases in 5,000 pound blocks up to 30,000, once a 5,000 block is caught). Halibut vessels are not permitted to retain a lingcod that is less than 65 cm in length (measured from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail) or when head off, is less than 50 cm in length (measured along the shortest length of the body to the tip of the tail). Sub-legal lingcod releases must be recorded in logbooks and are monitored by the 100% at-sea monitoring program. These mortalities are not deducted from ITQ holdings. The sub-legal mortality data is considered in the stock assessment and science advice process as well as fisheries management decisions.

The most recent stock assessment was in 2011, using stock states determinations for 2010. 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.

The inshore stock was assessed in 2013; however, there is minimal interaction with the halibut fishery for this stock. Inshore lingcod was last assessed in 2015 (summary available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2015/2015_014-eng.html )

Lingcod are projected for assessment every 5 years, but unfortunately the last assessment was in 2011. Inputs for the model include fishery independent surveys, life history information and commercial landings data.

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis)

By weight the Bocaccio was only 0.05% of the halibut fishery total catch in the last five years (2013- 2017). So, it is considered in the background section of this report, but not in the scoring.

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 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (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, as 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). This assessment requires the Government of Canada to undertake a process to determine whether to list this species under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), or where new information supports, refer back to COSEWIC for reassessment. A consultation process to seek input into whether to list this

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 45 of 245 species was held from September 8 – December 8, 2017. Bocaccio is still under consideration for listing under SARA as of the date of the PCDR for this assessment (DFO 2018). A rebuilding plan is in place and DFO provides regular reports at its advisory board meetings for discussion and to determine if additional measures are needed to meet rebuilding plan objectives.

The most recent stock status for Bocaccio in BC was 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).

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 caught between 400 and 850 pieces per year for 2013-2017 (Appendix 8).

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 tons. For halibut, the fishery was subjected to trip limits for Bocaccio (IFMP 2013, Appendix VI). In the trawl fishery, proceeds from catching Bocaccio are directed to research and management programs, thus removing any financial incentive to deliberately target Bocaccio. The Department reviews the efficacy of these pilot measures at the end of each fishing season and considers any additional measures as necessary to support stock rebuilding. For example, trips limits for Bocaccio in the halibut fishery were further reduced starting in 2015/16 (IFMP 2015, Appendix VI). As noted previously, Bocaccio account for <1% of the total catch in the directed hook and line halibut fishery.

Based on updated science information and DFO’s policy document “Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework”, the Department has established rebuilding plans for Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish (Outside and Inside populations). The rebuilding plans, described in Appendix 9 of the 2018 IFMP (DFO 2018), define mortality caps and stepped reductions in harvest opportunity. The rebuilding plans account for Indigenous fishing opportunities.

The Department has worked with fishing interests to develop measures that will reduce mortality and enable stock rebuilding (DFO 2018, Appendix 9), the harvest plans in the appendices of the IFMP, and relevant conditions of licence for further information on the measures being undertaken. The Department continues to review the efficacy of these measures at the end of each fishing season and considers any additional measures necessary to achieve stock rebuilding.

Silvergray rockfish (Sebastes brevispinis)

The average total annual catch of the BC halibut longline fishery in the last five years (2017-2013) was about 50,000 pounds, and represents about 0.5% of the entire BC halibut longline fishery. Silvergray rockfish is described in this background section of the report, but was not considered in the scoring section of the report as it is less than 1% of the catch.

Silvergray rockfish is a commercially important species of rockfish that has supported a domestic trawl fishery since 1940, with periods of heavy fishing in the mid-1960s and during 1985-1995. All areas of Canada’s Pacific coast, excluding waters between Vancouver Island and the British

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 46 of 245

Columbia mainland, were assessed as a single stock using an annual two-sex catch-at-age model, implemented in a Bayesian framework to quantify uncertainty of estimated quantities. The most recent stock assessment for silvergray rockfish was in 2014 (CSAS PRSAR, 2014/028, DFO, 2014). The spawning biomass (mature females only) at the beginning of 2014 (B2014) is estimated to be 0.56 (0.41–0.70) of unfished spawning biomass (B0); numbers denote median (and 5-95 percentiles) of the Bayesian results. Also, B2014 is estimated to be 2.04 (1.22–3.00) of the equilibrium biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY.

Shortraker rockfish (Sebastes borealis)

Little is known about the stock status of shortraker rockfish. The average annual catch of shortraker rockfish in the last five years (2013-2017) of the BC halibut fishery is about 78,000 pounds and this species represents about 0.8% of the total fishery. Shortraker rockfish is a minor retained species, and is not addressed in the scoring as it is less than 1.0% of the catch.

Shortspine thoryhead (Sebastolobus alascanus)

The average annual catch of shortspine thornyhead in the BC halibut longline fishery in the last five years (2013-2017) is about 52,000 pounds, and represents about 0.6% of the total catch of the fishery. Shortspine thornyhead is a minor retained species, and is not addressed in the scoring as it is less than 1.0% of the catch

Thornyheads (genus Sebastolobus) are relatively small fish that are represented by two species along the BC coast – Shortspine (S. alascanus) and Longspine thornyhead (S. altivelis). Shortspine thornyhead is characterised more as a bycatch species due its shallower distribution and its concurrence with numerous other TAC (total allowable catch) species. The most recent stock assessment of this species was in 2017 (CSAS RD 2017/015 PR, (DFO, 2017) available at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/mpo-dfo/Fs70-5-2017-015-eng.pdf. The composite reference scenario was evaluated against two BMSY-based reference points consistent with the DFO Precautionary Approach policy and the exploitation rate at BMSY. The model-average median estimates of current stock status (B2016/ B0) ranged from 40% to 141% B0 with a median estimate of 79%, indicating that current biomass is well above all reference points.

Redbanded rockfish (Sebastes babcocki)

The average annual catch of redbanded rockfish in the last five years (2013-2017) of the BC halibut fishery is about 164,000 pounds and this species represents about 1.8% of the total fishery. Therefore it is a minor retained species, and it considered in the scoring. Little is known about the stock status of redbanded rockfish.

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)

The average annual catch of Pacific cod in the last five years (2013-2017) of the BC halibut fishery is about 9,000 pounds and this species represents about 0.1% of the total fishery Little is known about the stock status of Pacific cod, the last assessment was in 2002, and the results were uncertain.

Yellowmouth rockfish (Sebastes reedi)

The average annual catch of yellowmouth rockfish in the last five years (2013-2017) of the BC halibut fishery is about 4,500 pounds and this species represents about 0.05% of the total fishery. Little is known about the stock status of yellowmouth rockfish, the last assessment was in 2002, and the results were uncertain.

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 and 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. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 47 of 245

According to a survey conducted in 2014 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. Follow up conversations suggest some movement away from using Illex squid from Argentina because of the price increases in the last few years. 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. All four BC chum salmon fisheries are MSC certified. 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 Institute.

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, 2018). 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.

Octopus caught incidentally may be retained and used for bait under authority of a Halibut license eligibility, 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 (see Section 9 Appendix 2 of the 2018 IFMP).

The main licensed catch species utilized for bait is Arrowtooth Flounder, which is assessed and managed by DFO in a manner consistent with the Sustainable Fisheries Framework.

3.4.6.3 Discards or Bycatch

Dogfish, longnose skate and big skate are considered discards based on the DFO FLOG (Fishing Log) piece count data because in the last three years more than 80+% of the catch of these species have been discarded (Table 7).

Table 7 Percent released of dogfish, longnose skate and big skate based on DFO FLOG piece count data for the period 2017-2013.

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Species Released Released Released Released Released SPINY DOGFISH 100 98 90 91 92 LONGNOSE SKATE 82 87 90 49 54 BIG SKATE 89 84 87 68 73

Longnose Skate (Raja rhina)

Bycatch of longnose skate in the last three years (2017-2015) has decreased to about 100,000 pounds annually, from 200,000 pounds in the three years prior (2014-2012). Over the last five years (2017-2013) longnose skate have represented about 1.4% of the total catch of the BC halibut longline fishery, so are considered a minor bycatch species.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 48 of 245

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.

Longnose skate underwent stock assessment along with big skate in 2013 for groundfish management areas 4B, 3CD, 5AB, 5CDE. SCS (2015) 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.

In 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 introduced TACs and new management measures for longnose skate in all commercial groundfish fisheries (including the directed hook and line fishery for halibut) to ensure harvests stay within scientifically-determined sustainable levels. Since 2015 Longnose skate has been managed as a TAC species, with ITQs in place and directed halibut vessels must adhere to the management and monitoring requirements described above for TAC species.

Big Skate (Raja binoculata)

Bycatch of big skate in the BC halibut fishery have decreased from about 90,000 pounds to 35,000 pounds in the last five years (2017-2013). The average annual bycatch of this species in the BC halibut fishery is 0.4% of the total catch in the fishery, so big skate is not scored.

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.

Big skates underwent stock assessment along with longnose skate in 2013 for groundfish management areas 4B, 3CD, 5AB, 5CDE (DFO, 2014). 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 (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.

There is currently a trip limit of 6,000 pounds 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 introduced TACs and new management measures for big skate in all commercial groundfish fisheries (including the directed hook and line fishery for halibut) to ensure harvests stay within scientifically-determined sustainable levels.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 49 of 245

Other Skates

Other skate (other than Big skate and Longnose skate) species are caught in the fishery; however, catch data shows they do not comprise a significant part of the total catch in the directed hook and line fishery for halibut. There is no limit to the amount of sole, flounder, and skate (excluding Big Skate and Longnose Skate) that can be landed from any one fishing trip in outside waters. The quantity of skate caught in Area 4B (Inside waters) and landed from any one fishing trip shall not exceed 6,000 pounds (round weight); however, very little halibut fishing takes place in Area 4B.

Spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi)

Hook and line halibut vessels are not permitted to retain shark species, with the exception of Spiny Dogfish. The logbook, 100% at-sea and 100% dockside monitoring programs record all encounters with shark species. Shark catches make up a very small portion of the total catch in the halibut fishery. DFO continually monitors catches of all shark species in the directed hook and line fishery for halibut to ensure the fishery is not posing an unacceptable risk. Due to the low level of encounters, sharks are not a testable portion of logbook audits but DFO regularly reviews species of interest audits and any misreporting of these species is followed up by DFO with individual harvesters. Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) are listed under SARA, and considered under ETP species.

The British Columbia Spiny Dogfish directed fishery was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council in September 2011. The Client for the BC Spiny Dogfish fishery MSC certification sought a suspension of the certificate for economic reasons, as was virtually no directed harvest in 2013 or since that time. For example, in 2016/17 there were only four (4) fishing trips in the directed dogfish fishery and zero (0) in the 2017/18 season. The catch of spiny dogfish in BC halibut fishery has decreased in the last five years (2017-2013) from about 200,000 pounds in 2013-2014 to about 89,000 pounds in 2017. The spiny dogfish catch represents 1.7% of the total catch of the BC halibut longline fishery in that period, so are considered a minor bycatch species.

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 2011 (Spiny dogfish MSC information available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/british- columbia-spiny-dogfish), but they are no longer MSC certified.

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, several years overdue. In November 2011 COSEWIC recommended listing spiny dogfish as “special concern.” DFO held regional consultations on the listing recommendation of Spiny Dogfish between November 28, 2012 and January 14, 2013. DFO has considered the input received and information available and provided advice to the Minister for consideration and decision by the Governor in Council whether to list Spiny Dogfish under the Species at Risk Act (DFO 2018, Section 8.1).

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 are considered in the stock assessment and science advice process as well as fisheries management decisions.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 50 of 245

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, 2018).

3.4.7 Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species (ETP)

Under the MSC system, 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. The SARA listing process is a follows (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/listing_e.cfm):

COSEWIC uses the best biological information on a species deemed to be in some danger of disappearing from Canada to assess the risk status of that species. It reviews research information on population and habitat status, trends, and threats; uses community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge; and applies assessment criteria based on international standards. COSEWIC assesses the species as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern, data deficient, or not at risk. COSEWIC sends its assessment and supporting evidence (i.e., rationale and status reports) for species classified as at risk (Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern) to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council once per year. The COSEWIC assessment and the reasons for it are also posted on the SARA Public Registry. The Minister of the Environment has 90 days in which to publish Response Statements on the Public Registry. These statements indicate how the Minister intends to respond to each COSEWIC assessment and, to the extent possible, provide timelines for action. Certain species may require extended consultation. The Minister of the Environment forwards COSEWIC assessments to the GIC. The GIC within nine months after receiving the assessment may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order:

a. accept the assessment and add the species to the List; b. decide not to add the species to the List; or c. refer the matter back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.

If the GIC does not make a decision within nine months of receiving the COSEWIC assessment, the Minister shall by order amend the List according to COSEWIC's assessment. Decisions by the GIC are routinely made within the 9 month period, although delivery of assessments to the GIC can be delayed due to capacity and scheduling reasons.

However, unlike most other species (e.g., terrestrial) that come before COSEWIC and GIC, there is already a policy, science and management framework in place for tidal water species. DFO has a process that produces information (stock assessments) and responds (management actions/rebuilding plans) quickly to new information whether it is from its own science process or from COSEWIC). As a result, new information or management actions are often already in place before COSEWIC makes its recommendation, adding a new dimension to the decision making process. Once a species is added to Schedule 1, it benefits from all the legal protection afforded, and the mandatory recovery planning required under SARA.

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 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 51 of 245 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 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm aim to:  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

The Canada Species at Risk Act Schedule 1 list and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) are considered legally binding by national and international law for Canada. SARA was enacted to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk. For information on which species have been listed under the Act please visit the SARA Public Registry. 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 detail 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 52 of 245

The following SARA-listed species may be encountered in groundfish fisheries (DFO 2018), but only several likely in the BC halibut fishery (bold indicates species with at least occasional interactions with Canadian Pacific halibut): 1. Blue Whale – Endangered 2. Fin Whale – Threatened 3. Grey Whale – Special Concern 4. Humpback Whale – Threatened 5. North Pacific Right Whale – Endangered 6. Sei Whale – Endangered 7. Killer Whale northern resident population – Threatened 8. Killer Whale offshore population – Threatened 9. Killer Whale southern resident population – Endangered 10. Killer Whale transient population – Threatened 11. Steller Sea Lion – Special Concern 12. Harbour Porpoise – Special Concern 13. Sea Otter – Special Concern 14. Leatherback Sea Turtle – Endangered 15. Basking Shark - Endangered 16. Bluntnose Sixgill Shark – Special Concern 17. Tope (Soupfin) Shark – Special Concern 18. Green Sturgeon – Special Concern 19. Longspine Thornyhead – Special Concern 20. Rougheye Rockfish Types I & II – Special Concern 21. Yelloweye Rockfish – Special Concern

3.4.7.1 Marine mammals

Cetaceans (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/cetacean- cetaces/index-eng.html) and Pinnipeds (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals- mammiferes/pinnipeds-pinnipedes/index-eng.html) are protected by regulations and in some cases by the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Canada stopped all commercial whaling in 1972 as a conservation measure, at the time, large whales were threatened almost everywhere in the world. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) declared a worldwide ban, or moratorium, on all commercial whaling. Some populations of species of pinnipeds found in Canadian waters have been assessed as at risk by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), while others boast healthy populations. Certain Inuit and coastal communities hunt seal as an important cultural and subsistence activity. In addition, some seal species found in the waters off Canada's Atlantic and Arctic coasts are harvested commercially, e.g. harp and grey seals. Fisheries and Oceans Canada manages this harvest through its seal management plan which sets out the rules and regulations for a safe, humane and sustainable seal harvest. Interactions must be recorded in logbooks and there is 100% at-sea monitoring in place. Data from 2013-2017 show five marine mammal/sea turtle encounters (3 steller sea lion, 1 California sea lion (not SARA-listed) and 1 porpoise/dolphin).

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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 53 of 245 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.

There were no reports of vessel strikes or entanglements from the relatively small halibut vessels from 2013-2017. 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:

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.

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, and (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 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).

Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Considered among the smallest of whales, the harbour porpoise is found primarily over continental shelves in Canada in two populations: the Pacific and the Northwest Atlantic. However, as its name suggests, this timid creature is sometimes found in bays and harbours, particularly during the summer. One harbour porpoise was found 55 kilometres up the Fraser River. The harbour porpoise is a short-lived, shy species; there are no estimates of the annual survival rates of the harbour porpoise

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 54 of 245 but it’s understood that their lifespan is relatively short as few live to the age of twenty. During its lifetime, it swims mostly in small, fluid social groups of a few porpoises, travelling together between feeding areas. They are well adapted to cold water, witnessed by the fact that they are rarely found in water warmer than 16 degrees Celsius.

Females become sexually mature between three to four years of age, while males mature slightly earlier. Their mating season is restricted to a few weeks in the early summer with a gestation period of 10 to 11 months. Porpoise calves depend on their mothers for nursing for at least eight months. The harbour porpoise isn’t without enemies: it is sought after by great white sharks, killer whales and their competitive interactions with some dolphins may restrict their range or even lead to mortality. As a small marine mammal, with limited energy reserves, it needs to feed frequently. This need for frequent meals attracts them to prey-rich areas. The harbour porpoise is typically found in small groups, but have also been observed in large groups when food is concentrated and plenty. In the Pacific population, squid seems to be important to a diet which includes a variety of small fishes, including cod, herring, hake, capelin and sandlance. The harbour porpoise is listed as a species of "special concern" and is protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). A management plan for the harbour porpoise has been developed, which sets goals and objectives for maintaining its population levels The harbour porpoise is also protected under the Marine Mammal Regulations of the Fisheries Act. This act outlines guidelines for viewing these marine mammals to protect them from disturbance. Furthermore, the harbour porpoise is listed on the World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Animals. Harbour porpoises are also considered extremely sensitive to noise and might be driven from their habitats because of the use of acoustic harassment devices. These devices are used primarily to protect aquaculture sites. Harbour porpoises may also be affected by environmental contamination in their food chain by organochlorines, dioxins and heavy metals. The harbour porpoise is also hunted as prey by killer whales and sharks.

3.4.7.2 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).

Leatherback sea turtles are the only species of sea turtle listed under SARA in the Canadian Pacific (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/seaturtles-tortuesmarines/index- eng.html; DFO 2018). There is evidence to suggest that significant interactions with sea turtles do not occur (DFO 2018). Interactions must be recorded in logbooks and there is 100% at-sea monitoring in place. Data from 2013-2017 show no sea turtle encounters (Appendix 8.1).

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 55 of 245

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 (Marine Bio, 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.

3.4.7.3 Sharks

Three endangered sharks, basking, bluntnose six gill, and tope, are listed under SARA.

Basking shark was 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 (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=977#ot18).

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 2013-2017 show five Basking shark encounters in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery.

The Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) and Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) are marine fish which were both listed as species of “special concern” under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) in March 2009. This followed the 2007 assessment of both species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). A management plan for Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and Tope Shark was finalized in 2012.

The COSWEIC assessment Bluntnose Sixgill Shark is available at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=988

The COSWEIC assessment Tope Shark is available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=972

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 56 of 245

The management plan for Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and Tope Shark is available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1569

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 Bluntnose Sixgill Shark was the focus in at least three directed fisheries in Canadian waters, most recently in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tope was harvested during World War II for its high concentration of liver Vitamin A which led to a large fishery that quickly collapsed due to over-exploitation.

While these populations are migratory throughout the northeast Pacific, it is unknown whether threats occurring outside of Canadian Pacific waters have an impact on these populations. The management goal for the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and 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.

The management plan notes that 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. In addition, the management plan notes that 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.

In addition, shark encounter codes of conduct have been developed for the three species discussed above as a further action to complete management and recovery plan objectives. The codes of conduct are 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 (DFO 2018).

3.4.7.4 Other fish

Of the several SARA-listed fish species, only yelloweye and rougheye rockfish are regularly encountered by the BC Pacific halibut fishery. Both are quota managed species. 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 less than 80% (Table 8). Green sturgeon and longspine thornyhead, both non-quota species, are rarely encountered by the BC halibut fishery.

Table 8 Catch versus TAC for yelloweye and rougheye rockfish in the Pacific halibut fishery, 2013-2017 (source DFO)

YE RE Year Catch TAC % Catch TAC % 2017 125342 132678 0.945 253705 258445 0.982 2016 180224 265748 0.678 231435 319397 0.725 2015 259919 338541 0.768 233894 319038 0.733 2014 252785 362452 0.697 226338 300877 0.752

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 57 of 245

YE RE Year Catch TAC % Catch TAC % 2013 297297 396466 0.750 182539 248344 0.735 Average 0.768 0.785

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.

DFO Science (DFO 2018) published a stock assessment for the outside population (groundfish management areas 3 and 5) of Yelloweye in 2015. The assessment reported a median estimate of B2014/Bo (the ratio of 2014 stock size to the unfished stock size) of 18%. The median estimate of B2014/Bmsy (the ratio of 2014 stock size to that at maximum sustainable yield) was reported as 36%. The assessment estimated that the stock had a 63% probability of being in the PA critical zone, whereby B2014<0.4*Bmsy. It also estimated that the 2014 biomass is 60% of the biomass in 2002, when the first of numerous catch reduction measures were introduced under the Rockfish Conservation Strategy. Based on this updated science information, application of DFO’s Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach and consultation with interested parties, DFO implemented a rebuilding strategy and reduced catch limits for the outside population of Yelloweye Rockfish in Groundfish Management Areas 3 and 5 (see DFO IFMP (2018), Section 8.1, Page 31; DFO IFMP (2018), Section 9.1.5.4, Page 53; DFO IFMP (2018) Appendix 6, Section 1.4, Page 3; and, DFO IFMP (2018), Appendix 9).

Given yelloweye rockfish has been listed as “special concern” under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, a draft management plan was prepared and sent for consultation. Relevant input received during the consultation period has been incorporated into the draft. The completed draft management plan is currently in Ottawa for approval by the competent Ministers (Fisheries Oceans and the Canadian Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 58 of 245

Coast Guard and Environment and Climate Change). Once approved, the document will be posted on the Species at Risk website. In the interim and based on updated science information, the Department has set out a near term plan for stepped reductions of total Yelloweye outside population harvest from the estimated total catch mortality of 287 MT in 2014 to a mortality cap of 100 MT over 3 years (2016/17 to 2018/19). This plan accounts for survey catches and Indigenous fishing opportunities (DFO 2018).

Since the 2011 listing decision, DFO has received updated harvest advice through the CSAS process and has already started implementing management measures to support rebuilding. The new management measures have been developed in consideration of the draft SARA management plan.

Rougheye Rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus)

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 seafloor 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”). Schnute et al. summarized information on rougheye for 1997 and 1998 as:

1997 1998 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 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 59 of 245 measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become 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.

A draft assessment of the Black-spotted/Rougheye rockfish complex has been recently completed and a presentation of the draft results was made to the Technical Working Group in September 2018 (DFO pers. comm.; see Appendix 2). The Technical Working Group made several suggestions. The Technical Working Group is scheduled to meet again with the analysts in December 2018 to review progress on this additional work and review the changes, model fit and performance, with the intention of scheduling a formal DFO CSAS peer review in mid-2019. Once the science advice has been peer reviewed it is considered at DFO fisheries management advisory processes, which meet regularly throughout the year.

Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

Green sturgeon are a slow growing long lived species usually found in saltwater, although 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 the green sturgeon is currently being developed (sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_sebastes_sebastolobe_rockfish_thornyhead_0412_en g.pdf). They are not a commercial species, though they are sometimes intercepted in white sturgeon and salmon fishing nets. Due to their distribution being nearshore, it is unlikely that the halibut fishery would interact with green sturgeon. No interactions with the hook and line fisheries were reported from logbook reporting from 2013-2017 (DFO pers. comm.).

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 2017, 54 longspine thornyheads were intercepted in the halibut fishery; otherwise, the fishery caught less than 10 per year from 2013-2017 (DFO reports, pers. comm.).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 60 of 245

3.4.7.5 Seabirds

The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) of 1917, amended 1994, gives specific legislative protection to migratory birds, including most seabirds http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/seabirds- oiseauxdemer/page01-eng.html#1.4. Most species of birds in Canada are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA). The MBCA was passed in 1917, and updated in 1994 and 2005, to implement the Migratory Birds Convention, a treaty signed with the United States in 1916. Migratory birds (Canada Gov. 2018) of interest to this assessment include seabirds, such as albatrosses, storm petrels, petrels, shearwaters, gannets, grebes, gull, terns, and jaegers. Therefore, nearly all migratory birds are considered ETP. Of these many species, only several are observed in the BC halibut catch. Species of concern at a global level that are known to occur (or have occurred) in Canada’s Pacific waters (DFO 2012) include: Black-footed Albatross, Laysan Albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis), Short-tailed Albatross (P. albatrus), Buller’s Shearwater (Puffinus bulleri), Pink-footed Shearwater (P. creatopus), Sooty Shearwater (P. griseus), Cook’s Petrel (Pterodroma cookii), Hawaiian Petrel (P. sandwichensis), Murphy’s Petrel (P. ultima), and Mottled Petrel (P. inexpectata). Species of a global concern that are known to occur (or have occurred) in Atlantic Canada’s waters include: Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys), Atlantic Yellow- nosed Albatross (T. chlororhynchos), Black-capped Petrel (Pterodroma hasitata), Fea’s Petrel (P. feae), and Sooty Shearwater. Of these species, the Short-tailed Albatross and Pink-footed Shearwater are listed as Threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act and the Black-footed Albatross is listed as a Species of Special Concern. The Short-tailed Albatross and Pink-footed Shearwater have not been reported in BC halibut catches from 2013-2017 (DFO data, pers. comm.). The recovery strategy notes “Both the Short-tailed Albatross and the Pink footed 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 seabird population recovery.

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 blackfooted and 2,000 Laysan albatrosses annually.

The IFMP (DFO 2018) does not list any protected seabirds, but acknowledged the need to assess the impact of the fisheries on other species of interest, including seabirds. SCS (2015) states that Short- tailed albatross and pink footed shearwater may interact with the BC halibut fisheries. The National Plan of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/npoa-pan/seabirds-oiseauxdemer/page06-eng.html#annex noted that black-footed albatross, fulmar, herring gull, glaucous winged gull, and pigeon were caught in the Canadian Pacific halibut fishery from 1999 to 2004.

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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 61 of 245 management of a Marine Wildlife Area provides for authorities to permit specific activities that can 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.

Black-footed albatross population trends are monitored through nest surveys on breeding colonies, principally on three islands in the Hawaiian archipelago that account for 77% of the total breeding population for Laysan and Black-footed albatross (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). Black- footed albatross were heavily depleted in the late 1800s / early 1900s by feather hunting (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b). The current primary threat is incidental catch in pelagic longlining (Naughton et al. 2007), taking 5,000 blackfooted 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 2017 update IUCN notes the current population trend is increasing and it has downlisted the species again to “Near Threatened from “Vulnerable” (was downlisted from “Endangered” in 2012) (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698350/0).

For Short-tailed albatross, in a 2017 update IUCN notes the population trend is increasing and that 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 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698335/0).

For Pink-footed shearwater, in a 2017 update IUCN continues to list this species as “Vulnerable” and notes it has a very small breeding range at only three known locations, which renders it susceptible to stochastic events and human impacts http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698195/0. If invasive species, harvesting of chicks, bycatch in fisheries or other factors are found to be causing population declines, then the species would warrant uplisting to “Endangered”.

Pink-footed Shearwater have been listed as Threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. A recovery strategy was published in 2008 to protect and preserve Pink footed shearwater populations (Environment Canada, 2008). The threat classification 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. 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. Pink footed shearwater is not a species listed as being encountered in the hook and line fishery catch data provided (2012-2017). Similarly, between 2002 and 2016, few, if any, pink-footed shearwater have been observed each year on the IPHC setline survey, which surveys the halibut fishing grounds in Canada (Geearnhart 2017).

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.

As a condition of licence, all halibut vessels using longline gear are now required to use seabird avoidance devices, and these devices have been demonstrated to markedly reduce seabird mortality (Melvin et al., 2001). The adoption of such seabird avoidance devices has reduced seabird Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 62 of 245 takes in other demersal longline fisheries by one-third and albatross takes by 85% (Scientific Certification Systems, 2011b; Fitzgerald et al., 2008). Although from an Alaskan study, these results should be applicable to the Canada Pacific halibut fishery as the measures adopted and the fishing practices are the same.

The effectiveness of seabird avoidance devices in the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut is evidenced in Table 9. In 2000, the commercial halibut fleet voluntarily introduced seabird avoidance devices and practices into the fishery and requested DFO make these measures a mandatory requirement while fishing halibut. In 2002, seabird avoidance devices and practices became a mandatory condition of licence in the fishery. The results from Smith and Morgan (2005) show a marked decrease in observed seabird bycatch rates in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery in 2000 and 2001 when voluntary measures were in place and then a further decrease in 2002 when mandatory measures came into effect.

Table 9 Black-footed albatross (BFAL) and total seabird bycatch data (including birds released alive) for the 1999 to 2002 commercial halibut longline fishery in BC. Extrapolated bycatch calculated by multiplying total hooks fished by the bycatch rate (birds/1000 observed hooks). Smith and Morgan 2005).

The 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 (Table 10) 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.

Table 10 Summary of IPHC halibut stock assessment surveys in BC and all other IPHC areas, 1998-1999 (from Gilroy et al 2000).

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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 63 of 245

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 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 is shared with CWS for ongoing research.

In July, 2012, DFO released a progress report on the implementation of the NPOA - 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 through 2009 continues to be low, with recent estimates remaining consistent with estimates reported in the NPOA – Seabirds (Table 11). The seabirds detected from 2006 to 2009 by EMS and by logbooks were made up primarily of albatrosses and gull, with northern fulmars and some unidentified birds also caught; the catch ranged from 49 total birds (EMS) to 104 total birds (logs) for the four year period.

Table 11 Annual Detected (EMS) or Reported (LOG) Numbers of Seabirds Caught in the Halibut Longline Fishery off the Pacific Coast (2006-2009)

Species of seabirds caught YEAR EMS LOG

Albatrosses1 2006 4 9

2007 0 14

2008 6 0

2009 4 1

Gulls2 2006 1 4

2007 10 41

2008 7 1

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 64 of 245

Species of seabirds caught YEAR EMS LOG

2009 0 9

Other Birds3 2006 0 0

2007 3 1

2008 0 1

2009 0 0

Unidentified Birds 2006 0 7

2007 4 4

2008 4 1

2009 6 11

Total 49 104 Note: Bycatch Noted in Both EMS and LOG = 2 Gulls

1 - All Albatrosses in Table 11 were reported as Black-footed Albatross or as unidentified albatross. 2 - All Gulls in Table 11 were primarily noted as unidentified gull as well as a low number reported as Sabine’s Gull, Herring Gull or Black-legged Kittiwake. 3 - All Other birds in Table 4 were reported as Northern Fulmar or as unidentified cormorant.

Today the conditions of licence for the Canada Pacific halibut fishery also stipulate 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. For a full description of the seabird avoidance requirements in the directed hook and line fishery for halibut see the Conditions of 2018/19 Halibut Licence. The amount of gear deployed in the fishery is at a record low compared to the last 15 years, which reduces the potential for interactions with seabirds and other bycatch species.

The presence of 100% at-sea monitoring of halibut-directed trips provide data to directly enumerate ETP seabird encounters in the halibut fishery and the effects of the fishery known. Data on the number of seabird encounters are provided in the accompanying tables.

The reported effectiveness of seabird avoidance devices and techniques and the demonstrated reduction in seabird encounters in the Alaska and Canada Pacific halibut fisheries since the adoption of such measures (SCS 2011b; Fitzgerald et al., 2008; Smith and Morgan, 2005) provides a high degree of confidence that the fishery is not causing unacceptable impacts on ETP seabirds. The current primary threat for Black-footed albatross is incidental catch in pelagic, not demersal, longlining and there has been a steady population increase in short-tailed albatross.

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 and line fishery for halibut.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 65 of 245

These separate lines of evidence combined with the 100% at-sea monitoring programs in place imply that it is highly unlikely that the effects of the fishery create unacceptable impacts on ETP seabirds.

ETP seabird species that may interact with the hook and line fishery for halibut are Short-tailed albatross and pink footed shearwater. The recovery strategy notes “Both the Short-tailed Albatross and the Pink footed 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 seabird 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 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 seabirds 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 66 of 245 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 activities.

The hook and line fishery for halibut takes on average 2.6 albatrosses per year. COSEWIC reported that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recorded no incidental take of the Short-tailed Albatross in Canadian waters through 2003 (https://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B2970A30-1&offset=10&toc=hide). No Short-tailed Albatrosses were salvaged from a seabird bycatch salvage program between 2000 and 2005. DFO observer data show no interactions of the BC hook and line fishery from 2013-2017 (DFO pers. comm.).

Pink footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus)

The pink footed 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, 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 burrows) 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 seabirds 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 that although Pink footed 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 67 of 245

Gwaii. Further, maps (Figures 4-6) in the recovery strategy show that most pink footed 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 pink footed shearwaters in commercial longline fisheries and no pink footed 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.

3.4.8 Habitat Considerations

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. The vast majority of the commercial hook and line halibut catch (more than 93%) is taken in the central and north coast area (https://www.iphc.int/management/fisheries/directed-commercial-fisheries/directed-iphc-regulatory- area-2b).

DFO manages the halibut and other groundfish fisheries under the SFF Habitat Policy (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm). The Habitat Policy lays out requirements for management of ‘Historically Fished Areas4, and defines the different stages to be followed for the collection of data, analysis of data to determine the ecological and biological significance of benthic features found in the area where fishing is historically or currently being conducted, assessing the likelihood of risk of serious or irreversible harm the fishing activity may have on the benthic features, and determination of management measures where needed. The processes outlined in this policy are consistent with the existing processes for data collection, assessment and management measures applicable in most fisheries, including those managed in advisory processes for Canadian fisheries and under management plans such as IFMPs. The habitat policy requires that IFMPs incorporate a 5-step process (Figure 13), which is detailed in the policy.

4 A historically fished Area is an area where there is a history of fishing by any gear type whose ecosystem impacts are considered similar to the potential impacts of the gear being proposed for fishing. This includes current ongoing fishing activity. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 68 of 245

Figure 13 Five-step process for avoiding serious or irreversible harm to sensitive benthic habitat, species and communities (source: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports- rapports/regs/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm#n7.2)

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 (Figure 14).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 69 of 245

Figure 14 Benthic habitat types for marine waters of British Columbia

Fishing sets from the hook and line fishery for halibut during 2012-2016 in 10km by 10km grids are then layered over top (Figure 15) to provide some context as to where the fishery takes place.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 70 of 245

Figure 15 Directed Halibut Fishery Fishing Sets and Benthic Habitat Types

DFO has developed criteria for identifying ecologically and biologically significant areas, which serves as a tool for calling attention to an area that has particularly high Ecological or Biological Significance to facilitate provision of a greater-than-usual degree of risk aversion in management of activities in such areas (DFO 2004, DFO 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 and Davis 2004). 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 is presented, along with 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.

DFO has reviewed literature and provided advice on the susceptibility of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents to fishing impacts as well as their potential for recovery once impacted (Curtis et al., 2013).

DFO 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. For the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut there are several protected areas currently in place or being considered for designation.

Sections 8.1.5 and 8.2, Appendix 6 (Section 11) and Appendix 10 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) outline the closures currently in place in the fishery. In addition, the Figure 16 shows marine protected areas and fisheries closures that benefit benthic areas. For this map, 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 (RCAs), Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and Haida Heritage Site Fully Protected Areas, Pacific Offshore Area of Interest Fishery Closure) while others are in process of designation (e.g., Scott Islands mNWA, Pacific Offshore MPA AOI, the Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 71 of 245

Figure 16 Designated Protected Areas and Fishery Closures and Areas of Interest in the Process of Designation

Section 8.1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO 2018) discusses the 164 RCAs (Figure 17) in place in BC waters. These areas protect inshore rockfish species and their habitats. These areas protect 28% and 15% of the inshore rockfish habitat in the Inside and Outside areas, respectively.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 72 of 245

Figure 17 Rockfish Conservation Areas

Section 8.2 of the groundfish management plan (DFO 2017) discusses the DFO Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) currently in place (the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents MPA, the SGaan Kinghlas- Bowie Seamount MPA and the recently designated Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs MPA) as well as work ongoing to designate other MPAs along the Pacific coast (Race Rocks and MPA network planning in the Northern Shelf Bioregion).

The Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Marine Protected Area was designated in 2017 to protect the unique glass sponges.5 The MPA is comprised of three individual areas known as the Northern Reef, the two Central Reefs, and the Southern Reef. Together 2 these three areas cover approximately 2,410 km . The entire area is closed to bottom contact gear. Maps of this protected area can be found in the DFO IFMP for Groundfish, Appendix 10.

Work is ongoing to consider MPA designation for the Race Rocks area off Rocky Point south of Victoria (currently designated as a Provincial Ecological Reserve).

A Canada-British Columbia Marine Protected Area Network Strategy has been developed jointly by federal and provincial agencies (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpabc- cbzpm/page04-eng.htm). This Strategy reflects the need for governments to work together to achieve common marine protection and conservation goals. The Province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and 17 First Nations are working together, to implement the Strategy in the Northern Shelf Bioregion (NSB), which extends from the top of Vancouver Island (Quadra Island/

5 DFO has also implemented area closures in the southern Strait of Georgia to protect sponge reefs (DFO 2018, Section 8.2). The Department is considering 13 additional closures in Howe Sound to protect recently discovered reefs. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 73 of 245

Bute Inlet) and reaches north to the Canada - Alaska border. This bioregion has the same footprint as PNCIMA. Bioregional marine protected area network planning may identify new areas of interest for protection by DFO, Parks Canada Agency, Environment Canada, the Province of BC, and any other agencies with a mandate for protecting marine spaces.

The Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area (GH NMCA) is also discussed in Sections 8.2 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018). The Gwaii Haanas marine area (Figure 18) is currently managed under the Interim Management Plan and Zoning Plan, which includes “balancing protection and ecologically sustainable use” in its guiding principles. The interim Zoning Plan identifies six areas, described in the 2018 IFMP Appendix 10 that are closed to commercial and recreational fishing, including the commercial hook and line fishery for halibut.

Figure 18 Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Current Interim Zoning Plan

A new zoning plan for the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area (Figure 19) was released on June 8, 2018, with a public comment period until July 15, 2018. It is anticipated the new zoning plan will be implemented in 2018. Under the zoning plan, the area closed to fishing is significantly increased, to 40.9% of the GH NMCA. These closures mean 49.5% of the modelled rockfish habitat in the area is now protected, twice as much as what was previously protected under the RCAs within the NMCA boundary.

The map of the proposed new zoning plan is below. More information on the draft Gwaii Land-Sea- People plan, which includes both marine and terrestrial component and the proposed new marine zoning plan, is available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/info/consultations.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 74 of 245

Figure 19 Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Proposed Zoning Plan

Section 8.2 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) also discusses the proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area. Parks Canada, in partnership with the Government of British Columbia, launched a feasibility assessment for an NMCA Reserve in the southern Strait of Georgia in 2004. Since then, consultations with First Nations, key stakeholders, communities and the public have occurred. Informed by those discussions, a proposed boundary for consultation was announced by the provincial and federal Ministers of Environment in 2011.

Since 2011, the two governments have been consulting with First Nations, local governments and industry. A preliminary concept is currently being developed to help advance consultations on the feasibility assessment. If the results of the feasibility assessment indicate that establishment of an NMCAR is practical and feasible, an establishment agreement between the Governments of Canada and British Columbia will be negotiated and an interim management plan developed. If the NMCAR is determined to be feasible, further consultations related to establishment agreements and Aboriginal rights will also take place with First Nations. Commercial and recreational fishing sectors, communities, landowners, recreation and environmental organizations and other stakeholders will also have opportunities to provide input to the development of the interim management plan. Parks Canada information on the proposed NMCAR in the Southern Strait of Georgia is available on the internet at: www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/amnc-nmca/dgs-ssg/index.aspx.

DFO has also identified an Offshore Pacific Area of Interest for designation as an Oceans Act MPA by 2020 (see Figure 16). DFO recently announced a marine refuge within the boundaries of the new Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 75 of 245 large Offshore Pacific Area of Interest to protect underwater seamounts and several hydrothermal vents (Figure 20) by prohibiting all bottom-contact commercial and recreational fishing activities within the refuge. Although there has been limited halibut fishing in this area, and most of it has occurred during combination sablefish-halibut trips, the hook and line fishery for halibut will be foregoing future opportunity by the closure of this area.

Figure 20 Offshore Seamounts and Vents Closure

Section 8.2 of the Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan 2018 also discusses the Scott Islands Marine National Wildlife Area that has been proposed for designation and is moving through the regulatory process. The proposed marine NWA around the Scott Islands is designed to protect marine seabird feeding areas for species such as the Cassin’s Auklet, Rhinoceros Auklet, Tufted Puffin, and Common Murre.

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 is consistent with several existing legislation pieces including the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act,

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 76 of 245

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 suggests 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 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.

To avoid serious or irreversible harm to sensitive benthic habitat, species and communities and otherwise address impacts to benthic habitat, communities and species, this policy follows a five step process (DFO 2018). 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), 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. Engagement in the application of this policy is critical, and will be managed for the most part through regional offices of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

The Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities, completed in April 2013, is to be used as a decision making process under Canada’s Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. This ERAF outlines a process for identifying the level of ecological risk of fishing activity and its impacts on sensitive benthic areas in the marine environment. This process will be a central component in the efforts to manage fisheries in a manner that mitigates the impacts of fishing activity on sensitive benthic areas or avoids impacts of fishing that are likely to cause serious or irreversible harm to sensitive marine habitat, communities and species (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/risk-ecolo-risque- back-fiche-eng.html).

A second Ecological-Risk Assessment Framework for Ecosystem-Based Oceans Management (ERAF-EOM) was also developed by DFO and reviewed in 2011; it is specific to the Pacific Region and provides a tool that encompasses other ecosystem components beyond benthic habitat and coral

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 77 of 245 and sponge communities (Science Advisory Report from CSAP review of ERAF-EOM can be found here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_044-eng.html.

DFO’s Pacific Region Cold-Water Coral and Sponge Conservation 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. The Strategy also takes into consideration the need to balance the protection of marine ecosystems with the maintenance of a prosperous economy. It was created with input from stakeholders throughout the Pacific Region and will help regional partners and stakeholders to understand how DFO’s current programs and activities tie into cold-water coral and sponge conservation. More information on the DFO Pacific Region Cold-Water and Sponge Conservation Strategy can be found in Section 8.2 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) or at http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/ceccsr-cerceef/conservation-eng.html.

As referenced above, 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 available information on their uses and to provide scientifically-based conclusions and advice regarding their potential impacts on marine habitats and biodiversity (DFO, 2010b).

DFO (2010b) notes that mitigation measures exist to reduce, and sometimes eliminate, every documented impact related to fishing gears. Many Canadian fisheries make use of appropriate mitigation measures as part of their regular operations and some have been shown to provide benefits to the fishery. The report also concludes 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.

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; and, that 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 and line fishery for halibut (e.g., catch or effort limits, spatial and/or temporal closures) and aspects of the fishery are used as examples in the report (e.g., rockfish conservation areas, groundfish integration, estimate of the impact of lost longline gear is included in the stock assessment of the directed species).

The groundfish trawl fishery has also recently adopted management measures that, among other things, prohibit bottom trawling in many areas of the BC coast. The specific management measures adopted are in line with DFO’s Cold Water and Sponge conservation strategy and include: freezing the footprint of groundfish bottom trawl activities; establishing a combined habitat bycatch conservation limit (HBCL) for coral and sponges; allocating the HBCL among groundfish trawl license holders and allow for transferability within specified vessel caps with the groundfish trawl fleet; and the establishment of an encounter protocol for trawl tows where combined coral and sponge catch exceeds 20 kg. More information on this imitative can be found in Section 8.2.2 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO, 2018) and Section 6 of Appendix 8 of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO 2018).

The trawl fishery was the first to embark on these new and innovative management measures to address Canada’s concerns relating to sensitive benthic habitat. It took many years for data to be compiled, boundaries to be drawn and discussion among stakeholders regarding the best areas to protect. While measures are in place in non-trawl bottom contact fisheries, data is being gathered to determine if further protection of corals and sponges is required for these other gear types and a process is in place to assess risk.

Based on the policy and risk assessment frameworks, management measures (e.g., catch limits, extensive areas of protected habitat in place and forthcoming, groundfish integration) and monitoring

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 78 of 245 programs currently in place in the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut, the significantly reduced amount of gear being deployed in the fishery, the extensive habitat protection program in the bottom trawl fishery and the otherwise low impact of bottom longline gear on habitats, the risk that the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut is likely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm is considered to be low.

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, and the Oceans Action Plan, 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.

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.

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).

A number of models have been developed to better understand the structure and functioning of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and California Current ecosystems, which both extend into Canadian waters. The GOA likely has more relevance for Pacific halibut, as the fishery occurs primarily in the northern and central British Columbia waters. Gaichas and Francis (2008) applied graph theory and network analysis to explore how the GOA ecosystem might respond to climate change and the effects of fishing. Subsequently, Gaichas et al. (2011) developed a dynamic ecosystem model to evaluate the relative effects of fishing history, climate change, and predator-prey interactions in determining biomass trajectories for 12 species groups ranging from marine mammals through commercially exploited fish and invertebrates.

Aydin et al. (2007) presented the first comprehensive mass balance ecosystem models for the GOA. The GOA food web quantified biomass flow over 2,969 pathways between its 138 total groups. The model suggested that the GOA ecosystem appears balanced between benthic and pelagic pathways, but is notable in having a relatively smaller “biomass” of fisheries (catch) relative to the BSAI, and a Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 79 of 245 high biomass of fish predators above trophic level 4; e.g., arrowtooth flounder and halibut. Thus, in the GOA, consumption of plankton and detritus are nearly balanced. In the GOA the primary forage fish, capelin and myctophids, are both given protected status by the NPFMC forage fish FMP amendment, which prohibits directed fishing for all species in the forage fish category. Although there are large biomasses of both piscivorous and invertivorous animals, overall consumption of fish and large invertebrates amounts to less than 5% of total consumption. Piscivory is a small proportion of total ecosystem consumption in all three ecosystems, but is the highest proportion of the total in the AI (0.7%), followed by the GOA (0.5%), and then the EBS (0.2%). In the GOA, the vast majority of early 1990s adult pollock predation mortality was caused by three groundfish predators: arrowtooth flounder (32% of total mortality), halibut (22%), and cod (15%) according to the food web model.

The effects of fishing on the GOA ecosystem have been explored in several studies. For example, Gachias et al. (2012) conducted thousands of ecosystem model simulations to explore the interacting effects of the form of functional response of predators to changes in prey density and simulated fishing. They found that the model ecosystems were robust to a wide range of functional responses, but there was an abrupt threshold effect between moderate and heavy exploitation rates, beyond which a much lower proportion of model ecosystems persisted. Beyond this fishing threshold, extinction was more likely, and system attributes differed greatly from moderately fished model ecosystems. Another important finding was that the precipitous drop in success rate of ecosystems happened whether heavy fishing was applied to all groups in the system or was targeted on a single group with sensitive life history parameters.

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 fuel is 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 and line fishery for halibut.

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.

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 include 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 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 80 of 245

Program, DFO also takes an ecosystem based approach to the management of the Pacific commercial groundfish fisheries (which includes the hook and 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).

Canada manages its ocean resources through the Oceans Action Plan (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/index-eng.html). It is a collaborative way of making decisions on how Canada’s marine resources can best be developed and protected. Integrated oceans management gives decision makers responsible for ocean-based activities a basis for managing these activities in a manner that will sustain a healthy marine environment and provide due consideration of other ocean users.

The aim of integrated management is to improve decision making to ensure that decisions:

 are more effective in the long term;  are not conflicting;  are built upon a common knowledge base; and  take into consideration the needs of the ecosystem as well as the needs of humankind.

Implementing an integrated-management approach is intended to ensure that the management system will:

 maintain the health of the marine ecosystems;  address user conflicts;  limit the cumulative effects of human activities within a defined ocean space; and  maximize and diversify sustainable use of our oceans.

Within the Ocean Action Plan, Canada considers ecosystem-based management as an integrated or holistic approach to making decisions about ocean-based development and conservation activities. It means considering the environmental impact of an activity on the whole ecosystem, not simply the specific resource targeted. It also means taking into account the cumulative impact of all human activities on the ecosystem within that area. This is different from past management approaches that focused on a single species or single economic activity.

Ecosystem-based management sets objectives for various aspects of marine ecosystem structures and functions, such as productivity, key species and sensitive habitats. These objectives describe the desired physical, chemical or biological condition of the ecosystem, or one of its constituents, to ensure a healthy ecosystem. As such, these ecosystem objectives are extremely important to the overall management of a specific marine area.

Implementation of Canada’s approach to integrated management and the development of integrated- management plans is built around these objectives as a means to ensure sustainability of the resources and their habitats. This means that management decisions about ocean resources and coastal uses must be made with full consideration of ecosystem impact.

Conservation measures to maintain a healthy ecosystem include work to prevent and mitigate the introduction of aquatic invasive species, fisheries closures to protect valuable ecosystems, supporting the recovery of species at risk, and strengthening Canada’s response to ship-source marine pollution.

Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area

The Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) is one of five national Large Ocean Management Areas identified in Canada’s 2005 Oceans Action Plan. PNCIMA is particularly relevant

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 81 of 245 as IPHC data demonstrate that approximately 93% of the halibut catch occurs in PNCIMA (IPHC pers. comm.). 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 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.

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. In February 2017, on behalf of all partners, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations, and the Province of B.C. signed off on the PNCIMA Plan. Partners will continue to work closely to implement key aspects of the PNCIMA Plan. The plan provides an information base and a number of management tools that can be used by others to apply EBM at a variety of scales in PNCIMA (https://mpanetwork.ca/bcnorthernshelf/other-initiatives/).

The Oceans Action Plan and PNCIMA serve as a strategy. IPHC data from 2010 and 2011 show that approximately 93% of the halibut catch occurs in PNCIMA, sufficient to consider the strategy applies to the fishery.

PNCIMA is located in a transition zone between a northerly area dominated by the Alaskan current system and a southern area dominated by the California current system (Lucas et al. 2007). From the analyses currently available to Lucas et al. (2007), the overall trophic structure of the PNCIMA region appeared to be relatively robust to reduction or elimination of single components of the food web, as long as other species occur within the same functional group. Overall, the food web did not appear to display a “wasp-waist” structure, in which energy flows predominately through one or a few species at intermediate trophic positions. However, trophic pathways to individual species may be more constrained (e.g., krill to whales); it is unknown which species may be critically sensitive to the reduction or elimination of which other species. There appeared to be a spatially dependent trophic linkage from phytoplankton to fish in PNCIMA. In PNCIMA, phytoplankton biomass is highest at the southeast end of Dixon Entrance where the freshwater input of the Skeena River is highest, and in the entrance to Queen Charlotte Sound in the south where the high-nutrient inflow from Queen Charlotte Strait mixes with fresher runoff. Lucas et al. (2007) acknowledged a very rudimentary portrait of how PNCIMA works. Some of the linkages they described are simplistic, and many were very likely to be completely wrong. Zooplankton were poorly sampled in PNCIMA. While they inferred a spatial and temporal linkage between phytoplankton and fish, it must pass through zooplankton. But they had little information on when and where zooplankton and ichthyoplankton feed. This is needed to confirm the inferred linkage and to better understand the pathways through which energy flows through these different trophic levels. Most of the information presented by Lucas et al. (2007) on fish distribution pertains to adults and is dominated by commercially important species. Comparatively little is known about the distribution of juveniles of these same species, and less yet on larval distributions and spawning locations of these species. However, the available information indicates important ontogenetic differences in life history and distribution. Information on food web linkages and who eats whom is severely lacking, having been collected only for groundfish species in limited seasons during two years in the 1980s.

Lucas et al. (2007) identified three general food web systems for the PNCIMA region: phytoplankton-based systems; nearshore (macrophyte)-based systems; and detritus-based systems. Strictly speaking the latter (detritus-based) systems are also derived from phytoplankton or macrophyte production, but enough marine organisms feed directly or indirectly on detritus to warrant its own food web, at least in the context discussed here. Almost nothing is Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 82 of 245 known about the microbial loop in this region, although studies have been conducted to the south off Vancouver Island and in the Strait of Georgia. Information on plankton and detritus-based food webs in the PNCIMA region is largely based on direct observations of stomach contents (mostly from groundfish and some pelagic species) and on model studies using ECOPATH. There are several significant unknowns in both of these approaches to food-web analyses. Direct observations are effort-intensive, and tend to be conducted for only a short period of time on selected surveys. They rarely provide extensive coverage of species throughout the entire region or in all seasons. A schematic example of these plankton, detritus, and macrophyte-based food webs for the PNCIMA region is illustrated in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Schematic food webs for the PNCIMA region (Lucas et al. 2007).

The number of linkages in these food web models and diet studies suggests that several important prey items exist within the web, in particular herring, other forage fishes, and large zooplankton such as euphausiids. There is no indication of an overall “wasp-waist” food web structure, in which energy flows are funneled through one or a few key species in the middle of the trophic web. The lack of such a feature suggests a more stable trophic structure than might occur in wasp-waist systems such as upwelling areas, and a trophic structure that should be more resilient to natural and human disturbances.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls

The Pacific halibut fishery is conducted in the U.S. and Canadian Pacific EEZ waters west of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska (Figure 1). With the declaration of a 200 mile fishery conservation zone by both countries in the late 1970s, annual halibut quotas (or catch targets) had been used to limit the catch of Pacific halibut in both zones by foreign and domestic fisheries. The IPHC, a Regional Fishery Management Organization providing overarching management for the halibut resource, was established in 1924 by the Convention for the Preservation of Halibut Fishery of Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 83 of 245 the Northern Pacific Ocean (Pacific Halibut Treaty) between the US and Canada http://www.treaty- accord.gc.ca/result-resultat.aspx?type=1. The Pacific Halibut treaty has undergone several amendments, the most recent in 1979. The Pacific Halibut Treaty requires cooperation between the US and Canada, and limits IPHC responsibility to conservation matters; the IPHC conducts stock assessment, sets fishing regulations such as gear type, size limits, management area boundaries, international allocation, quotas by management area, and season opening and closing dates. The Treaty gives national allocation of the resource to each country. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council have management responsibility in the US, and DFO has responsibility in Canada.

The Fisheries Act is the primary piece of Canadian federal legislation relating to the management of fisheries in Canada. The Act applies to shellfish, finfish, marine plants, and marine mammals, and provides tools to constrain take or disturbance of these species and their habitats for reasons of conservation or other valid objectives. Among other things, the Act grants authority to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“the Minister”) to issue and repeal fishing licenses and to make regulations. The Minister may make regulations regarding: the control of fisheries effort and catch, conservation of fish, protection of fish habitat, prevention of pollution, issuance and conditions of licenses, vessels, fishing gear, means of enforcement, fish culture, and monitoring and reporting, among other things. These provide the basis for DFO’s work to manage and control fisheries and conserve species from year to year. For example, the Fisheries Act was the legislative basis for the rebuilding actions DFO has implemented for Bocaccio and the development of the Rockfish Conservation Strategy (including the establishment of 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas) to rebuild inshore rockfish.

Groundfish off Canada are under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Act and the regulations made thereunder, and also the Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act. Pacific halibut are managed under the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) Groundfish (DFO 2018). The IFMP supports the Species at Risk Act and the Oceans Act by adopting an ecosystem-based approach to management and data collection.

On February 6, 2018, the Government of Canada introduced a bill (Bill C-68) in Parliament that proposes amendments to the Fisheries Act. It is still far too early to ascertain potential impacts to the directed hook and line fishery for halibut. Preliminary analysis of the proposed changes indicates they are largely enabling the Minister to do things he/she already had the discretion to do.

Under Canada’s Ocean’s Act (1996) and the subsequent Ocean Strategy (2002), fisheries management is required to move toward the overarching objective of ecosystem-based management. Management strategies for groundfish fisheries are now directed at reducing bycatch of vulnerable species and minimizing the adverse effect of fishing on sensitive benthic habitats through area closures (particularly for the trawl fishery in Eastern Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait) and via the creation of Rockfish Conservation Areas in coastal British Columbia.

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. Instead, when conflicts have arisen within Canada/US commissions, they Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 84 of 245 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 the 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. 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 2018, Section 1.5).

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 various advisory bodies. For example, the annual management plan is reviewed through the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB) and other groundfish advisory bodies; however, DFO may also solicit advice on the plan in other consultative processes (e.g., bilateral consultations with First Nations). These advisory bodies are generally the means by which disputes between stakeholders and DFO, within a stakeholder sector or between stakeholder sectors are resolved.

The advisory boards include commercial fishery participants in addition to First Nations, recreational, environmental, labor, seafood processing and coastal community representatives. Meetings are generally open to the public and minutes of all meetings are posted on the DFO Consultation website. Stakeholders can request specific items be added to the agenda of an advisory board meeting for discussion and resolution.

For example, the Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC) is the forum where the commercial groundfish fleets discuss and resolve cross-fishery management issues, such as changes to species caps. The integration of the groundfish fishery has a formal “Decision Making Structure for Sectoral

Negotiations” for dispute resolution between the commercial sector groups. It is worthy to note that this dispute resolution process has never been required or utilized since groundfish integration was introduced in 2006 as the CIC industry reps have dealt with disputes through a consensus-based process.

DFO has also used facilitation and arbitration-type process using 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 Halvorson process (to address groundfish allocations between the trawl and hook and line commercial fleets) and to determine an initial allocation formula for the groundfish trawl ITQ 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 (Malcolm v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries) 2014 FCA130). This change increased the recreational sector’s allocation by 25% and resulted in a commensurate drop for the commercial sector. In making the decision under review, the Minister rejected the advice of his department and also broke a prior stated policy of only Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 85 of 245 modifying the allocation by a market driven mechanism.

A review of the case (http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fish_summaries.php?topic=f) presented the following information: In upholding the decision of the Applications Judge to dismiss the application, the Court of Appeal examined the following issues:

1) What is the applicable standard of review; 2) Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply; 3) If not, does the doctrine of legitimate expectations apply; and 4) if not, was the Minister's decision nevertheless reasonable.

The Appellant argued that the Minister abused his discretion in deciding to reallocate 3% of the TAC without using a market-based mechanism. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the decision of the Minister for the following reasons:

1) The Minister has broad authority and discretion to manager fisheries in the public interest; 2) The Minister may take into account social and economic factors when allocating a fishery resource; 3) The Minister is not bound by policy decisions of his or her predecessors; 4) The Minister is not bound to provide compensation to affected fishers when reallocating TAC or reducing quota; 5) The commercial sector and the sports sector were unable to agree upon a market based mechanism despite numerous efforts by DFO; 6) The use of public funds to compensate the commercial fleet was not deemed appropriate by DFO; 7) DFO questioned the feasibility of a levy for fee mechanism to collect funds to support a market based mechanism; 8) a pilot experimental marked-based mechanism in introduced in 2011 did not meet with any substantial success; 9) The Minister's primary consideration was to encourage jobs and economic growth in B.C. and the recreational sector provides an important contribution to the economy of B.C.; and 10) Although not the option favoured by DFO officials, the plan implemented by the Minister was one of several options presented to him by DFO officials.

The Court summarized its decision as follows:

"The Minister’s decision to proceed with the 3% reallocation of the TAC without applying a market-based mechanism or another form of compensation was not irrational or incomprehensible when considering the record as a whole. Moreover, that decision was not an abuse of the Minister’s discretion, and it was not made in bad faith or on the basis of considerations that are irrelevant or extraneous to the purposes of the Fisheries Act. The Minister’s decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes having regard for both the context in which the decision was made and the discretionary and policy nature of the decision."

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 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 sections 7.3.1 and 9.1.1 of the 2018 Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (DFO 2018).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 86 of 245

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 (DFO 2018, Section 7.1.1.1). 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.

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. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may also issue a communal fishing licence to a group to fish for FSC purposes. There are currently approximately 58 coastal First Nations that have communal FSC licences that include groundfish species (DFO 2018).

DFO engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations which advise DFO on groundfish management. These exchanges and involvement may include bilateral consultations, advisory processes, management boards, technical groups and other roundtable forums. Consulting is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. It is also a component of modern treaties established between First Nations and the provincial and federal governments. In addition to good governance objectives, Canada has statutory, contractual and common law obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups. (DFO 2018, Section 1.5).

3.5.2 Recognized groups with interests in the 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 Board (formerly the Processor Advisory Group), the Research Advisory Board (RAB) and the Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB). IPHC also Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 87 of 245 recently formed the Scientific Review Board (SRB) to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs. These advisory bodies are discussed on the IPHC website (https://www.iphc.int/the-commission/structure-of-the-commission).

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 (CB) and Processor Advisory Board (PAB), 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 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 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.

Pacific halibut is harvested in Canada primarily by commercial longline vessels operated by catcher vessels delivering to shore (DFO 2018). 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.

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, 2018). The DFO consultation processes for halibut are summarized below. Further information on these processes, as well as their terms of reference and membership, is available on the DFO webpage at . Several groups are regularly consulted with by DFO, which include constituents that provide local and traditional knowledge.

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, labour, 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 consults on recreational halibut through the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB), the DFO advisory body for the recreational fisheries. 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 receives recreational fishing advice 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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 88 of 245

DFO has also formed the Halibut 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. 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.

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. GIAB addresses issues that affect multiple interests and is not intended to address operational matters within any specific interest group. Membership on GIAB includes commercial fishing, First Nations, labour, 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.

Meeting minutes from these DFO advisory bodies are available from the DFO Groundfish Management Unit and commonly provide the advice provided and rationale for recommendations, as well as DFO rationale for accepting or rejecting advice provided by the advisory process.

DFO supports and facilitates a comprehensive domestic consultation process 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.

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 (DFO 2018), 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.

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 2018, Section 6.2). 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 (Scientific Certification Systems 2015).

The in-season management advisory process has many stakeholders: Pacific halibut license holders, fishers, processors, the British Columbia Provincial Government, fishermen’s organizations (Pacific Halibut Management Association), the Groundfish Development Authority, the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society, and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and the

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 89 of 245

Coastal Communities Network (mayors of BC coastal towns), First Nations, and environmental groups.

3.5.3 Consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan

The IPHC and both countries have established comprehensive consultation processes to discuss management decisions and disputes in an open and transparent manner. 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 Board (formerly the Processor Advisory Group), the Research Advisory Board, and the Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC has also 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). IPHC seeks advice from these advisory bodies annually, and in some cases, throughout the year.

Section 1.5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish outlines the consultation processes currently in place in Canada for Pacific halibut (DFO 2018). 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 http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html.

DFO engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations. These exchanges and involvement may include bilateral consultations, advisory processes, management boards, technical groups and other roundtable forums. Consulting is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good governance objectives, Canada has statutory, contractual and common-law obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups. Canada’s management regime for Pacific halibut explicitly recognizes and accounts for First Nations food, social and ceremonial rights.

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 DFO (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). Further details can be found in the 2018 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Groundfish (DFO 2018).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 90 of 245 concluded in recent years. 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 the current dispute resolution framework is effective in dealing with most issues and that it is appropriate to the context of the fishery.

Although there is no formal dispute settlement mechanism in place (see Section 3.5.1, 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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 91 of 245

Aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery, either communally or individually, is described in sections 7.3 and 9.1.1 of the 2017 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).

The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/aboriginal- autochtones/afs-srapa-eng.htm) was implemented in 1992 by DFO to address several objectives related to First Nations and their access to the resource. These included:

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 license, 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 license to a group to fish for FSC purposes. There are currently approximately 58 coastal First Nations that have communal FSC licenses that include groundfish species (DFO 2018).

3.5.4 Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups

See Section 3.5.3 above.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 92 of 245

3.5.5 Non-fishery users or activities, which could affect the fishery, and arrangements for liaison and co-ordination

Canadian Laws that apply to non-users and users that are directly relevant to the management of marine fisheries includes:  Oceans Act: Established marine zones on Canada and jurisdictions, and set the framework for integrated coastal and ocean management.  Species at Risk Act: An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada; providing legal protection for species at risk will complement existing legislation and will, in part, meet Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity.  Department of the Environment Act: The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to (a) the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; (b) renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; (c) water; (d) meteorology.  Navigable Waters Protection Act: An Act respecting the protection of navigable waters.  Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): a shared agreement between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia to protect migratory birds, prohibiting their taking, killing, or possession. The directed take of seabirds is prohibited.

3.5.6 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 (Halibut Convention) (https://www.iphc.int/the-commission). 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% (IPHC Staff 2017).

The IPHC 5-year Biological and Ecosystem Science Research Program https://iphc.int/library/documents/meeting-documents/iphc-5-year-biological-and-ecosystem-science- research-program identified the main objectives of the IPHC program as:

1) To identify and assess critical knowledge gaps in the biology of the Pacific halibut; 2) To understand the influence of environmental conditions; and 3) To apply the resulting knowledge to reduce uncertainty in current stock assessment models.

The MSE process https://iphc.int/venues/details/4th-session-of-the-iphc-management-strategy- advisory-board-msab04/ identified five overarching objectives as 1) Biological sustainability – identify stock conservation objectives 2) Fishery (all directed fisheries) sustainability and stability – identify harvest minimum and acceptable variability 3) Assurance of access – minimize probability of fishery closures 4) Minimize bycatch mortality, and 5) Serve consumer needs.

The DFO webpage http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre-sujet/org/vision-eng.htm outlines the mandate and role for the Department, and identifies four core responsibilities:

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 93 of 245

1) Fisheries. We ensure Canada’s fisheries, including aquaculture, are protected, managed sustainably and support Indigenous participation, and that our national network of harbours is open and in good repair. 2) Aquatic ecosystems. We protect our oceans, freshwater and aquatic ecosystems and species from the negative impact of humans and invasive species through sound science and in collaboration with Indigenous communities. 3) Marine navigation. We maintain waterways year round so they are safely navigable by mariners and all Canadians. 4) Marine operations and response. We respond to maritime incidents, such as search-and- rescue and environmental emergencies, through our Coast Guard fleet and in collaboration with Indigenous communities.

The DFO Sustainable Fisheries Framework http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff- cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm provides the basis for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which support conservation and sustainable use, and consistent with the first two strategic outcomes. Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2018) discuss the Sustainable Fisheries Framework (SFF) and how it provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada. See sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 for more information on the SFF.

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 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm. 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 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm. 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 (DFO 2018) 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.

The DFO SFF provides the basis for ensuring Canadian fisheries are conducted in a manner which supports conservation and sustainable use, and is consistent with the first two strategic outcomes. The SFF includes a decision-making framework incorporating a precautionary approach to commercial, recreational, and Food, Social, and Ceremonial fishing. Sections 1.5 and 6.4 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO, 2018) discuss SFF and how it provides the foundation of an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management in Canada.

Further, 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.

DFO outlines long-term and short term objectives specific to Canada’s Pacific groundfish fisheries in Sections 4 and 5 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan - Groundfish (DFO 2018). Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Groundfish Management Unit (GMU) identifies key issues facing the groundfish fisheries overall, as informed by consultations with interested parties. Groundfish management issues can be categorized under one of the following themes: science, catch monitoring, access and allocation, marine planning and governance (DFO 2018, Section 2). These key management issues inform the fisheries management objectives that follow in the subsequent Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 94 of 245 sections. The current objectives are up for review by DFO and GIAB and will be updated as necessary and developed over the coming years. DFO has advised that Groundfish IFMP objectives are scheduled for review with Groundfish advisory bodies for fall and winter 2018.

Long Term Objectives The management issues identified in Section 2 of the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO 2018) formed the basis for the development of the following long term objectives. The long term objectives were developed for the 2011- 2013 Groundfish IFMP and remain relevant for current IFMPs. These longer term objectives are supported by short term objectives that are described in the next section. The intent is for the objectives to be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time- bound (SMART). The long term objectives are as follows:

1. 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. 2. Pursue accountability for total groundfish mortality (retained and released catch) for all user groups supported by scientifically defensible (accurate and precise) catch monitoring programs. 3. Have an agreed upon process to aid in the development of allocation arrangements between user groups for groundfish species in the future. 4. Develop the infrastructure to collect and analyze data to determine economic viability and social impacts of the various groundfish fisheries.

Short Term Objectives Short term objectives are reviewed annually to gauge progress and identify emerging priorities. This review occurs with input from GIAB and the public; those that are completed are removed from the list and those with work underway are updated or maintained on the list below. In the most recent review of short term objectives, GIAB recommended a workshop format with participation from all groundfish interests to evaluate progress and renew both short and long term objectives. In the interim, the short term objectives identified in the 2016-17 IFMP have been maintained. A workshop will be planned in the coming year as part of the engagement process on renewed groundfish IFMP objectives. Existing short term objectives are below. Delivery dates for these objectives will be updated following the engagement process.

1. Work with GIAB sectors to identify their priority groundfish science and fisheries management projects, including those proposed for funding through alternative mechanisms (e.g., joint project agreements consistent with the use-of-fish policy, user fee amendments, etc.). 2. Evaluate approaches used in other jurisdictions for selecting assessment tools for data- limited species. Use computer simulation to assess the applicability and performance of these approaches in the BC groundfish fishery. 3. Develop an inventory of current FSC groundfish catch monitoring 4. Initiate development of tools for the recreational fishery to improve reporting of all catch (retained and released). 5. Initiate development of tools for First Nations fisheries to improve reporting of all catch (retained and released). 6. Use the GIAB to develop the appropriate consultative approach that would support achieving long term objective number 3 7. Update the Fleet Financial report. 8. Complete a review of the sales slip program to inform a long-term plan for effectively gathering-species level price information for the region.

3.5.7 Fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery

The fleet included in the UoA consists of the 435 vessels that received ITQ for halibut. These vessels fish primarily with longline gear, but may land pot-caught halibut when hailed out on dual halibut- Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 95 of 245 sablefish trips. Fishing under First Nation FCS licenses or under recreational licenses does not qualify for the UoA.

3.5.8 Individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery, and the nature of those rights

See section 3.5.2 above.

3.5.9 Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the objectives within a specified period

The IPHC publishes regulations annually and provides information on other decisions (e.g., Harvest Strategy Policy, Monitoring, Control and Surveillance, Performance Monitoring, and Cooperation with Other Organizations) on its website https://iphc.int/the-commission.

Official regulations adopted by the Contracting Parties are available at the following web-links:  Canada: Canada Gazette and on the ‘Condition of License’  United States of America: The Federal Register

The IPHC regulations cover:  Licensing Vessels for Area 2A  In-Season Actions  Regulatory Areas  Fishing in Regulatory Area 4E and 4D  Fishing Periods  Closed Periods  Closed Area  Commercial Catch Limits  Fishing Period Limits  Size Limits  Careful Release of Halibut  Vessel Clearance in Area 4  Logs  Receipt and Possession of Halibut  Fishing Multiple Regulatory Areas  Fishing Gear  Supervision of Unloading and Weighing  Retention of Tagged Halibut  Fishing by United States Treaty Indian Tribes  Customary and Traditional Fishing in Alaska  Aboriginal Groups Fishing for Food, Social and Ceremonial Purposes in British Columbia  Sport Fishing for Halibut

Appendix 6 of the 2018 IFMP (DFO 2018) specifies requirements for Canadian fishermen fishing for Pacific halibut, and covers changes to regulations, allowable species, gear, quotas and open times, licensing, sector rules, bait, combined halibut and sablefish fishing, dual fishing (AFS plus commercial on a single trip), closures, and recreational fishing.

3.5.10 Arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement

At-sea observers, dockside monitors, and electronic monitoring perform a key role in observing, documenting and reporting to DFO fishing related occurrences (DFO 2018). 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. Observers perform duties best described Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 96 of 245 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 occurrences 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). Dockside Observers monitor and document weigh-out inspections at all approved landing locations. Observers 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.

DFO’s Conservation and Protection (C&P) program 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. 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 all types of occurrences including commercial groundfish landings. Fishery officers inspect and investigate groundfish vessels for compliance with terms and Conditions of licenses, Fisheries Act and related Regulations and Variation Orders.

Fishery officers conduct inspections both dockside and at sea to verify compliance with license Conditions. Due to the complexity of transferable Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) and the related license amendment system, tracking of catch quantities under the ITQ system is primarily performed administratively under the dockside-monitoring program. Surveillance of the fishery is also conducted by vessel and aircraft (DFO 2013b).

Regulations for the Canada Pacific halibut fishery require that fishers maintain logbooks that are audited using information from the 100% at-sea and 100% dockside monitoring programs. As a result, fishers report their catches, landings and other measures to DFO in a timely and accurate fashion, and these are validated by independent third party service providers. There are economic costs associated with inaccurate data reporting as those failing logbook audits may be subject to an increased level of auditing, the costs of which must be borne by the harvester. Further, the validated monitoring data, including video and GPS components of the EM systems, record catch composition and fishing location which can be used by DFO Conservation and Protection staff to pursue charges in cases of non-compliance (e.g., fishing in a closed area). In addition to costs of higher level monitoring for failing logbook audits, sanctions for violations range from fines to vessel forfeiture.

Certified fishery observers, employed by private contractors, provide dockside monitoring and validation required for every commercial halibut landing in Canada. Certified fishery observers (who have passed pre-certification screening including criminal and fisheries record checks, federal security screening, and meet federal conflict of interest standards) are then the frontline eyes and ears, detecting and reporting to DFO fishery officers irregularities or occurrences at the offloads according to defined occurrence reporting procedures. 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 (DF0 2018, Section 12).

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 all types of occurrences including commercial groundfish landings. Fishery officers inspect and investigate groundfish vessels for compliance with terms and Conditions of Licences, Fisheries Act and related Regulations and Variation Orders (DF0 2018, Section 12).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 97 of 245

The DFO Groundfish IFMP identifies the following priorities for DFO Conservation and Protection staff (DFO 2018, Section 12.3):

 investigate incidents of closed area fishing such as rockfish conservation areas (RCAs), sponge reef marine protection areas, marine conservation areas and other permanent and in- season fishing closures.  continue to enforce compliance with hail-out, hail-in and other elements of the dockside (DMP) and at-sea observer (ASOP) programs;  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  enforce compliance with Electronic Monitoring (EM) Licence Conditions, especially unreported failures, time gaps and obstructed video cameras.  investigate false and misleading statements to at-sea and dockside observers; and obstruction of at-sea and dockside observers from carrying out their duties.

The enforcement policy and activities of DFO are the responsibility of the C&P directorate within fisheries management. More information on the C&P directorate is available at the following website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/enf-loi/index-eng.htm. The DFO IFMP - Groundfish outlines the broad compliance plan for the groundfish fisheries (DFO 2018). Each year, DFO presents an enforcement report to the IPHC Commissioners on enforcement and compliance in Canada’s halibut fisheries. See Appendix 8.2 for the 2017 Enforcement Report prepared by C&P for the halibut fishery.

3.5.11 Details of any planned education and training for interest groups

DFO provides a range of opportunities for stakeholder education and input into management consistent with its 2004 Consultation Framework policy document. The Consultation Framework sets out 9 principles that guide DFO’s engagement with other interests, which support their education and training:

1. Commitment: Effective consultations require leadership and a shared commitment so that the results from consultations will be considered in the decision-making 2. Evaluation: Consultations will be evaluated periodically throughout the process and at their conclusion based on objectives set out in an established consultation plan. 3. Timing: Consultations will be organized with appropriate timeframes and deadlines so that participants are provided reasonable time to prepare and provide their input. 4. Inclusiveness: Consultations will involve the appropriate range of groups or individuals that may have an interest in, be affected by or can make a meaningful contribution to a government decision. 5. Accessibility: Reasonable steps will be taken to determine how clients, stakeholders, and others wish to be consulted and to provide them with relevant, understandable information. 6. Clarity: Participants need to know the objective of consultations and be able to understand the information and documentation they receive. 7. Accountability: Roles and responsibilities in consultations will be clearly communicated. 8. Transparency: Consultations will be documented and results disseminated in a timely manner. 9. Coordination: Viewpoints, perspectives and comments on consultations, including the process and the product will be shared within the department and take into account impacts on and feedback from other initiatives.

Based on these principles, interest groups are provided opportunities to participate in scientific and management advisory processes to ensure they are informed and to provide opportunities for feedback:

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 98 of 245

 Through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat process, DFO Scientific assessments and advice respecting the assessment and management of fisheries 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.  DFO has established a number of groundfish fishery advisory processes to support and inform departmental decision making on fisheries management issues. These include advisory processes for individual groundfish fisheries and integrated advisory processes that address cross-cutting issues relevant to multiple groundfish fisheries and bring together all interest groups (commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, coastal communities, environmental groups, First Nations, labour, etc). The full list of groundfish advisory processes and the roles and responsibilities of each advisory body can be found online: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html.  These bodies meet regularly and are open to the public, and supporting documents and DFO minutes are available from the respective DFO species co-ordinators.

DFO continually engages with and seeks advice from these advisory bodies, which play a key role in proposing alternative management approaches for issues that DFO is planning to address. DFO may also engage with interest groups through other processes (e.g., bilateral consultations with First Nations).

3.5.12 Description of fishery’s 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 (https://www.iphc.int/management/science-and-research/biological-and-ecosystem- science-research-program-bandesrp).

The IPHC has published 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 (e.g., IPHC Staff, 2017).

The 2012 IPHC Performance Review (IPHC 2013) 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 2017 Annual Research Plan and components of the IPHC Five Year Research Plan are published in the IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities (IPHC, 2017).

IPHC uses several advisory groups to help develop and vet research plans (http://www.iphc.int/about- iphc). The Research Advisory Board (RAB), formed in 1999 and consisting of both fishers and processors, offers suggestions to the Director and staff on where Commission research should focus. In 2013 IPHC formed the Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) and the Science Review Board (SRB). The MSAB is a panel formed of harvesters, fisheries managers, processors, staff, Commissioners, science advisors from each country, and academics to oversee and advise IPHC staff on the IPHC’s Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). The Scientific Review Board (SRB) consists of a small group of fisheries science experts and provides an independent scientific review Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 99 of 245 of Commission science products and programs, and supports and strengthens the stock assessment process.

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. The Sustainable Fisheries Framework and the Groundfish Science Strategic Plan are discussed in Section 3.4.4 and 3.4.5. The results of the research regularly feed into preparations for the management plans and fisheries. The results of any groundfish-related research, as well as a description of the processes and its policies and guidelines, are available on the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific webpage (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarc-ceesp/index- eng.html).

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 (DFO 2018). 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.

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.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm). Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

3.5.13 Review and audit of the management plan

The Canadian Groundfish IFMP is reviewed each year through several advisory processes, including GIAB, CIC, and GTAC, among others. The IFMP is also posted for public comment every two years to provide an opportunity for others to review the document and send feedback. In addition to coordinating input from advisory bodies and the public, the DFO Groundfish Management Unit coordinates internal review of the IFMP with other relevant branches, including enforcement, Policy, Oceans, Species at Risk, Aquaculture, and Treaty and Aboriginal programs, among others. Internal and external review of the plan The DFO Regional Director General for the Pacific Region approves the Groundfish IFMP before it is implemented in February of each year.

The IPHC monitors the Pacific halibut fishery on an almost continuous basis, and has in place mechanisms and processes that annually evaluate the performance of the commission’s management measures. The 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 and the Conference Board and Processor Advisory Group deliberations, respectively. The process is open and transparent.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 100 of 245

In addition, IPHC undergoes independent performance reviews to build upon its work to-date and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. The first such review was carried out between November 2011 and April 2012 and focused in particular on assessing Commission performance and practices over the previous decade. The Commission contracted an independent firm to undertake the review. A report on the progress regarding the implementation of the first IPHC Performance Review recommendations was provided at the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting. The Commission has undertaken a second Performance Review, and an update was provided at the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting. Both these documents are available on the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting webpage (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094).

In 2012, the IPHC commissioned an independent Performance Review of the Commission to build upon its work to-date and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness (McCreary and Brooks 2012). In response, the IPHC in 2013 set up the Scientific Review Board (SRB; https://iphc.int/library/documents/meeting-documents/scientific-review-board-srb), composed of three independent scientists, to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and to support and strengthen the stock assessment process. Initially, this standing peer review process focused on a review of the annual stock assessment model and harvest policy prepared by the IPHC staff. Over time, this emphasis shifted to a broader review of scientific programs, including outputs from the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board, in addition to the annual stock assessment results and advice. The IPHC staff conducts ongoing review of the stock assessment to bring in new methods, new biological information, and perform diagnostics.

DFO has a number of processes for the monitoring and management of performance evaluation and external review. Specifically:

Performance Evaluation:  DFO’s SFF 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

External review:  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 Directorate and Evaluation Directorate conduct exercises 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 Performance Activity Architecture (PAA) and Management Accountability Framework (MAF).

 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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 101 of 245

 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 Report (issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat) and DFO's annual Departmental Performance Report

3.5.14 Scientific Advice

DFO also has well developed processes for science advice and the development of management plans.

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. CSAS works with the Regions to develop integrated overviews of issues in fish stock dynamics, ocean ecology and use of living aquatic resources, and to identify emergent issues quickly. For more information on CSAS see: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm.

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: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm.

3.5.15 Consultative Processes

DFO also has a rigorous and transparent advisory structure for the development of annual fisheries management plans. 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 different user groups (DFO, 2018). The DFO consultation processes for halibut are summarized in Section 3.5.3.

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.

DFO may also hold separate public consultations to discuss and get feedback on specific science, management and enforcement issues or new programs and initiatives (e.g., consultations on listings under Canada’s Species at Risk Act or on management plans required by a species listing. Information for such consultations is posted on the DFO Pacific Region Consultation webpage: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/index-eng.html.

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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 102 of 245 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, 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, labour, environmental non-government organizations, recreational fishing and coastal communities.

The commercial groundfish integration program was developed by the groundfish Commercial Industry Caucus (CIC) with input and support from DFO, CGIAC and the Province of British Columbia. The CIC was a working subgroup of the CGIAC that is composed of commercial groundfish vessel owners and processing groups.6

Prior to its implementation, 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 2006/2007 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.

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).

3.5.16 Monitoring Service Providers

The performance of the service provider(s) in meeting the requirements of the EM program, at-sea observer program and the dockside monitoring program may also be evaluated. Service providers failing to meet the minimum requirements outlined in Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) or as designated under Section 39 of the Fishery (General) Regulations 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 EM program, at-sea observer program and the dockside monitoring program requirements are set out in Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish IFMP and subject to periodic review.

As part of the evaluation process, DFO may assess performance against the requirements described in Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish IFMP at various points within the fishing season. Feedback will be provided to the service provider(s) and licence holder representative(s). Any opportunities to improve performance will be documented during the first 8 months of the year. In the event that service providers are unable to reach a satisfactory level of performance in the EM program they will be notified along with licence holder representative(s), prior to November 1st, that DFO will not approve their company to provide EM services in the following year (DFO 2018, Appendix 2, Page 15)

EM service provision evaluation criteria:  Success of EM data collection,  Processing and delivery of logbook information within the specified timeframes;  Documentation of equipment deficiencies /failures and repair;  Rate of equipment deficiencies /failures and timeliness of equipment repair;  Timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of trip audit reports, occurrence reports, quota status reports, monthly reports, and year-end report;  Preservation of accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of EM data;

6 The CIC remains in place today. Following the implementation of the integration of the commercial groundfish fisheries, the CGIAC was disbanded and the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board (GIAB) was formed. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 103 of 245

 Adherence to arm’s length and insurance criteria;  Attendance at meetings of the CIC EM subcommittee.

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1. Harmonized Fishery Assessment

The original assessments of the US and Canadian Pacific halibut fisheries were conducted by SCS Global, so harmonization was conducted internally. MRAG Americas took over as CAB for the British Columbia halibut fishery in 2016 with responsibility for conducting the first surveillance of the current certification. MRAG Americas and SCS have established ongoing communications to deal with any concerns that may arise with either assessment team. The team leaders, Dr Robert Trumble (MRAG Americas) and Dr Sian Morgan (SCS) communicate and bring in other team members as necessary. In 2017, MRAG Americas and SCS conducted a joint site visit with the IPHC staff as part of a surveillance audit by SCS and a re-assessment/surveillance audit by MRAG Americas. During 2017 the two teams reconsidered a score and condition given to the US fishery for PI 1.2.3 for insufficient information resulting from the lack of observers on smaller vessels in the US. Upon harmonization by the US and BC halibut teams, the condition on the US fishery was removed from P1. As the BC fishery did not have a condition on PI 1.2.3, no change resulted for this fishery. The assessment teams have received no other information that identified an issue requiring further investigation that could lead to rescoring of any performance indicators.

During this re-assessment, the assessment team received new information for Principle 1 that increased scores. A new stock assessment and advances in the MSE provided evidence of stronger stock status and improved harvest strategy. The MRAG Americas team exchanged this information with the SCS team. The SCS team acknowledged the new information, and the teams agreed to harmonize agreement on scores in the upcoming months. [Note to client and peer reviewers: SCS has a surveillance audit of the US halibut fishery scheduled for late 2018-early 2019. This will give time to fully harmonize before the BC halibut fishery Final Report and Determination posts to the MSC website.]

4.2. Previous assessments

This is the second re-assessment of the BC Pacific halibut fishery. This fishery was first certified in 2009 using the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (v6) that were in use at the start of the fishery assessment. 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. The first re-assessment utilized the MSC-developed Default Assessment Tree (v1.3. 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 the first re- assessment cycle. Because of the compressed time schedule for the second re-assessment, the 5- year period allowed for closing out conditions will not have passed by the time of the recertification. Therefore, the single condition remaining from the first re-assessment is carried over to the beginning of the second re-assessment. The assessment team for the second re-assessment scheduled closure of the condition as close to the original timeline as practicable – that is, at the first surveillance of the second recertification. The condition is on track for closure at that time.

Table 4.2. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 104 of 245

1. The fishery shall provide 2.3.2b Not closed The 5-year certification period for the current evidence that there is an for certificate runs through 29 June 2020. The objective basis for Rougheye second re-assessment will finish in March confidence that the strategy Rockfish 2019, with the PCDR issued by the end of for rougheye rockfishes will 2018. The condition must close out by the work, based on information first surveillance of the second re- directly about the fishery assessment. and/or species involved.

4.3. Assessment Methodologies

The assessment team used MSC CR V1.3, MSC GCR V1.3, MSC FCR V2.0 for Process, and MSC assessment template V1.3. The team used the default assessment tree without modification. The assessment team received no stakeholder comments on the use of the default assessment tree.

4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1. Site Visits

The surveillance team of Dr. Robert Trumble (Lead Assessor) and Dr. Joseph DeAlteris met in person in Vancouver with the staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the fishery client from 14-15 November 2017, concurrent with the second surveillance. The client close-out meeting was held 15 November. The assessment team held an internal wrap up meeting on16 November. MRAG Americas posted a notice of the site visit on the MSC website, and invited stakeholders via email to present information and to meet with the team. No stakeholders requested a meeting with the assessment team or provided information. The table below summarizes the participation, location, and topics of the meetings.

Date Location Name/Affiliation Topic 2017 14 Nov Vancouver Bob Trumble, Joe DeAlteris –  Monitoring Assessment team; Shane  Retained, bycatch, and ETP species Petersen – DFO; Chris Sporer – science and management PHMA; Christina Burridge, BC Seafood Alliance; Sergio  Management overview Cansado, ASI 14 Nov Vancouver Bob Trumble, Joe DeAlteris –  Enforcement and monitoring Assessment team; Shane – DFO; Ann Bussell – DFO-C&P; Chris Sporer – PHMA; Christina Burridge, BC Seafood Alliance; Sergio Cansado, ASI 15 Nov Vancouver Bob Trumble, Joe DeAlteris –  Closing meeting Assessment team; Chris Sporer – PHMA; Christina Burridge, BC Seafood Alliance; Sergio Cansado, ASI

Dr. Trumble joined by telephone with the SCS Global surveillance site visit with the IPHC staff on Oct. 27 to discuss stock status and harvest strategy. Among other things, the SCS staff discussed with the IPHC progress on Condition 1 on the US Halibut Fishery for PI 1.2.3b. The SCS and MRAG Americas representatives confirmed a need to harmonize on P1, as this principle applies to all fisheries operating on the stock. Upon consultation, the teams agreed that a condition was not warranted on PI 1.2.3b. As a result, no change occurred for the BC halibut fishery.

The MRAG Americas assessment team read the original documents provided by the client plus documents otherwise discovered to provide the background and evidence for describing and scoring the fishery.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 105 of 245

4.4.2. Consultations

The assessment process included discussions with DFO staff members (see Section 4.5 for names and affiliations of DFO staff) on key issues of Principles 1, 2, and 3; changes in science and management; and likely future changes or changes underway. The assessment team determined that the amount of information concerning the fishery in the public domain, the close relationship between the client and DFO, and the familiarity of the assessment team with both the agency staff and the client justified allowing the clients to attend meetings with agency staff; all participants agreed to allow the clients to attend the meetings. The client had provided substantial documentation in advance of the site visit, and the DFO staff provided additional material to document the information presented at the visits. The assessment team received no stakeholder comments or requests for a meeting with the assessment team related to re-assessment of the Canada Pacific Halibut Fishery.

4.4.3. Evaluation Techniques

MRAG Americas formally announced the fishery assessment by completing and submitting the MSC Fishery Announcement Template for posting on the MSC website. The announcement contained all required information. MRAG Americas also sent an email to a comprehensive list of stakeholders with the announcement and with the MSC template for stakeholder input.

The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with science, management, and enforcement personnel, and the team offered to set up meetings any stakeholders who requested one.

Scoring followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating performance indicators to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each performance indicator. Review of sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 by all team members assured that each member of the assessment team was aware of the issues for each performance indicator. Subsequently, the assessment team member responsible for each principle filled in the scoring table and provided a provisional score. The assessment team members reviewed the rationales and scores, and recommended modifications as necessary, including possible changes in scores. The assessment team had two phone calls following exchange of draft scoring tables. The team members agreed on the final scores. This process followed the MSC CR V1.3 section 27.10.

The MSC CR v1.3 assessment tree has 31 ‘performance indicators:’ seven in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and nine in Principle 3. The performance indicators are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each performance indicator consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the SG60 (conditional pass), SG80 (full pass), and SG100 (state of the art) levels.

Note that some scoring issue may not have a scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a performance indicator is scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; performance indicator scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If a performance indicator meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the performance indicator would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues for a performance indicator, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80.

Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails.

Table 12 Scoring elements

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 106 of 245

Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not Pacific halibut Target – P1 Not Sablefish Retained Minor Not Lingcod Retained Minor Not Redbanded Rockfish Retained Minor Not Bait Retained Minor Not Longnose Skate Bycatch Minor Not Spiny Dogfish Bycatch Minor Not Yelloweye Rockfish ETP Not Rougheye Rockfish ETP Not Basking Shark ETP Not Bluntnose Sixgill Shark ETP Not Tope Shark ETP Not Harbor Porpoise ETP Not Steller Sea Lion ETP Not Short-tailed albatross ETP Not Pink footed shearwater ETP Not Coral/sponge Habitat Main Not Seamounts Habitat Minor Not Continental Slope Features Habitat Main Not Prey linkage Ecosystem Main Not Predator linkage Ecosystem Main Not

5. Traceability

5.1. Eligibility Date

The target eligibility date is the date of recertification. The current fishery certificate expires 29 June 2020, over a year past the proposed recertification in March 2019. Traceability and segregation systems for the fishery are highly evolved and in place.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include: a. The actual eligibility date. b. The rationale for any difference in this date from the target eligibility date

5.2. Traceability within the Fishery

Traceability Factors within the Fishery: Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used 100% dockside monitoring of all commercial landings within the fishery precludes nearly all non-certified gears Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish The UoC covers the entire Canadian portion of the stock outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or First Nations fish for halibut, but high levels of client group fishing the same stock monitoring by C&P and by IVQ holders makes this

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 107 of 245

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) highly unlikely Risks of mixing between certified and non- Virtually no non-certified catch occurs in Canada; each certified catch during storage, transport, or certified fish is tagged with a unique number. Canadian handling activities (including transport at sea fish landed in the US must undergo the same dockside and on land, points of landing, and sales at monitoring as fish landed in Canada. The risk is di auction) minimis Risks of mixing between certified and non- No at-sea processing. US processors of Canadian certified catch during processing activities halibut must have CoC. (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody) Risks of mixing between certified and non- No transhipment certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between fish Canadian halibut landed in the US have some risk of from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from contamination with US fish. Canadian fish landed in the outside this unit (non-certified catch) before US must undergo the same dockside monitoring as fish subsequent Chain of Custody is required landed in Canada. The risk is di minimis

A high level, comprehensive monitoring program in place ensures accurate mortality data tracking of all landings to individual license holders for commercial groundfish fisheries under the CGIP. CGIP requires 100% at-sea and dockside monitoring, mandatory hails in and out, logbooks, and opportunistic catch sampling. All retained halibut are tagged with a uniquely-numbered tag, which serves as a traceability mechanism and as a marketing tool. Traceability mechanisms covered by the fishery certificate also 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

The beginning of chain of custody is the first point of landing, which concludes upon validation of the landing by the Dockside Monitoring Program. The comprehensive monitoring program assures full traceability from the fishery to the first point of landing. Pacific halibut caught within the Unit of Certification are eligible to enter the MSC certified chain of custody. Eligible fishermen include all L or FL licenses and all K or FK license`s while jointly hailed out with an L or FL license. To be eligible to carry the MSC eco-label Pacific halibut must be caught by hook-and-line gear types by vessels with a valid licence for halibut, 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 the approved fish buyers (see the Schedule to the Certificate https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/canada-pacific-halibut- british-columbia/@@certificates for a current list) and the clients for this fishery (Pacific Halibut Management Association). If you are a fish buyer and are interested in joining the fisheries certificate to pass forward the MSC claim, please contact the PHMA ([email protected]) for certificate sharing arrangements.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 108 of 245

The halibut Condition of License specifies the designated landing ports in the US and Canada as: In Canada: 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 Skidegate 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

In the United States: Bellingham, WA Blaine, WA

5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

No inseparable for practically inseparable stocks occur in the Pacific halibut fishery.

6. Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 13 Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 93.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86.7 Principle 3 – Management System 98.1

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 109 of 245

6.2 Summary of Scores

Canada Halibut (BC) Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) No. (L3) in Score Principle Score Either Or Either One 1Outcome 0.5 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 90 22.50 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 90 22.50 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0.333 0.1667 Management 0.5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 95 11.88 1.2. Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 1.2. Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 1.2. Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 Two 1Retained 0.2 2.1. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 species 2.1. Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.1. Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 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 85 5.67 ETP species 0.2 2.3. Outcome 0.333 0.0667 100 6.67 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 100 6.67 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 95 6.33 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 0.125 100 12.50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0.25 0.125 85 10.63 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 0.1 100 10.00 3.2.5 Management performance 0.2 0.1 100 10.00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 93.1 Stock rebuilding PI scored Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86.7 Principle 3 - Management 98.1

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 110 of 245

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 14 Summary of Conditions

Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy 1 for rougheye rockfishes will work, based on 2.3.2b Y information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

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

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: CR 27.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

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

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any Indicators. The assessment team has concluded that the Canada Pacific Halibut Fishery should therefore be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

Following this Recommendation of the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers, a determination is hereby made by the MRAG Americas Certification Decision Making Process to certify/not certify the Canada Pacific Halibut Fishery according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 111 of 245

References

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 Best, E.A. and St-Pierre. 1986. IPHC Technical Report No. 21 - Pacific halibut as predator and prey. Boutillier, J. 2016. Characterization and Analysis of Fisheries Related Risks to Significant Species, Habitats and Ecosystem/Community Properties within the Proposed Scott Islands marine National Wildlife Area. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2016/015. viii + 71 p. Casey, K.E., Dewees, C.M., Turris, B.R. and Wilen, J.E. 1995. The Effects of Individual Vessel Quotas in the British Columbia Halibut Fishery, Marine Resource Economics, Volume 10, pp. 211-230 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 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. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the canary rockfish Sebastes pinnigerin Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_canary_rockfish_0808_e.pdf Creamer, J. 2015. Using genetic species identification and environmental data to distinguish historical catches of cryptic Blackspotted Rockfish (Sebastes melanostictus) and Rougheye Rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus) in British Columbia. Master thesis, School of Resource and Environmental Management Faculty of Environment, Simon Fraser University. Curtis, J.M.R., K. Poppe, C.C. Wood. 2013. Indicators, impacts and recovery of temperate deepwater marine ecosystems following fishing disturbance. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/125. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs- DocRech/2012/2012_125-eng.html DFO. 2018. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish. DFO. 2017. Stock assessment of the coastwide population of Shortspine Thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascanus) in 2015 off the British Columbia coast. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS), Research Document 2017/015 DFO. 2017. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Groundfish. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/ifmp-eng.html#Groundfish DFO. 2017b. Management Plan for the Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 36 pp. DFO. 2016. A revised operating model for Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in British Columbia, Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/015 DFO. 2015. Stock assessment for lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) for the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia in 2014. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Pacific Region Science Advisory Report 2015/014. 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 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 DFO. 2014. Stock assessment for silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis) along the Pacific coast of Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Pacific Region Science Advisory Report 2014/028 DFO. 2014. Performance of a revised management procedure for sablefish in British Columbia. DFO, Can. CSAS Science Response 2014/025. 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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 112 of 245

DFO. 2013b. 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. 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. 2012. Stock assessment update for bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) in British Columbia waters for 2012. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/059 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 DFO. 2012b. 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.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. 2010. Assessment of Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in British Columbia in 2010. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/057. 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. 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 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. 2006. Impacts of Trawl Gears and Scallop Dredges on Benthic Habitats, Populations and Communities. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/025. DFO. 2002. West Coast Vancouver Island Pacific Cod Assessment: 2002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2002/113 DFO. 1999. Yellowmouth Rockfish British Columbia Coast. DFO Science Pacific Region Stock Status Report A6-17 (1999) 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. http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=884524B9-1 FAO 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome. Fitzgerald S., Perez M., Rivera K. 2008. Summary of seabird bycatch in Alaskan Groundfish Fisheries, 1993 through 2006. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. 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, S, K.Y. Aydin, and R.C. Francis. 2010. Using Food Web Model Results to Inform Stock Assessment Estimates of Mortality and Production for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67(9):1490-1506. 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 Geernaert, T.O. 2017. Trends in seabird counts from the IPHC fishery-independent setline survey. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2016:267-276. http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html) Gertseva VV. 2009. The population dynamics of the longnose skate, Raja rhina, in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish Res 95(2-3):146-153. Gislason, G.S. 1999. Stronger Rights, Higher Fees, Greater Say: Linkages for the Pacific Halibut Fishery in Canada, Paper presented to Fish Rights 99 Conference, Freemantle, Australia, November.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 113 of 245

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) Hare, S.R. 2010. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2010. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2010:85-176. (https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/rara/iphc-2010- rara20.pdf) Hare, S.R. and W.G. Clark 2008. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2008. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2008:137-202. . (https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/rara/iphc-2008-rara18.pdf) Hicks, A., and Stewart, I. 2017. IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE): Update. IPHC-2017- IM093-10. 32 p. Hillier, C.J., Gueret, D., Butterfield, 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. 2014. The Pacific Halibut: Biology, Fishery, and Management. IPHC Technical Report 59. Available at: http://iphc.int/library/documents/category/technical-reports. IPHC. 2013b. 2012 Standardized stock assessment survey. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2012:503-538. http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html IPHC Staff. 2017. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities: 2016. (http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html). IPHC Secretariat. 2018a. Overview of data sources for the Pacific halibut stock assessment, harvest strategy policy, and related analyses, IPHC-2018-AM094-09. (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094) IPHC Secretariat. 2018b. Assessment of the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2017, IPHC-2018-AM094-10. (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the- iphc-annual-meeting-am094) IPHC Secretariat. 2018c. Fishery statistics (2017), IPHC-2018-AM094-05. (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094) IPHC Secretariat. 2018d. IPHC-2018-AM094-R Report of the 94th Session of the IPHC Annual Meeting (AM094), PHC–2018–AM094–R. (https://www.iphc.int/library/documents/meeting- documents/iphc-2018-am094-r-report-of-the-94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094) IPHC Secretariat. 2018e. Fishery-independent setline survey (FISS) design and implementation in 2017, including current and future expansions, IPHC-2018-AM094-06. (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094) IPHC Secretariat. 2018f. IPHC 5-year Biological and Ecosystem Science Research Program: update, IPHC-2018-AM094-13. (https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual- meeting-am094). IPHC Secretariat. 2018g. Annual Report 2017. https://iphc.int/library/documents/annual-reports/iphc- 2018-ar2017-international-pacific-halibut-commission-annual-report-2017 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.isdm- gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/Publications/result- eng.asp?params=0&series=4&year=2004) Jones, L. 2003. Managing Fish: Ten Case Studies from Canada’s Pacific Coast, The Fraser Institute: Vancouver, Canada 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. Leaman, B. 2007. IPHC Stock Assessment Workshop, 2007. Fishery and Management Overview: Biology, Fishery, and Management. June 27, 2007. 34 pp. http://www.iphc.int/presentations/ws0701bml.pdf. Lucas BG, S. Verrin, and R. Brown (Editors). 2007. Ecosystem Overview Report. Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2667. Magnuson-Ford, K., Ingram, T., Redding, D.W., and Mooers, A.O. 2009. Rockfish (Sebastes) that are evolutionarily isolated are also large, morphologicallydistinctive and vulnerableto overfishing. Biol. Conserv., 142. pp 1787-1796. Martell, S., Leaman, B.M. and Stewart, I.J . 2014. Developments in the Management Strategy Evaluation Process, Fisheries Objectives, and Implications for Harvest Policy and Decision

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 114 of 245

Making. IPHC Bluebook 2014:186-197. Available at: http://www.iphc.int/publications/bluebooks/IPHC_bluebook_2014.pdf Martell, S., I. J. Stewart, and B. M. Leaman. 2013. Optimal harvest rates for Pacific halibut. 2013 IPHC Annual Meeting Handout. pp. 131-153. https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/bb/iphc-2013-bb.pdf 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 McCaughran, D.A and S.H. Hoag. 1992. The 1979 Protocol to the Convention and Related Legislation. IPHC Tech. Rept. 26. 32 pp. (http://www.iphc.int/library/techrep.html) Mccreary, S. and B. Brooks. 2012. Performance Review of the International Pacific Halibut Commission. https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/iphc-2012-performancereview.pdf. McFarlane, G.A., and King, J.R. 2009. Re-evaluating the age determination of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) using oxytetracyclineand fish at liberty up to twenty years. In Biology, Management and Fishery of spiny dogfish. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Methot Jr, R.D., and Wetzel, C.R. 2013. Stock synthesis: A biological and statistical framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fish. Res. 142(0): 86-99. 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. https://wsg.washington.edu/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/publications/Solutions-to-seabird-bycatch-in-Alaska's-demersal-longline- fisheries.pdf MRAG Americas, Inc. 2016. First Annual Surveillance Report - Canada Pacific Halibut Fishery. Marine Stewardship Council. (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/canada-pacific-halibut- british-columbia/@@view Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano, T. S. Zimmerman. 2007. A Conservation Action Plan for Black- footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0. Phillips, J.B. 1964. Life History Studies on ten species of Rockfish. Marine Resources Operations. Pp. 20-23. SCS. 2015. 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 V5.0. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific- halibut/@@assessments. SCS. 2016. US North Pacific Halibut MSC Fishery 2nd Re-assessment Report. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-halibut/@@assessments. Seitz, A.C., Farrugia, T.J., Norcross, B.L., Loher, T., and Nielsen, J.L. 2017. Basin-scale reproductive segregation of Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Fisheries Management and Ecology 24(4): 339-346. 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. 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 Stewart, I.J., Martell, S., Webster, R., Forrest R., Ianelli, J. and Leaman, B.M. 2012. Assessment review team meeting, October 24-26, 2012. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2012:239-266. (http://www.iphc.int/library/raras/308-rara-2012.html) Stewart, I., A. Hicks, R. Webster, D. Wilson. 2017. Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) at the end of 2017. IPHC-2018-AM094-08. Available at: https://www.iphc.int/uploads/pdf/am/2018am/iphc-2018-am094-08.pdf St-Pierre, G. and Trumble, R.J. 2000. IPHC Technical Report No. 43 - Diet of juvenile Pacific halibut, 1957-1961.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. Webster, R. 2017a. Space-time modelling of fishery-independent setline survey data. IPHC-2017- IM093-07.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 115 of 245

Webster, R.A. 2017b. Results of space-time modelling of IPHC fishery-independent setline survey WPUE and NPUW data. IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2016: 241-257.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 116 of 245

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Principle 1

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 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 above point where point where recruitment the point where recruitment recruitment would be would be impaired. would be impaired. impaired. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes The results of the 2018 IPHC stock assessment (Stewart et al.2107) indicate that the Pacific halibut stock declined continuously from the late 1990s to around 2010 (Figure 7, 3.3.5.5 Biomass and Recruitment Trends). That trend is estimated to have been largely a result of decreasing size-at-age, as well as somewhat weaker recruitment strengths than those observed during the 1980s. Since the estimated female spawning biomass (SB) stabilized near 200 million pounds (~90,100 t) in 2010, the stock is estimated to have increased gradually to 2017. The SB at the beginning of 2018 is estimated to be 202 million pounds (~91,600 t), with an approximate 95% confidence interval ranging from 148 to 256 million pounds (~67,100-116,100 t; Figure 8, section 3.3.5.5). Comparison with previous stock assessments indicates that the 2017 results are very consistent (although slightly lower) with estimates from 2012 through 2016, all of which lie inside the 50% interval (Figure 9, section 3.3.5.5). The 2017 SB estimate from the 2017 stock assessment is only 2% below the estimate from the 2016 stock assessment.

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. Based on previous models used for developing the reference points, they are assumed here to be stationary, and that B30% is an appropriate target reference point and that B20% is an appropriate limit reference point (LRP) (Clark and Hare 2006).

Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the Pacific halibut stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, as the 2018 SB is at 40%B0 with a 95% level of credibility. The LRP, the point of recruitment impairment is 20%B0, and there is only a 1% chance of the stock being less that that level.

Therefore the team has determined that all elements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met for this scoring issue. Specifically, the stock is above a point where

Justification Justification recruitment would be impaired.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 117 of 245

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing 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 Guidepost point, over recent years. Met? Yes No

As noted in the justification of SIa, a comparison the median 2018 ensemble SB to reference levels specified by the interim management procedure suggests that the stock is currently at 40% (approximate 95% credible range = 26-60%) of specified unfished levels (relative to the SB specified by the current management procedure). The probability that the stock is below the SB30% level is estimated to be 6%, with less than a 1% chance that the stock is below SB20%. The target biomass reference point is 30% B0, and there only a 6% chance that the stock is below that level. As shown in Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 (section 3.3.5.5), the stock has been at these levels since 2010.

The team has determined that the fishery does meet the scoring elements of SG80 that the stock is fluctuating around it target reference point, but not the SG100, as there is not a high degree of certainty (95% or greater) that the stock has been

Justification Justification fluctuating around the target reference point for more than the last five years.

References Stewart, et al., 2017; Clark and Hare, 2016

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 172 202 million pounds at the end reference biomass million of 2017, or 1.17 of Target point pounds Limit Relative spawning 20% SB, or 115 202 million pounds at the end reference biomass million of 2017 or 1.75 of Limit point pounds OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 118 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

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

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

Guidepost 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 (Clark and Hare, 2006). The reference points can be, 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

Justification Justification can be estimated. b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity impairing reproductive following consideration of

Guidepost Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? Yes Yes

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 in 2018, the estimated unﬁshed female spawning stock biomass is 574 million pounds, the limit reference point (B20%) is 115 million pounds, and the target reference point (B30%) is 175 million pounds (Stewart et al 2017).

The team has determined that the fishery meets the elements 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 Justification precautionary issues.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 119 of 245

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level consistent level consistent with with BMSY or some measure or BMSY or some measure surrogate with similar intent or or surrogate with outcome, or a higher level, and similar intent or takes into account relevant outcome. precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock

Guidepost Guidepost with a high 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 (Clark and Hare 2006, 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. 2018) 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 take into account relevant precautionary issues and to quantify appreciable levels of risk

Justification Justification before a higher score could be justified. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant

Pacific halibut is not a low trophic level (LTL) species Justification Justification

References Clark and Hare 2006, Clark and Hare 2008, Hare 2010, Stewart et al. 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 120 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 (not required)

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 strong expectation of evidence that rebuilding will be success, are in place. complete within the specified

Guidepost Guidepost 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 timeframe A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable is specified for the is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is depleted stock that is depleted stock that is specified which does not the shorter of 30 years the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe is timeframe is up to 5 up to 5 years. years. Guidepost Guidepost Met? NA NA NA

The Pacific halibut stock is not depleted, as of the 2018 IPHC stock assessment (based on data through 2017). Justification c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling or within a specified previous performance timeframe. that they will be able to rebuild the stock within

Guidepost Guidepost a specified timeframe. Met? NA NA

The Pacific halibut stock is not depleted as of the 2018 IPHC stock assessment (Stewart et al, 2017). Justification

References Stewart et al, 2017

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 121 of 245

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

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 122 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the harvest achieve stock management the target and limit strategy work together objectives reflected in the target reference points. towards achieving and limit reference points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit

Guidepost Guidepost reference points. Met? Yes Yes Yes The harvest strategy is well defined in the 2018 IPHC stock assessment, as a Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY), which involves a high level of monitoring (Stewart et al. 2017), a highly competent stock assessment (Stewart et al. 2017,) applying a fixed harvest rate to the estimate of biomass in each statistical area, and management to actions to implement the harvest rage. The IPHC had implemented an 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 is relatively simple, but involves a very complex process of determining the 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 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 2017, Clarke 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 and

Justification limit reference points. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest likely to work based on may not have been strategy has been fully prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks

Guidepost Guidepost at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 123 of 245

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

The harvest strategy appears to be robust and precautionary; 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). In 2017 IPHC conducted a Management Strategy Evaluation (Hicks and Stewart 2017) that has resulted in revisions to the decision table used to present the results of the stock assessment. However, the harvest strategy has still not been fully tested with the coastwide assessment model and apportionment process, and given the recent changes in the understanding of the population dynamics of the halibut stock, while there is experiential evidence that demonstrates that the harvest strategy is clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels in the last five years.

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 working. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes

The 2018 stock assessment, based on data through 2016) 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 2017).

The assessment team has determined that the elements of the GS60 for this issue

Justification Justification have been met. d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes

In 2017 IPHC completed a Management Strategy Evaluation (Hicks and Stewart 2017). The MSE started around 2013 (Martell et al. 2014), indicating that the harvest strategy review has been underway for several years. The results of the 2018 stock assessment indicate that the halibut stock has been maintaining target levels for at least the last five years. This suggests that the harvest strategy is both precautionary and robust in nature.

The assessment team has determined that the fishery does meet the elements of

Justification Justification SG 100 for this issue. 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 Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 124 of 245

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

Not relevant. No sharks are a P1 species. Justification Justification

References Clark and Hare 2006, Hicks and Stewart 2017, Martell et al. 2013, Martell et al. 2014, Stewart et al. 2017 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 125 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce ensure that the the exploitation rate as exploitation rate is limit reference points reduced as limit are approached. reference points are

Guidepost Guidepost 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 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 2013 harvest advice, IPHC moved to the risk-benefit decision table approach (Table 2) for providing harvest advice to implement the control rule. The default exploitation rate of 20% of the biomass has been shown to achieve management objectives. 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 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 Guidepost Met? Yes Yes

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 126 of 245

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

The 2018 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 stock assessment includes uncertainty associated with estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (e.g., short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models included in the ensemble. Although this is an improvement over the use of a single assessment model, there are important sources of uncertainty that are not included. Two uncertainties in the current understanding of the Pacific halibut resource are: the sex ratio of the catch, and the spatial dynamics and movement of halibut among Regulatory Areas. The results of the assessment are presented in a decision table that considered the risk of various alternatives actions. So, while all uncertainties have not been addressed in the assessment model, the assessment and its implementation in the control rule takes into account of a wide range of uncertainties.

The assessment team has reviewed the scoring of this SI in the 2015 US halibut and 2015 BC halibut MSC assessment reports, and notes that the science has improved substantially in the five year period between the 2012 assessment that the 2015 reports were based on, and the 2017 assessment that this assessment report is based on. The IPHC has also 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 2017, Clarke and Hare 2006).

Therefore the assessment team concludes that fishery meets both the SG80 and

Justification Justification 100 level requirements, c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation levels harvest control rules and effective in required under the harvest are appropriate and achieving the control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The 2018 stock assessment model provides evidence that the harvest control rule has worked to control exploitation, as the harvest policy has been decreased over time in response to declining stock biomass, and most importantly has managed to build and stabilize biomass at a level consistent with the target biomass level for at least the last five year.

The assessment team has determined that the elements of SG 60, 80 and 100 levels have been met, as the evidence does clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control

Justification Justification rules. References Clark and Hare 2006, Stewart et al 2017.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 127 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is composition and other fishery removals and other available to support data is available to information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current

Guidepost 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. The IPHC tracks total mortality (catch, discards, recreational, wastage, and bycatch) from information provided by the US and Canada. Each year a set line survey 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 Eastern Bering Sea (EBS). However, each year the IPHC 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. Analyses demonstrate changes in halibut productivity over time, which informs MSE conducted by IPHC.

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 may

Justification Justification 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 a monitored with high frequency one indicator is level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest control understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to rule, and one or more uncertainties in the information support the harvest indicators are available [data] and the robustness of control rule. and monitored with assessment and management sufficient frequency to to this uncertainty. support the harvest

Guidepost Guidepost control rule. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 128 of 245

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

The harvest control rule requires setting TACs based on abundance, and controlling catch to the TACs set for each region. Stock assessments provide good estimates of abundance, and catch reporting assures catch stays within limits. 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, and the robustness of the assessment to this uncertainty.

Therefore the fishery meets the requirements of the SG60 and 80 and 100 levels, but not the SG100, as there is some question as to the completeness of observer

Justification Justification data in US waters. c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost 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. 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 US managed portion of the stock. The US does not collect the comprehensive data on discards and bycatch as is available from Canada, but it provides high quality information. Therefore the assessment team determined that the US and

Justification Justification Canadian information meets all the elements of SG80 for this issue. References Hare, 2010; Stewart et al., 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 129 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

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

Guidepost Guidepost fishery. Met? Yes Yes The annual assessments of Pacific halibut conducted by the 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 2017). 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; it therefore

Justification Justification meets the elements of SG 80 and 100 for this issue. b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes

The 2018 IPHC stock assessment clearly estimates stock status relative to reference points (Stewart et al 2017). Therefore the assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the element of SG 60 for this issue. Justification 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 Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The 2018 stock assessment includes uncertainty associated with estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (e.g., short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models included in the ensemble. Although this is an improvement over the use of a single assessment model, there are important sources of uncertainty that are not included. Two uncertainties in the current understanding of the Pacific halibut resource are: the sex ratio of the catch, and the spatial dynamics and movement of halibut among Regulatory Areas. The results of the assessment are probabilistically presented in a decision table that considers the risk of various alternatives actions.

Therefore the assessment team has determined that the fishery meets the

Justification Justification elements for SG80 and SG100. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 130 of 245

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes

The IPHC has a program of continuously reviewing and upgrading its assessment model for Pacific halibut through testing, simulation and consideration of alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches. The evolution of the current assessment has been described previously in this P1 scoring. This is an ongoing program.

The SCS 2015 assessment of the US portion of this fishery and the SCS 2015 assessment of the BC portion of this fishery did not meet the SG100 level for this SI. The scoring in those assessment reports was based the Stewart and Martel 2013 stock assessment (based on data through 2012), and as noted previously in section 3.3.5.4 of this report, the science supporting the management of the halibut fishery has improved markedly in the last five years. In particular, the historical input data has been reviewed and revised as necessary, a new generalized stock synthesis software was introduced in 2014. These models also include uncertainty in natural mortality, environmental effects and other parameters.

Therefore the assessment team concludes that the elements of SG100 have now

Justification Justification been met in 2018 for this scoring issue. e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes Yes

In 2012, the IPHC commissioned an independent Performance Review of the Commission to build upon its work to-date and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness (McCreary and Brooks 2012). Among other things, the Performance Review recommended a regular peer review of the IPC stock assessment. In response, the IPHC in 2013 set up the Scientific Review Board (SRB; https://iphc.int/library/documents/meeting-documents/scientific-review-board-srb), composed of three independent scientists, to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, and to support and strengthen the stock assessment process. The IPHC staff conducts ongoing review of the stock assessment to bring in new methods, new biological information, and perform diagnostics. The 2018 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

Justification and 100 elements of this issue. References Clark and Hare 2006; Hare 2010; McCreary and Brooks 2012; Stewart et al 2017; https://iphc.int/library/documents/meeting-documents/scientific-review-board-srb OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Principle 2

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 131 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 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 Guidepost below). Met? Yes Yes No

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 132 of 245

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species The five year average species distribution of the catch by percent weight and the MSC designation for the species distribution of the catch in terms of target/retained/bycatch/ETP and main/minor is summarized in Table 4 of section 3.4.6.1, and is also shown below for completeness. For full catch records, see Appendix 8.1.

Table 6. MSC species designation for of the BC halibut fishery based on the five year average (2013-2017) of the catch distribution, noting target, main, minor, and ETP species, and retained and bycatch. Species that are less than 0.05% of the catch are not included; species <1% of the catch are not scored.

Target / retained / Main / bycatch / Period Minor ETP 2013- Year 2017 PACIFIC HALIBUT 79.21 Target Retained SABLEFISH 3.17 Minor Retained SPINY DOGFISH 1.67 Minor Bycatch LONGNOSE SKATE 1.43 Minor Bycatch BIG SKATE 0.38 Minor Bycatch LINGCOD 4.17 Minor Retained CANARY ROCKFISH 0.31 Minor Retained SILVERGRAY ROCKFISH 0.53 Minor Retained YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH 2.39 - ETP Total QB, CO, CH, TG 0.83 Minor Retained ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH 2.40 - ETP SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH 0.84 Minor Retained

Justification SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD 0.56 Minor Retained REDBANDED ROCKFISH 1.76 Minor Retained SANDPAPER SKATE 0.07 Minor Bycatch PACIFIC COD 0.10 Minor Retained BOCACCIO 0.05 Minor Retained *Bycatch is considered as those species with >50% discards.

There are no main retained species in this fishery evaluation, that is, there are no retained species (other than the target species, halibut, that is evaluated in P1) that comprise more than 5% of the catch. There are three minor species including sablefish, lingcod, and redbanded rockfish that comprise more than 1% of the catch, and are evaluated further at the SG100 in this PI. Several other species are minor retained, but contribute insignificantly to the fishery (<1%); the volume of the halibut fishery is relatively small compared with other Canadian fisheries. Therefore the impact on the stocks of the catch of these other retained minor species is considered negligible, and they are not considered in the scoring.

As noted above, sablefish, lingcod, and redbanded rockfish were considered at the SG100 where the scoring issue does not stipulate ‘main’ in the retained PI wording. There are no main retained species based on the composition of the fishery and scoring issues SG60 and SG80 apply only to Main. Therefore, the SG100 is evaluated for these scoring elements by default in accordance with CB3.2.1.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 133 of 245

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

Sablefish are 3.2% are of the total longline halibut catch in the last five years (2013- 2017). Estimates of female spawning stock biomass in 2017 (fSSB2017) were above the limit reference point (LRP) of 0.4BMSY but below the long-term target of BMSY in four of the five OM scenarios(http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2017/2017_017-eng.html), where BMSY is the female spawning biomass at maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Estimated fSSB2017 in the expProd/loSSB scenario was below the LRP (fSSB2017/BMSY = 0.38). Estimates of fSSB2017/BMSY ranged from 0.42 to 0.46 among the other four OM scenarios. DFO Science provided a 2018 prediction of Sablefish biomass (Figure 12) as part of annual advice on Sablefish TAC to the Sablefish Advisory Committee that suggests that the stock is in the “healthy” zone; but this prediction is not based on a stock assessment. Therefore, there is not a high degree of certainty that sablefish is within biologically based limits and fluctuating around its target reference points.

Lingcod are about 4.6% of the fishery in the last five years (2012-2016), and are therefore 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. The most recent stock assessment of the offshore lingcod stock was in 2011, using stock status determinations for 2010. 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. Therefore, Based on the 2010 assessment, considering the median estimate of B2010, all four stocks are above Bmsy; however considering the uncertainty, two of the four areas are only 67percent likely to be above 80percent Bmsy, the healthy zone. The other two areas are 88 and 95 percent likely to be above the 80percent Bmsy; with the assessment now 8 years old, we do not consider the SG100 is met.

The average annual catch of redbanded rockfish in the last five years of the BC halibut fishery is about 150,000 pounds and this species represents about 1.73% of the total fishery. Little is known about the stock status of redbanded rockfish. Therefore, there is a not a high degree of certainty that lingcod and redbanded rockfish are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around its target reference points.

The fishery primarily uses pink salmon, chum salmon, Alaskan pollock and Illex squid from Argentina as bait. Bait use is a small fraction of the halibut catch, so is considered as Minor. Pink and chum salmon and Alaska pollock are MSC certified. Argentine Illex squid received a “Good Alternative” rating by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program and a “Green” rating by the Blue Ocean Institute.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 134 of 245

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

Therefore, the fishery meets the SG60 and 80 levels by default as there are no main retained species, but does not meet SG100 b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Lingcod – Yes Sablefish – Yes Redbanded rockfish – No While there are target reference points for lingcod and sablefish, little is known about redbanded rockfish, so there are no target reference points for this species. One scored minor species does not have reference points, and two scored minor species do. Therefore, the fishery meets the SG100 level requirements for two of three scoring elements in this scoring issue. Justification Justification c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to ensure demonstrably effective that the fishery does management measures not hinder recovery in place such that the and rebuilding of the fishery does not hinder depleted species. recovery and

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

Based on relative proportions in the fishery, there are no main retained species. See the justification for PI 2.1.1 SIa for the relative proportions of the catch by species.

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

Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? NA (no main species)

Based on relative proportions in the fishery, there are no main retained species. Please see the justification for PI 2.1.1 SIa for the relative proportions of the catch by species. Justification

References DFO, 2014; DFO, 2016; King et al. 2011.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 135 of 245

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 136 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2

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

Guidepost Guidepost rebuilding. Met? NA (no main retained NA (no main retained Yes species) species) The strategy in place to manage minor retained species, such as lingcod, sablefish, and redbanded rockfish, is a multi-protection approach limiting total catch, discards, and wastage (see Sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5. For lingcod there are trip limits, TAC, an IVQ provision for overages, seasonal closures and a minimum size limit (65 cm).

For other minor retained species that are not considered in the scoring, the halibut fishery has restrictive catch limits introduced in 2013 for Bocaccio. Limits have decrease overtime for Bocaccio, which would further decrease the impact of the halibut fishery on this species as they recover. Other retained species are managed with output controls including TACs, IVQ and other trip limits.

The SG 60 and 80 are not applicable, due to their being no main retained species, but the SG100 is applicable, and is considered met for all scored minor retained

Justification species. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g., general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved.

Guidepost Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Yes Yes No

As described above, there are measures and a strategy in place to manage retained species. Limits to fishing effort for sablefish, lingcod and redbanded rockfish are maintained by the fishery validated by 100% EM or at-sea monitoring and 100% 3rd party dockside validation. However, there is not adequate stock status information for redbanded rockfish, and sablefish is believed to be below its TRP, and the lingcod assessment was last done in 2011, so clearly there is not testing that supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, in particular sablefish and redbanded rockfish. Therefore, the fishery does not meet the SG100 level

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

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 137 of 245

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? Yes Yes

There is clear evidence that the strategy to protect lingcod, sablefish, and redbanded 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. Size limits in the lingcod catch are also respected. This is verified through the 100% dockside and

Justification 100% at-sea monitoring and auditing meeting the SG100. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? No

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; however, the age of the lingcod assessment (2011) precludes a conclusion that the strategy is meeting its overall objective.

Because sablefish is believed to be below its TRP, and little is known about the stock status of redbanded rockfish, there is no evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall all objective for all retained species. This scoring issue is not

Justification met at the SG100 for lingcod, sablefish, or redbanded rockfish. 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 Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

There are no retained sharks in the halibut fishery. Spiny dogfish, a small shark, is discarded 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 taking place in the halibut fishery. Justification References King et al. 2011.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 138 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3

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

Guidepost Guidepost by the fishery. Met? NA (no main species) NA (no main species) No 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 fairly old stock assessment that evaluates fishing mortality influence on the stock (King et al, 2011). For sablefish, there is a recent stock assessment, but the stock is believed to be below its TRP. For redbanded rockfish, there is no information on stock status available. Therefore, the consequences of catching these species are unknown despite the management strategy is in place. Therefore the fishery does not meet the SG100 for lingcod, sablefish, and redbanded rockfish, as the

Justification consequences of the well documented catch on the status of the stock is unknown. b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess status with respect to status with a high degree of outcome status with biologically based certainty. respect to biologically limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? NA (no main species) NA (no main species) No

Scoring Issue (SI) b is assumed to address main retained species at the SG60 and 80 levels, consistent with SIa. At the SG100 level, 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 only some retained species. As noted previously, there is not stock status information available for redbanded rockfish, and the status of sablefish is believed to be below its TRP, and the lingcod assessment is likely out of date.

Therefore the fishery does not meet the requirement of the SG100 level for all

Justification minor retained species. c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate main retained species. main retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? NA (no main retained NA (no main retained No species) species)

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 139 of 245

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Strategies for lingcod include a TAC, ITQs, 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 age of the assessment and 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 the stock of sablefish. As for redbanded rockfish, little is known about that species

Therefore, the SG60 and 80 are not applicable, and the SG100 scoring

Justification Justification requirements are not met for this scoring issue. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species to be collected to is conducted in sufficient detail detect any increase in to assess ongoing mortalities to risk level (e.g. due to all retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost Guidepost strategy) Met? Yes Yes

The excellent data that are acquired from monitoring the fishery directly with EM and dockside monitoring provide sufficient detail to assess mortalities for all retained species caught in the fishery. In addition, annual surveys for species abundance are also conducted through fishery independent trawl and line surveys. Several life history parameter studies including size, age, maturity, sex and movement are also carried out. This relevant information is incorporated into stock assessments for many retained species which provides enough monitoring to clue managers to when there may be an issue even in the interim between full stock

Justification assessments. This meets the SG100. References DFO 2018; Appendix 8.1

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 140 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1

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

Guidepost Guidepost below). Met? NA (no main bycatch NA (no main bycatch No species) species)

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 141 of 245

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Table 6 in section 3.4.6.2 (and in the scoring of PI2.1.1SIa) provides a summary of the species distribution by weight percent of the catch of the BC longline halibut fishery in the last five years. This table also provides the MSC catch designation for each species based on the Target/Retained/Bycatch/ETP and Main/Minor. Because there are no main bycatch 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 The minor bycatch species are spiny dogfish and longnose skate. Two additional minor bycatch species that represent less than 1% of the halibut catch, big skate and sandpaper skate, are not considered further in this analysis because they represent a very small portion of the overall catch of these species.

Spiny dogfish are a minor bycatch species, as they average 1.67% of the fishery by weight in the last 5 fishing years. Longnose skate are also considered in the assessment, representing 1.43% of the fishery; they are considered as a minor bycatch species. Both species are relevant to scoring only at the SG 100 level for SIa.The catch of spiny dogfish in BC halibut fishery has decreased in the last five years from about 460,000 pounds to 135,000 pounds. 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, but the most recent assessment was in 2011 so is now two years out of date.

In November 2011, COSEWIC recommended that spiny dogfish be listed as a species of “Special Concern.” COSEWIC noted that the species remains relatively abundant in Canadian waters, but low fecundity, long generation time (51 years), uncertainty regarding trends in abundance of mature individuals, reduction in size composition, and demonstrated vulnerability to overfishing are causes for concern. DFO held regional consultations on the recommendation from Nov. 28, 2012 – Jan 14, 2013. DFO has considered the input received and information available and provided advice to the Minister for consideration and decision by the Governor in Council to list or not list Spiny Dogfish under the Species at Risk Act (DFO 2018, Section 8.1).

Bycatch of longnose skate in the last two years have decreased to about 100,000 pounds annually, from 200,000 pounds in the three years prior. Over the last five Justification years longnose skate have represented about 1.43% of the total catch of the BC halibut longline fishery. 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 in Area 4B, but little halibut fishing takes place in this area. 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 introduced Document: Peer ReviewTACs of and MSC new Fis herymanagement Assessments measures v1 for longnose skate in all comm Pageercial 142 of 245 groundfish fisheries (including the directed hook and line fishery for halibut) to ensure harvests stay within scientifically-determined sustainable levels. Since 2015 Longnose skate has been managed as a TAC species, with ITQs in place and directed halibut vessels must adhere to the management and monitoring itdibdbfTACi The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and

Guidepost Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? NA (no main bycatch NA (no main bycatch species) species) There are no main bycatch species. Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or

Guidepost Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y

There will be more recent information on current stock status of outside spiny dogfish once the next stock assessment is complete (was 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 following 5 years at current harvest rates (DFO, 2010). For the last five years, due to the collapse of the market, there has been no directed effort for dogfish. Dogfish 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 overfishing. This includes TACs, ITQs, ITQ caps and trip limits in some areas of the coast 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 few years across all sectors.

Therefore the fishery meets the SG60 level requirements that 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

Justification hindering recovery. References Gallucci, et al. 2011; Gertseva 2009; McFarlane and King. 2009; DFO. 2010; DFO. 2014. COSEWIC 2011. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 143 of 245

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 144 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2

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

Guidepost Guidepost rebuilding. Met? NA (no main bycatch NA (no main bycatch No species) species) Trip limits, more recently the introduction of TACs, ITQs, ITQ caps and trip limits in some areas of the coast, and making skates a ‘testable’ species so that skate catch is monitored more rigorously at a cost to industry 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). Given all the output controls (measures), there is a de facto strategy in place and individual accountability and responsibility, through the management measures and monitoring programs in place, create the incentive to minimize bycatch; but without an up to date stock assessment we do not know if the various measures are relevant or appropriate. Based on the DFO schedule of 5-year re-assessment, the 2014 report that made recommendations for 2010 using data through 2013 is out of date. Therefore, we do not consider that the fishery meets SG100.

Spiny dogfish are protected from shark-finning 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 Justification Justification 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 the TAC was 12,000 mt with 8,160mt allocated to the H&L fleet and 3,842 mt allocated to the trawl feet. 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 12,000 metric tons for both fisheries combined. Given all the output controls (measures), there is a de facto strategy in place and individual accountability and responsibility, through the management measures and monitoring programs in place, create the incentive to minimize bycatch; but without an up to date stock assessment we do not know if the various measures are relevant or appropriate. Based on the DFO schedule of 5-year re-assessment, the 2011 report that made recommendations for 2010 using data through 2008 is long out of date. Therefore, we do not consider that the fishery meets SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 145 of 245

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on some species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar species involved.

Guidepost Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Yes Yes No

The trips limits for longnose skate in the halibut fishery, in combination with restrictions in other groundfish fisheries, have kept the catches below the catch at MSY. The abundance trends from surveys are not conclusive. 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 catches of dogfish and longnose skate in the halibut fishery are a small proportion of the total take in the groundfish fisheries, providing an objective basis that the partial strategy will work to not hinder recover if necessary.

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 spiny dogfish stock and the lack of recent stock assessments for the inshore spiny dogfish stock and the skates as well as the need for a current stock assessment on the outside migratory stock of spiny dogfish, there is not yet a high degree of confidence that

Justification the strategy will work, precluding a score of SG100. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Yes Yes

It is clear that the TAC for spiny dogfish and skate are being adhered to and catches are well below the TAC for spiny dogfish and skate. 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 all scored species. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? No

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 146 of 245

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations For spiny dogfish, status was 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. However, because there is no recent stock assessment, it is impossible to determine the appropriate level of bycatch.

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 constraints, despite full efforts to conduct stock assessment.

In conclusion the lack of recent stock assessment for either spiny dogfish or longnose skate precludes the determination that there is a strategy in place for managing the bycatch of these species, therefore, the fishery does not meet the SG100 level requirements that there is some evidence that the strategy is achieving

Justification Justification its overall objective References Gallucci et al. 2011; DFO, 2014

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 147 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3

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

Guidepost Guidepost by the fishery. Met? NA (no main bycatch NA (no main bycatch No species) species) 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. So, while there is accurate and verifiable information on the catch of bycatch species, there is not adequate information of the stock status of all bycatch species, in particular spiny dogfish and longnose skate, and therefore it is impossible to determine the consequences for the status of the affected populations. Therefore the fishery does not meet the SG100 level requirements for

Justification bycatch. b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome understand outcome status with respect to status with respect to status with respect to biologically based biologically based limits with a biologically based limits. high degree of certainty.

Guidepost Guidepost limits Met? NA (no main bycatch NA (no main bycatch No species) species) Scoring of SIb assumes the SG60 and 80 guideposts are referring to main bycatch species only, as per SIa.

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 and 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).

Therefore, information is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty, so the

Justification Justification SG100 is not met. c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage bycatch species, and evaluate bycatch. main bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y No

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 148 of 245

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch 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 (TAC) and financial disincentives by making skates ‘testable’ species in the logbook audit process at cost to industry.

Therefore the fishery meets the SG60 and 80 level requirements, but not the SG100 level requirement, as Information is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether

Justification the strategy is achieving its objective. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to conducted in sufficient detail to detect any increase in assess ongoing mortalities to risk to main bycatch all bycatch species. species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the

Guidepost Guidepost strategy). Met? Yes Yes

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. The at-sea monitoring program is 100% funded by industry, and has been for several years.

Therefore the fishery meets the SG100 level requirement for this SI, that monitoring of bycatch data are conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all

Justification scored bycatch species. References Martell and Froese. 2012; Gallucci. 2011

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 149 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of national are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of and international within limits of national national and international requirements for and international requirements for protection of protection of ETP requirements for ETP species. species. protection of ETP

Guidepost Guidepost species. Met? Yes – All species Yes Yes

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 150 of 245

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 ETP Finfish 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 designated as 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 for any species listed on SARA. Catch amounts are deducted upon landing from the quota. Rougheye and yelloweye rockfish For rougheye and yelloweye rockfish, the hook and line fishery take is consistently less than the recommended TAC (~75%). Updated stock assessments for both species are underway and would facilitate better understanding of the appropriateness of the TACs. 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. Green sturgeon and longspine thornyhead 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). A green sturgeon management plan was completed in 2017 (DFO 2017b), and demonstrates that the halibut fishery does not interact with this species. Longspine thornyhead 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 54 individuals per year from 2013 to 2017). The SG100 is met for non-quota managed fishes. ETP Sharks 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. Marine mammals 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 shore where halibut fishing takes place (DFO 2014a). There were no recorded interactions with stellar sea lions, though one harbor seal interaction was reported. Whales are prohibited from take as are seabirds 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 2013-2017. 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. Sea Birds 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 Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 151 of 245 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

stification outcome associated risk to pink footed shearwaters from the fishery The fishery is u 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 b Known direct effects Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of are unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts unacceptable impacts significant detrimental direct to ETP species. to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP species. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The direct effects of the fishery on quota and non-quota managed fishes are removals and injury-causing interactions. TACs and catch limits are set on quota species so that it is unlikely that fishing will hinder species recovery by employing the precautionary approach under the sustainable fisheries framework. ETP Fish 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. ETP Sharks 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. Marine Mammals, Sea Birds, and Sea Turtles 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 considered to meet the SG100 where

Justification 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 unacceptable impacts. species. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 152 of 245

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 result from predator-prey impacts (e.g., reduction of food available for ETP species). Pacific halibut do not feed on ETP and do not serve as prey for ETP species. The significant predators of halibut include the longline fisheries for halibut and sablefish, trawl fisheries for flatfish, and dogfish, Steller sea lions, and longnose and big skates. Salmon sharks are significant predators of juvenile halibut. Significant prey of halibut are pollock, capelin, and crabs, with juvenile halibut preying more on shrimp and other benthic invertebrates (Gaichas et al. 2010).

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

Justification irreversible harm, or that hinder recovery. The SG100 is met for this scoring issue. References COSEWIC 2007a&b; DFO 2007; DFO 2007b; DFO 2011c; DFO 2011e; DFO 2014a; DFO 2017b; Gaichas et al. (2010); Geernaert, 2011; Appendix 8.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 153 of 245

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 protection requirements for the national and of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP

Guidepost Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y All SARA schedule 1 species have recovery strategies developed that include short-term and long-term goals for protection and recovery (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Action plans are 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. 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. Another source of information is DFO’s fishery observer database. Catch accounting in the BC fisheries is monitored in great detail and audited by third party independent contractors.

Of the listed species, catch monitoring shows that the fishery encounters on occasion but at low levels Steller sea lions, harbour porpoise, basking shark, bluntnose six gill shark, and tope shark. No mortality limits are set for these species, but the fisheries are required to minimize encounters. Monitoring demonstrates that the fishery rarely encounters these species. These Cetaceans (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/cetacean-cetaces/index- eng.html) and Pinnipeds (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals- mammiferes/pinnipeds-pinnipedes/index-eng.html) are protected by regulations and by SARA. 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 (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=977#ot18). The management plan for Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and Tope Shark is available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1569.

The fishery encounters and retains rougheye rockfish Types I and II, and yelloweye rockfish, both quota management species. For these species, the strategy includes a TAC, IVQ to prevent overages/wastage, and 100% verified catch information through EM and dockside monitoring (DFO 2018).

The strategy easily meets national and international requirements, and the fishery has adopted additional measures beyond national and international requirements; the catch monitoring program and logbooks create the incentive to avoid ETP species, as fishermen know that an increase in encounters with these species has a high probability of triggering a management response by DFO. this meets the

Justification Justification SG100 for this scoring level. Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 154 of 245

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 involved, plausible argument work, based on and a quantitative analysis (e.g., general information directly supports high confidence that experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the strategy will work. comparison with the species involved. similar

Guidepost Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y – Mammals, sharks, Y - Yelloweye birds, turtles, Yelloweye N – Rougheye 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, seabirds, 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 seabirds) (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.

SCS Global (2015), the CAB for the first re-certification, imposed a Condition for Rougheye rockfish Types I and II and Yelloweye rockfish, because there was not an objective basis for confidence that the current strategy (TAC limiting catch), will work based on information directly about the species involved; both species were behind schedule for a stock assessment, therefore not meeting the SG80. Subsequently, DFO has completed a stock assessment for Yelloweye, has completed and submitted a management plan to the Minister for consideration under SARA requirement, and implemented the management plan measures through the Groundfish IFMP (DFO 2018). This exceeds the milestones for the Condition and demonstrates a strategy based on the species and fisheries, with a quantitative analysis supporting high confidence that the strategy will work (see Section 3.4.7.4). Therefore, Yelloweye meets the SG100, which allows for closing out the Condition as applicable to Yelloweye.

For Rougheye rockfish, an objective basis that the strategy will work still does not exist and the fishery does not meet the SG80, so the condition carries over to the first surveillance of the second re-assessment. The fishery is determined as on schedule for meeting the milestones set at the first re-certification. The DFO Science Branch worked on determining an appropriate assessment methodology for Rougheye rockfish and other data poor groundfish species. The rougheye stock assessment is scheduled to go through the DFO CSAS peer-review process in Fall 2018 (DFO pers. comm.). This schedule provides time for the management system to implement management measures utilizing the stock assessment results for

Justification rougheye rockfish. The fishery is on schedule for the Condition milestones.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 155 of 245

SARA recovery strategies http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm aim to: 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

In general, the strategies achieve these guidelines. Measures to monitor interactions are required, 100% discard requirements are in place for many species, and measures to minimize impacts are in place. The high level of monitoring provides evidence on these measures and interactions. Thus, there is evidence of successful implementation. We note the delays from listing of rougheye and yelloweye rockfish in conducting stock assessments and putting management measures in place based on the assessments. We further note that the COSEWIC and SARA websites do not demonstrate reviews of progress made to determine if implementation is successful or needs further adjustments for the ETP species. Therefore, there is not clear evidence of successful implementation, and the SG100

Justification Justification is not met. d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

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 may take several decades before then we may see that the strategies are achieving their objectives. Therefore, the SG100 is not met. Justification Justification http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species- especes/mammals-mammiferes/cetacean-cetaces/index-eng.html; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/pinnipeds-pinnipedes/index- References eng.html; http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1569; COSEWIC 2005; Lockyer and Martin 1983; Whitehead 2002; Magnuson-Ford et al, 2009; BirdLife International, 2012; DFO 2013f; SCS Global (2015); DFO 2018; DFO 2007b; DFO 2010a; DFO 2011e; DFO 2012f; DFO 2013f; DFO 2014a. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 156 of 245

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 157 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3

Guidepost Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Sufficient information is known from the high level monitoring (Section 3.4.1) to estimate fishery related mortalities for both quota and non-quota ETP fishes (Appendix 8.1). 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 (Appendix 8.1). 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 (Appendix 8.1). 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

Justification Justification needed to estimate outcome status for some species to reach the SG100. b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Y Y Y

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 EM, at-sea observers, and dockside monitoring (DFO 2018), meeting the SG100. Justification c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP to manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving

Guidepost Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 158 of 245

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. Information on interactions, injuries, and mortalities from the high level of monitoring in the fishery provides evidence to measure catch trends of ETP species in the BC halibut fishery. Fishery independent surveys over time provide an indication of stock outcome or status trends for some species, with caveats for uncertainties in catchability, depth range of the surveys and similar data limitations. Information on impacts of gear and relative benefits of various measures (e.g., TACs, gear restrictions, closed areas, no retention and careful release, etc.) from research by DFO and many institutions and agencies around the world provides a basis to assess and manage the impacts to ETP species. The fishery meets the SG80.

Because many ETP species are long-lived, have low fecundity and are difficult to monitor, it may take decades to amass sufficient information to determine with a high degree of confidence if the strategy is achieving its objectives. It does not appear from information presented that calculations of potential biological removals, or a comparable metric, are calculated for ETP species. It is not clear if the management system concluded that such a metric is not necessary, or if information is not available to make the evaluation. Sufficient uncertainty exists that

Justification the fishery does not meet the SG100. References DFO 2018; Fitzgerald et al., 2008; Smith and Morgan, 2005

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 159 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1

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

Guidepost Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N Habitat types considered as scoring elements for the habitat indicators of the halibut fishery consist of corals/sponges, seamounts, and continental slope features. 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. DFO has reviewed literature and provided advice on the susceptibility of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents to fishing impacts as well as their potential for recovery once impacted (Curtis et al., 2013). A marine refuge within the boundaries of the new large Offshore Pacific Area of Interest protects underwater seamounts and several hydrothermal vents (Figure 20) by prohibiting all bottom- contact commercial and recreational fishing activities within the refuge. Although limited halibut fishing had occurred in this area, and most of it has occurred during combination sablefish-halibut trips, the hook and line fishery for halibut will be foregoing future opportunity by the closure of this area. The highly susceptible habitat areas are closed to fishing (Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 19, Figure 20). Thus, evidence exists that the footprint of the fishery is small relative to the continental slope area, the gear is relatively low impact to habitats, and sensitive areas area closed. This is sufficient to conclude that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point of serious or irreversible harm for all three elements, meeting the SG80. However, the assessment team did not have

Justification direct evidence, so the fishery did not meet the SG100. References Curtis et al., 2013; DFO 2013d. Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 19, Figure 20.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 160 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2

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

Guidepost Guidepost or above. Met? Y Y Y Management measures (e.g., catch limits, temporal and/or spatial closures in place and forthcoming, groundfish integration) and monitoring programs currently in place in the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut, the significantly reduced amount of gear being deployed in the fishery, the extensive habitat protection program in the bottom trawl fishery and the otherwise low impact of bottom longline gear on habitats demonstrate the strategy in place. The measures 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. The Policy laid out a 5 step process (Figure 13) to follow in implementing the Policy.

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). A Canada-British Columbia Marine Protected Area Network Strategy (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpabc-cbzpm/page04-eng.html) has been developed jointly by federal and provincial agencies. This Strategy reflects the need for governments to work together to achieve common marine protection and conservation goals. 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. More areas or vulnerable habitats are brought under management as the science warrants. This strategy meets the SG100, as it is comprehensive, wide ranging, and designed to meet habitat

Justification Justification objectives. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on confidence that the work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or (e.g. general work, based on habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery and/or similar habitats involved.

Guidepost Guidepost fisheries/habitats). Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 161 of 245

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types 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 the long-term use of several resources. Several surveys and ROV surveys have been completed to test the impacts of fishing gear (DFO 2013g) and to understand changes over time. Regarding management measures, the fishery meets the

Justification SG100. c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

DFO follows the Habitat Policy requirements through collecting information, conducting risk assessments (e.g., Boutillier 2016; http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/risk-ecolo-risque-eng.htm), determining management measures (DFO 2018), and monitoring and evaluating effectiveness (DFO 2018).

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.

The well-constructed strategy plus documented implementation of requirements by

Justification Justification the fishery meet the SG100. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

The purpose of this policy is to help DFO manage fisheries to mitigate impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas or avoid impacts of fishing that are likely to cause serious or irreversible harm to sensitive marine habitat, communities and species. The use of information obtained on sensitive habitats, use of risk assessments to determine the most vulnerable habitats, implementation of MPAs and other habitat protections has provided substantial protection to habitats identified as vulnerable. For example, the discovery of sensitive and rare glass sponges (Jamieson and Chew, 2002) led to several MPAs designed to protect them. Preventing damage from fishing gear is having a positive effect on these and other habitats by maintaining them intact or allowing for recovery. This provides evidence that the

Justification Justification strategy achieves it objective. DFO 2013g; Jamieson and Davies, 2004; Kaiser et al, 2006; DFO 2018; Jamieson and Chew, 2002; Boutillier 2016 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff- References cpd/benthi-eng.htm#n2.1; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mpabc- cbzpm/page04-eng.html; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff- cpd/risk-ecolo-risque-eng.htm; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 162 of 245

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 163 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types understanding of the and vulnerability of all is known over their range, with types and distribution main habitat types in particular attention to the of main habitats in the the fishery are known occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. at a level of detail habitat types. relevant to the scale and intensity of the

Guidepost Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y Y For the Canada Pacific hook and line fishery for halibut, the location and distribution of fishing operations is well documented. The vast majority of the commercial hook and line halibut catch (more than 93%) is taken in the central and north coast area. Jamieson and Davis (2004) identify what is known about the principle marine habitats, biota, general trophic structure and fisheries in the area studied. The habitat is classified into Hard, Muddy, and Sandy bottom, each with subdivisions of Depression, Flat, Ridge, and Slope (Figure 14). 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.

DFO has developed criteria for identifying ecologically and biologically significant areas, which serves as a tool for calling attention to an area that has particularly high Ecological or Biological Significance to facilitate provision of a greater-than- usual degree of risk aversion in management of activities in such areas (DFO 2004, DFO 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).

Therefore, the distribution of habitats is well known, including vulnerable habitats,

Justification such that the fishery meets the SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 164 of 245

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts of been quantified fully. of the main impacts of the fishery on habitat gear use on the main types to be identified habitats, including and there is reliable spatial overlap of information on the habitat with fishing spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of

Guidepost Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N

Fishing sets from the hook and line fishery for halibut during 2012-2016 in 10km by 10km grids were layered over the habitat distribution (Figure 15) to provide some context as to where the fishery takes place.

Therefore, sufficient data exist to identify the habitats, the impacts of the fishery on the habitats, and the distribution of the fishery relative to the habitat. This meets the SG80. Quantification of impacts has not occurred, so the fishery does not meet the

Justification SG100. c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to over time are measured. detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost Guidepost measures). Met? Y N

The monitoring program collects fishing locations by vessel and gear, such that the management system can track changes in distribution in fishing effort relative to the distribution of habitat. This monitoring also allows detection of vessels intruding into MPA or other closed areas. This allows an opportunity to detect an increase in risk to habitat. This meets the SG80. However, surveys of habitats to detect changes in distribution over time do not occur, so the fishery does not meet the SG100. Justification Justification

References Jamieson and Davis (2004); DFO 2004; DFO 2011; DFO, 2013b; Curtis et al., 2013; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 165 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1

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

Guidepost Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N The key elements of the ecosystem are predators and prey. A number of models have been developed to better understand the structure and functioning of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and California Current ecosystems, which both extend into Canadian waters. The GOA likely has more relevance for Pacific halibut, as the fishery occurs primarily in the northern and central British Columbia waters (e.g., Gaichas and Francis 2008; Gaichas et al. 2011; Aydin et al. 2007). The effects of fishing on the GOA ecosystem have been explored in several studies. For example, Gachias et al. (2012) explored the interacting effects of the form of functional response of predators to changes in prey density and simulated fishing. They found that the model ecosystems were robust to a wide range of functional responses, but there was an abrupt threshold effect between moderate and heavy exploitation rates, beyond which a much lower proportion of model ecosystems persisted. Beyond this fishing threshold, extinction was more likely, and system attributes differed greatly from moderately fished model ecosystems. Another important finding was that the precipitous drop in success rate of ecosystems happened whether heavy fishing was applied to all groups in the system or was targeted on a single group with sensitive life history parameters. The high level of control of fishing effort and the limitation of fishing mortality to near MSY levels by both the US and Canada in the Gulf of Alaska and California current suggests that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function, meeting SG80 for both elements. As the models do not apply directly to Canada, there is no evidence for Canadian waters that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function, so

Justification the SG100 is not met. References Gaichas and Francis 2008; Gaichas et al. 2011; Aydin et al. 2007; Gachias et al. 2012. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 166 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place. necessary. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y Canada manages its ocean resources through the Oceans Action Plan (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/index-eng.html). Within the Ocean Action Plan, Canada considers ecosystem-based management as an integrated or holistic approach to making decisions about ocean-based development and conservation activities. The DFO 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. 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 include 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 and line fishery for halibut).

Initiation of a Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) and planning for resource use began in 2008. A draft plan was released in 2013 and was finalized in 2018. 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.

Thus, the Oceans Action Plan and PNCIMA serve as a strategy. IPHC data from 2010 and 2011 show that approximately 93% of the halibut catch occurs in PNCIMA, sufficient to consider the strategy applies to the fishery. Therefore, a

Justification strategy is in place meeting 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 the and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The ecosystem so as to plan and measures are based achieve the Ecosystem on well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or

Guidepost Guidepost irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 167 of 245

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function The SFF and IFMP describe and implement measures to restrain fishing impacts so as to achieve the SG80 level of performance. These measures include restraining overall fishing mortality (including fishing mortality on halibut) through scientifically derived TAC and trip limits, bycatch control, ETP protection, and habitat protection. Together, the SFF and IFMP demonstrate that the fishery has achieved the SG80 level. Lucas et al. (2007) describe gaps in information that limit the understanding of ecosystem processes; therefore, uncertainty remains on well-understood functional

Justification relationships between the fishery and the Components, thus not meeting SG100. 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 plausible argument plausible argument argument or information (e.g., general (e.g., general directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved. comparison with similar comparison with similar

Guidepost Guidepost fisheries/ ecosystems). fisheries/ ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y

The Pacific halibut fishing effort is highly controlled, which enhances the workability of the partial strategy. 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

Justification Justification meets the SG100. d There is some There is evidence that the evidence that the measures are being measures comprising implemented successfully. the partial strategy are being implemented

Guidepost Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y Y

The measures applied to the halibut fishery focus on monitoring and control of the fishery. 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. This provides evidence of successful implementation, meeting the SG100. Justification Justification http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/index-eng.html; References http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm; http://www.pncima.org/; DFO, 2010b; DFO 2018; Lucas et al. 2007. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 168 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3

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

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

Guidepost Guidepost and biodiversity). Met? Y Y Scientists and managers actively conduct ecosystem research through annual fishery independent surveys, genetics and tagging studies, and ecosystem modelling. 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; Gaichas et al. 2011; Aydin et al. 2007; Gachias et al. 2012.). While most of these references describe the California Current or Gulf of Alaska ecosystems, Lucas et al. (2007) summarize the available ecosystem information for the primary area of Pacific halibut harvest, and draw simplistic conclusions on structure and function of the PNICMA ecosystem of British Columbia. Together, information is sufficient to broadly understand key elements of the ecosystem. Information is improving all the time with greater resolution on habitat types and their functions

Justification Justification through side scan sonar and ROV studies. This meets the SG80. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated. and have not been and some have been

Guidepost 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. The ecosystem models suggest that maintaining overall fishing mortality below threshold levels will allow the structure and function of the ecosystem to continue (Gaichas and Francis 2008; Gaichas et al. 2011; Aydin et al. 2007; Gachias et al. 2012.) DFO (2010b) summarized information for assessing impacts of fishing gear, including demersal longlines used for Pacific halibut, that evaluated whether a type of impact been documented to occur when a gear is used without special mitigation being applied; what factors have been reported to affect the extent and seriousness of the impact; what types of mitigation measures have been applied to deal with the identified impacts; and what factors influence the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. Information on fishing location and duration are available were recently compiled into maps that also show bottom types (Figure 15). The SG80 is considered met as some interactions have been examined. This work is ongoing

Justification Justification but not all impacts have been examined in detail, not meeting the SG100. 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 Guidepost known. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 169 of 245

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 and habitat. The main functions of these species and habitat within the ecosystem are understood, primarily through ecosystem models that deal with predator-prey (for species) and through habitat information gathered as part of the Ecosystem Policy. Information and understanding of the ecosystem component functions meet the SG100. Justification d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main to allow some of the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be

Guidepost Guidepost inferred. Met? Y N

Information on the impacts of the fishery can be inferred for the components impacted by the fishery through the high level of monitoring that occurs in halibut (and other) fisheries. The level of information varies among components, so the inference of consequences on species with regular stock assessments (e.g., most retained and some bycatch and ETP finfish species) is substantially better than for species without assessments. This meets the SG80 level. Due to the difficulty in estimating the outcome status of some populations (e.g., ETP sharks, marine

Justification mammals), not all consequences can be inferred, and the SG100 is not met. e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to support the development of detect any increase in strategies to manage risk level (e.g., due to ecosystem impacts. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost Guidepost measures). Met? Y Y

The main data for detecting increase in risk level from the fishery comes from the high level of monitoring the halibut and other fisheries. The monitoring would detect changes in species composition of any species caught by the fishery and would detect changes in the distribution of fishing effort on habitats. Increases in catch of a species or in fishing on a habitat could signal a potential risk. Ongoing research on predator-prey relationships, identification of vulnerable habitats, and conduct of stock assessments provide further periodic information to detect changes in risk. This meets the SG80.

The Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) is one of five priority areas identified for integrated ocean management planning by the Government of Canada and encompasses approximately 102,000 km2. The area extends from the British Columbia-Alaska border 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 and along the edge of the continental shelf. On February 15, 2017, government of Canada and other participants jointly announced endorsement of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) Plan (the Plan). The Plan used information on components of the ecosystem, and considered a wide array of marine resource users. This demonstrates information sufficient to develop ecosystem impact strategies, meeting the SG100. Justification

References http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/oap-pao/index-eng.html; ; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/pncima-zgicnp-eng.html;

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 170 of 245

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

Lucas et al, 2007; Gaichas and Francis, 2008; Gaichas et al. 2011; Aydin et al. 2007; Gachias et al. 2012; DFO 2010b; DFO 2013c OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 171 of 245

Principle 3

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1

Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 172 of 245

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, a Regional Fishery Management Organization providing overarching management for the halibut resource, was established in 1924 by the Convention for the Preservation of Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean (Pacific Halibut Treaty) between the US and Canada http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/result- resultat.aspx?type=1. The Pacific Halibut Treaty requires cooperation between the US and Canada, and limits IPHC responsibility to conservation matters; the IPHC conducts stock assessment, sets fishing regulations such as gear type, size limits, management area boundaries, international allocation, quotas by management area, and season opening and closing dates. The Treaty gives national allocation of the resource to each country. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council have management responsibility in the US, and DFO has responsibility in Canada. IPHC, NMFS/NPFMC, and DFO 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 (www.IPHC.int). 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) 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 2018). 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, 2018). 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, 2018).

Together, the IPHC and DFO have effectively managed the halibut fishery and the

Justification ecosystem in which it operates, meeting the SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 173 of 245

Guidepost Guidepost context of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

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. 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. 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. Negotiations generally occur in private, but decisions and rationales are provided in public. This is evidence that the current dispute resolution framework incorporates an appropriate transparent mechanism for dispute resolution and is effective in dealing with most issues and that it is appropriate to the context of the fishery.

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.

Justification at a high level (e.g., SCS 2016).

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 174 of 245

Guidepost Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 175 of 245

Aboriginal participation in the commercial fishery, either communally or individually, is described in section 7.3 of the 2018 Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (DFO 2018). 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.

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 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/aboriginal-autochtones/afs-srapa-eng.htm. These included: ꞏ To provide a framework for the management of fishing by Aboriginal groups for food, social and ceremonial purposes. ꞏ To provide Aboriginal groups with an opportunity to participate in the management of fisheries, thereby improving conservation, management and enhancement of the resource. ꞏ To contribute to the economic self-sufficiency of Aboriginal communities. ꞏ To provide a foundation for the development of self-government agreements and treaties. ꞏ To improve the fisheries management skills and capacity of Aboriginal groups.

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. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may also issue a communal fishing licence to a group to fish for FSC purposes.

The management system formally commits to aboriginal fishing rights, and actively

Justification Justification implements those rights, meeting the SG100. http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/result-resultat.aspx?type=1; http://www.iphc.int; References http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/aboriginal-autochtones/afs-srapa-eng.htm; DFO 2018; SCS 2016. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 176 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2

Guidepost Guidepost and interaction. Met? Y Y Y 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 the Management Strategy Advisory Board, and the Scientific Review Board (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.

Stakeholders participate in the DFO process through a number of advisory bodies, including the Halibut Advisory Board, the HAB Strategic Working Group, a subcommittee of HAB that focuses on international issues at a more technical level, the Commercial Industry Caucus, the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board, and the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. DFO also engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations. As noted in the DFO Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish (DFO 2018), 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

Justification Justification understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. This meets the SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 177 of 245

Guidepost Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 178 of 245

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 seeks advice annually from the Conference Board, Processors Advisory Group, Research Advisory Board, Management Strategy Advisory Board, and Scientific Review Board (https://iphc.int/the-commission/structure-of-the- commission). Stakeholders provide proposals for regulations to the IPHC in advance of the Annual Meeting https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the- iphc-annual-meeting-am094. The Conference Board and the Processors Advisory Group, which convene during the Annual Meeting, review stakeholder proposals in addition to topics of interest to themselves and provide a summary of decisions on proposals and other matters to the Commission. The Commission makes decisions in public session; recordings of the deliberations (available at https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094) provide rationales for decisions. The IPHC management includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.

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.

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 2018). Several groups are regularly consulted with by DFO including the HAB, SFAB, CIC, and GIAB which include constituents who provide local and traditional knowledge http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html.

The meeting minutes from HAB, CIC and GIAB provide 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 and Appendix 6). 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 advice annually and in-season from the Sport Fishing Advisory Board https://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/index-eng.html. 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.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 179 of 245 The US also has a highly effective consultation process (SCS 2016).

Justification The IPHC, DFO, and NMFS jointly meet the requirements for SG100. 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 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 Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Y Y

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 Processor Advisory Board, for example, is substantial. 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 both the 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 US has a similarly effective opportunity and encouragement for participation (SCS 2016).

The consultation process in the Canadian halibut fishery provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates

Justification Justification their effective engagement, meeting the SG100. http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors; http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html; https://iphc.int/the- References commission/structure-of-the-commission); https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th- session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094; http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.htm; https://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/index-eng.html; SCS 2016; DFO 2018 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 180 of 245

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives 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 Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 181 of 245

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach The IPHC is mandated by Article III of the Convention to ‘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’. The IPHC achieves this objective with its precautionary harvest policy (described under PIs 1.1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.2 in this Evaluation Table, above). Specific objectives of the IPHC include: 1) accommodation of the underlying biology of the fish, 2) accounting for all removals, 3) implementation of evolving assessment methodologies, 4) development and evaluation of harvest policy, and 5) the fostering of a consultative management process (Leaman 2007).

The IPHC is undertaking a major management strategy evaluation process, through its recently established Management Strategy Evaluation Board (MSAB). The role of the MSAB is to define clear, measurable fishery management objectives and to provide technical input on the development of an operating halibut fishery management model that will permit evaluation of various strategies to achieve the management objectives (Martell et al. 2014). This process is expected to yield additional long term objectives to guide decision making in the coming years.

The DFO webpage outlines the mandate and role for the Department, and identifies four core responsibilities (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre-sujet/org/mandate- mandat-eng.htm):

 Fisheries. We ensure Canada’s fisheries, including aquaculture, are protected, managed sustainably and support Indigenous participation, and that our national network of harbours is open and in good repair.  Aquatic ecosystems. We protect our oceans, freshwater and aquatic ecosystems and species from the negative impact of humans and invasive species through sound science and in collaboration with Indigenous communities.  Marine navigation. We maintain waterways year round so they are safely navigable by mariners and all Canadians.  Marine operations and response. We respond to maritime incidents, such as search-and-rescue and environmental emergencies, through our Coast Guard fleet and in collaboration with Indigenous communities.

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 (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm). 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 (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm). 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 (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff- cpd/overview-cadre-eng.ht).

The US has similar high functioning objectives (SCS2016).

Justification As such, IPHC, DFO, and NMFS meet the SG100. Leaman 2007; Martell et al. 2014; SCS 2016; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about- References notre-sujet/org/mandate-mandat-eng.htm; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports- rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports- rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 182 of 245

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 183 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management 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 outcomes Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed expressed by MSC explicitly considers incentives in by MSC Principles 1 Principles 1 and 2, and a regular review of and 2. seeks to ensure that management policy or perverse incentives do procedures to ensure they do not arise. not contribute to unsustainable

Guidepost Guidepost fishing practices. Met? Y Y Partial

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 184 of 245

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing The Canadian and US fisheries have attributes, policies or principles that incentivise fishermen to fish sustainably and engender a sense of stewardship of the resources, and meet the criteria provided in Guidance to FCR v1.3 GCB4.5.

The system provides for reducing information gaps and uncertainties for fishermen: The IPHC, DFO, and NMFS go to great lengths to reduce both scientific and management uncertainties concerning the fishery. The scientific research, management planning, and consultation with fishermen and other stakeholders keep all participants well informed.

The system provides for strategic or statutory management planning to give certainty about the rules and goals of management: The management strategy evaluation https://www.iphc.int/management/science-and-research/management- strategy-evaluation and related Harvest Strategy Policy provide certainty about the intent of management. All three jurisdictions go to great lengths to involve fishermen and other stakeholders in management planning through documentation, public and private meetings, and consultations leading to well defined regulations that apply to the halibut and other fisheries.

The system provides for mechanisms and opportunities to gain support for the management system from fishermen, and/or fishery management system measures that encourage collective action while allowing individual choice such that individual decisions are steered towards public good: The halibut fishery has had a unique relationship with fishermen since its inception, as fishermen led to the formation of the IPHC (then International Fishery Commission). From the beginning, the halibut industry has been integral to planning and decision- making for the fishery. Intensive positive involvement of halibut fishermen has continued, leading to strong support of the system. Canada and the US substantially contribute to the support from fishermen by implementing monitoring, control, and surveillance systems that provide certainty of a level playing field.

The system provides for the clarification of roles, rights and responsibilities of the various stakeholders; engenders a sense of ownership (possibly, but not necessarily, through rights-based measures): The roles of stakeholders are clearly laid out by IPHC (through a number of advisory bodies, including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board the Management Strategy Advisory Board, and the Scientific Review Board (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors)), DFO (including the Halibut Advisory Board, the HAB Strategic Working Group, a subcommittee of HAB that focuses on international issues at a more technical level, the Commercial Industry Caucus, the Groundfish Integrated Advisory Board, and the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. DFO also engages in a variety of consultation, engagement and collaborative harvest planning processes with First Nations (http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html)), and NMFS (SCS 2015). Both countries have individual quota systems in place for 20+ years, which engenders a sense of ownership; although the US West Coast fishery does not have an ITQ. The high levels of consultation in both countries also offer a sense of ownership for fishermen and other stakeholders.

The system provides for a participatory approach to management, research and other relevant processes: As stressed throughout the responses to this Performance Indicator, the high level of consultation provides for a participatory approach for fishermen and other stakeholders. The IVQ/ITQ and effective monitoring programs in both countries provide positive incentives for conservation. In Canada, shifting species from non-quota to quota designations or moving species out of complexes (e.g., redbanded rockfish, longnose and big skate, quillback rockfish) provides positive incentives.

Both countries provide tax free fuel to fishermen, which could be considered a perverse incentive; however, the individual quota systems, the high levels of monitoring, and strict quotas do not allow tax free fuel to incentivize unsustainable Document: Peer Reviewfishing of practices.MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 185 of 245

Both countries clearly meet the requirements of SG80 for incentives consistent with Principles 1 and 2 and for minimizing perverse incentives. While it is clear that ation

c individual quota systems explicitly address the race for fish and the positive The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing https://www.iphc.int/the-commission/harvest-strategy-policy; References https://www.iphc.int/the-commission/harvest-strategy-policy; http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors; http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html; SCS 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 186 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the by MSC’s Principles 1 expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit Principles 1 and 2, are Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s explicit within the within the fishery’s management system fishery’s management management system.

Guidepost Guidepost system. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 187 of 245

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Both the IPHC and DFO have explicit short and long-term objectives for the fishery. IPHC objectives are primarily consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 1, with DFO having additional groundfish objectives that are consistent with achieving outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2. 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 IPHC 5-year Biological and Ecosystem Science Research Program: update (IPHC Secretariat 2018f) lists an overarching objective of the Five- Year Research Plan to promote integration and synergies among the various research activities led by IPHC in order to significantly improve our knowledge of key biological inputs that are introduced into the stock assessment, and provides the main objectives of the IPHC program to:

1) identify and assess critical knowledge gaps in the biology of the Pacific halibut; 2) understand the influence of environmental conditions; and 3) apply the resulting knowledge to reduce uncertainty in current stock assessment models.

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 2018, the IPHC has identified three research objectives https://iphc.int/management/science-and-research: i) improving the annual stock assessment and quota recommendations; ii) developing information on current management issues; and iii) contributing to improve the knowledge of the biology and life history of halibut. The IPHC further develops goals and objectives for various components of its research. For example, the MSAB defined five goals (IPHC-2018-MSAB011-07): 1) biological sustainability, 2) fishery sustainability, access, and stability, 3) minimize discard mortality, 4) minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, and 5) serve consumer needs. The first four goals have one or more objectives associated with them, as well as corresponding performance metrics against which to evaluate each objective.

The IFMP-Groundfish (DFO 2018) lays out long and short term objectives: Long term Objectives 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. By 2017, have an agreed upon process to aid in the development of allocation arrangements between user groups for groundfish species in the future. 4. By 2017, develop the infrastructure to collect and analyze data to determine economic viability and social impacts of the various groundfish fisheries. 5. Short Term Objectives Short term objectives are reviewed annually to gauge progress and identify emerging priorities. This review occurs with input from GIAB and the public; those that are completed are removed from the list and those with work underway are updated or maintained on the list below. 1. Work with GIAB sectors to identify their priority groundfish science and fisheries management projects, including those proposed for funding through alternative mechanisms (e.g., joint project agreements consistent with the use-of-fish policy, user fee amendments, etc.). 2. Evaluate approaches used in other jurisdictions for selecting assessment tools for data limited species. Use computer simulation to assess the applicability and performance of these approaches in the BC groundfish fishery. 3. Develop an inventory of current FSC groundfish catch monitoring programs and a pilot catch monitoring risk assessment for an FSC groundfish fishery. Document: Peer Review4. Initiate of MSC development Fishery Assessments of tools for v1 the recreational fishery to improve reporting Page 188 ooff 245all catch (retained and released). 5. Initiate development of tools for First Nations fisheries to improve reporting of all catch (retained and released). 6. Use the GIAB to develop the appropriate consultative approach that would t hi i l t bj ti b 3 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

References IPHC Secretariat 2018f; Hicks 2017; DFO 2018; https://iphc.int/management/science-and-research; IPHC-2018-MSAB011-07 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2

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

Guidepost objectives. objectives. Met? Y Y Both the IPHC and DFO have 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 http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors. IPHC also recently formed the Scientific Review Board to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs. Catch recommendations presented as a table with associated risk allow managerial staff to make an informed decision on TACs for the following year. 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 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm 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.

Therefore, the US and Canada have effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives of the Canadian halibut

Justification fishery, thus meeting the SG80.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 189 of 245

Guidepost Guidepost decisions. Met? Y Y Y

All IPHC issues identified by staff, industry, and stakeholders are addressed at the Annual Meeting held each January. The invitation to submit proposals https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094 draws participation from stakeholders and external experts and brings in a wide array of issues. Over the years, the IPHC has extended invitations to non-industry stakeholders to attend as observers of the process. The Conference Board and Processor Advisory Board debate and recommend action on each proposal, which the Commissioners take into account in making decisions.

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. A review of prior IPHC Annual Reports at the IPHC website https://www.iphc.int/library/documents/category/annual-reports demonstrates the wide range of issues that are raised and addressed by the Conference Board, Processor Advisory Board, Research Advisory Board, Management Strategy Advisory Board, and Science Review Board. Consistent with their duties, the respective advisory board or group considers issues and relevant implications before providing responses or advise to the Commissioners and the IPHC.

This shows a transparent, timely and adaptive approach to all identified issues,

Justification meeting the SG100. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 190 of 245

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. The high level of scientific review and analysis demonstrated by the IPHC and DFO and explicit use of the information demonstrate the use of best available information. This evident in the work of the IPHC staff https://www.iphc.int/management/science-and-research and advisors http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors. The IPHC applies the precautionary approach in its decision making (e.g. Directors Report in 2017 Annual Report https://www.iphc.int/library/documents/annual-reports/iphc-2018-ar2017- international-pacific-halibut-commission-annual-report-2017; paragraph 31 of Report of the 12th Session of the IPHC Scientific Review Board (SRB012) https://iphc.int/venues/details/12th-session-of-the-iphc-scientific-review-board- srb012). DFO applies the requirements of the precautionary approach (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre- eng.htmhttp://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre- eng.ht). For example, All stock assessments (which include non- directed groundfish species in the Canada Pacific halibut fishery) are written in a manner consistent with the Department’s Precautionary Approach. See section 3.4.5 for more details on the Precautionary Approach in Canada. Together, this evidence

Justification Justification leads to the fishery meeting the SG80. 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, information on fishery available on request to and explanations are performance and management stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of action management system associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review

Guidepost Guidepost activity. Met? Y Y Y

The IPHC reports the proceedings of meetings for the Conference Board, PAG, RAB, MSAB and SRB on its website https://www.iphc.int/library/documents. 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 http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/index-eng.html. 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. 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

Justification Justification activity is provided, meeting the SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 191 of 245

Guidepost Guidepost for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

Legal disputes occur rarely in the Canadian Pacific halibut fishery, i.e., Malcolm v. Canada (See Section 3.5.1). The Minister prevailed, requiring no implementation of judicial decision. However, the management system has extensive consultative processes https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/index- eng.html and dispute resolution systems in place to avoid legal disputes. The fishery uses management measures that provide incentives to comply with management rules and avoid illegal activities that lead to legal disputes http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html. This is supported by the rationale 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 implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges are required by

Justification Justification the SG100. http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/index-eng.htm; https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual- meeting-am094; https://www.iphc.int/library/documents/category/annual-reports; https://www.iphc.int/management/science-and-research; https://www.iphc.int/library/documents/annual-reports/iphc-2018-ar2017- References international-pacific-halibut-commission-annual-report-2017; https://iphc.int/venues/details/12th-session-of-the-iphc-scientific-review-board- srb012; https://www.iphc.int/library/documents; http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/index-eng.html; http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/ground-fond/index-eng.html; https://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/sfab-ccps/index-eng.html. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 192 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance and surveillance 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 ability management measures, expectation that they to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. are effective. management measures, strategies

Guidepost Guidepost and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 193 of 245

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with The IPHC has no enforcement role, and the Halibut Convention delegates enforcement activities to Canada and the US. IPHC fishery monitoring consists of IPHC port samplers collecting logbook information from U.S. and Canadian landings (IPHC 2018g), along with biological data and tag returns.

At-sea observers, dockside monitors, and electronic monitoring perform a key role in observing, documenting and reporting to DFO fishing related occurrences (DFO 2018). Observers 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 occurrences and verification of the weight and species of fish caught and retained.

Certified fishery observers, employed by private contractors, provide at-sea and dockside monitoring and validation required for every commercial halibut landing in Canada. 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 (DF0 2018).

Through modern community policing practices, DFO’s Conservation and Protection (C&P) program http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/enf-loi/index-eng.htm 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 province of British Columbia and Yukon Territory. 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 all types of occurrences including commercial groundfish landings. Fishery officers inspect and investigate groundfish vessels for compliance with terms and Conditions of licenses, Fisheries Act and related Regulations and Variation Orders. Fishery officers conduct inspections both dockside and at sea to verify compliance with license Conditions. Surveillance of the fishery is also conducted by vessel and aircraft (DFO 2013b). Seventy nine percent (79%) of the 2017 halibut occurrences that were put into DVS originated from fishery officers; sixteen percent (16%) from the general public and five percent (5%) from service provider audits (Appendix 8.2).

The DFO IFMP - Groundfish outlines the broad compliance plan for the groundfish fisheries (DFO 2018). Each year, DFO presents an enforcement report to the IPHC Commissioners on enforcement and compliance in Canada’s halibut fisheries.

Justification Justification Together, this demonstrates that the fishery meets the SG100. b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently applied consistently applied and evidence that they are and thought to provide demonstrably provide effective applied. effective deterrence. deterrence. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 194 of 245

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with 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. 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. In 2017, C&P checked 259 persons, 803 vessels, over 333.5 patrol hours, and initiated 19 investigations involving 23 individual violations (Appendix 8.2). This low rate allows enforcement staff to focus resources on community enforcement to reduce the rate of infractions and on individuals and vessels that are flagged in the monitoring process. Sanctions available and applied

Justification Justification meet the SG100. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management

Guidepost Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

As shown by DFO's C&P enforcement data (Appendix 8.2), 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. Cases may be 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

Justification Justification importance to the effective management of the fishery. This meets the SG100.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 195 of 245

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

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-

Justification Justification compliance (see Appendix 8.2). References DFO 2013b; IPHC 2018g; DFO 2018; Appendix 8.2; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm- gp/enf-loi/index-eng.htm; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 196 of 245

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 to sufficient to achieve the achieve the objectives objectives consistent with consistent with MSC’s MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 197 of 245

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management 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 (https://www.iphc.int/management/science-and-research/biological-and-ecosystem- science-research-program-bandesrp). This information provides data for use in annual assessments and for long-term studies and analyses, and focuses on MSC Principles 1 and 3.

The 2012 IPHC Performance Review (IPHC 2013) recommended the creation of a

Five Year Research Plan and an Annual Research Plan. 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. The IPHC 2017 Annual Research Plan and components of the IPHC Five Year Research Plan are published in the IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities (IPHC, 2017).

IPHC uses several advisory groups to help develop and vet research plans: the RAB, the MSAB, and the SRB. These advisory bodies are discussed on the IPHC website (http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors). IPHC seeks advice from these advisory bodies annually, and in some cases, throughout the year.

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. The results of the research regularly feed into preparations for the management plans and fisheries. DFO research focuses on MSC Principles 2 and 3. The results of any groundfish-related research, as well as a description of the processes and its policies and guidelines, are available on the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific webpage (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarc-ceesp/index- eng.html).

2018). 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.

Combined, the IPHC and DFO research programs meet the requirements of the

Justification SG100. 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 available. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 198 of 245

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management The 5-yr research plan is available at https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/srb/iphc-2014- srb04-02.pdf and the results of IPHC research results are available on their website (http://www.iphc.int/library/raras.html). A description of the DFO surveys is available at https://www.psmfc.org/tsc- drafts/2017/DFO_2017_TSC_Report_Draft_Apr21_2017.pdf. The results of any DFO groundfish-related research are available on the DFO Centre for Scientific Advice – Pacific webpage (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/index-eng.htm).

Justification Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. References https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/srb/iphc-2014-srb04-02.pdf; https://www.psmfc.org/tsc- drafts/.../DFO_2017_TSC_Report_Draft_Apr21_2017.pdf; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 199 of 245

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in The fishery has in place place mechanisms to place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system. system. system Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y The IPHC monitors the management system for the Pacific halibut fishery on an almost continuous basis as part of the annual preparations for the Annual Meeting, and the scrutiny of performance conducted by the IPHC Commissioners. The IPHC has in place mechanisms and processes that annually evaluate the performance of the commission’s management measures. Reviewer’s comments are available in the material circulated for the annual meetings https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th- session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094. 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 and the Conference Board and Processor Advisory Group deliberations, respectively. The process is open and transparent.

DFO has a number of processes for the monitoring and management of performance evaluation; internal and external reviews are integral to the system. DFO’s SFF fisheries checklist http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff- cpd/survey-sondage/index-en.html, 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.

DFO further reviews the performance of the service provider(s) in meeting the requirements of the EM program, at-sea observer program and the dockside monitoring program. Service providers failing to meet the minimum requirements outlined in Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) or as designated under Section 39 of the Fishery (General) Regulations 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. As part of the evaluation process, DFO assesses performance against the requirements described in Appendix 2 of the annual Groundfish IFMP at various points within the fishing season, and provides feedback as appropriate.

The IPHC and DFO evaluation mechanisms are comprehensive, covering

Justification Justification effectively all parts of the management system, meeting the SG100. 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. review. external review. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 200 of 245

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system The IPHC analyses and measures are subjected to regular internal and external reviews. IPHC undergoes independent performance reviews to build upon its work to-date and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. The first such review was carried out between November 2011 and April 2012 and focused in particular on assessing Commission performance and practices over the previous decade. The Commission contracted an independent firm to undertake the review. A report on the progress regarding the implementation of the first IPHC Performance Review recommendations was provided at the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting. The Commission has undertaken a second Performance Review and an update was provided at the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting. Both these documents are available on the IPHC 2018 Annual Meeting webpage https://www.iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting- am094. IPHC 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 http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors.

The SFF fisheries checklist, the Precautionary Approach Framework Policy review and EM review frame the internal review within DFO. Within these review mechanisms, DFO has established a number of external reviews:  Post-fishery season reviews are conducted under advisory committee / IFMP processes, which include external stakeholders.  Both DFO’s Audit Directorate and Evaluation Directorate conduct exercises of all DFO programs and activities http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/audits- verifications/16-17/PA-AP-eng.html, using a risk-based approach, and ensuring that fisheries management activities are aligned with and meet commitments under the Department’s Performance Activity Architecture and Management Accountability Framework.  The Canadian Auditor General can, and has in the past conducted reviews of the fisheries management regime http://www.oag- bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201610_02_e_41672.html#ex1 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 Report (issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat) and DFO's annual Departmental Performance Report http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2016-17/toc-tdm-eng.html.

Both IPHC and DFO undergo regular internal and external reviews, meeting the

Justification Justification SG100. https://iphc.int/venues/details/94th-session-of-the-iphc-annual-meeting-am094; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/survey-sondage/index- References en.html; http://www.iphc.int/about-iphc.html#advisors; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae- ve/audits-verifications/16-17/PA-AP-eng.html; http://www.oag- bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201610_02_e_41672.html#ex1; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2016-17/toc-tdm-eng.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 201 of 245

Appendix 2 Conditions (REQUIRED FOR ALL REPORTS WHERE CONDITIONS ARE NEEDED FOR CERTIFICATION)

Condition 1 2.3.2b There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will Performance work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species Indicator involved Score 75

SCS Global (2015), the CAB for the first re-certification, imposed a Condition for Rougheye rockfish Types I and II and Yelloweye rockfish, because there was not an objective basis for confidence that the current strategy (TAC limiting catch), will work based on information directly about the species involved; both species were behind schedule for a stock assessment, therefore not meeting the SG80. Subsequently, DFO has completed a stock assessment for Yelloweye, has completed and submitted a management plan to the Minister for consideration under SARA requirement, and implemented the management plan measures through the Groundfish IFMP (DFO 2018). This meets the milestones for the Condition. Therefore, Yelloweye meets the SG80, which allows for closing out the Condition as applicable to Yelloweye.

DFO Science Branch worked on determining an appropriate assessment methodology for Rougheye rockfish and other data poor groundfish species, and has completed a stock assessment that is undergoing technical review. The rougheye stock assessment is scheduled to go through the DFO CSAS peer- review process in mid-2019 (DFO pers. comm.; see below). This schedule provides time for the management system to implement management measures utilizing the stock assessment results for rougheye rockfish.

This condition remains from the 2015 re-assessment. The condition originally applied to yelloweye and rougheye rockfish. The yelloweye condition was closed during the third surveillance. Rougheye continues as open. The 5-year certification period for the current certificate runs through 29 June 2020. The second re-assessment will finish in March 2019, with the PCDR issued by the end of 2018. The condition must close out by the first surveillance of the second re-assessment. The fishery shall provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence Condition that the strategy for rougheye rockfishes will work, based on information directly

about the fishery and/or species involved. By the first surveillance audit of the second re-assessment (2020), provide evidence that the stock assessment results have been considered in the Milestones management advice for rougheye rockfish. Make this rationale publically

available and list any additional management measures proposed based on science advice. See letter from DFO that outlines progress on the Rougheye rockfish stock Client action plan assessment, timelines and, if necessary, the process for implementing

additional management measures based on the science advice. See letter from DFO that outlines progress on the Rougheye rockfish stock Consultation on assessment, timelines and, if necessary, the process for implementing condition additional management measures based on the science advice.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 202 of 245

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 203 of 245

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 204 of 245

Appendix 3. Peer Review Reports

Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments Version 1, January 2011

Assessment Details

Fishery Canada Pacific Halibut (British Columbia) Fishery

Conformity MRAG Americas, Inc. Assessment Body

Overall Opinion (a)

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: Additional text and revised scoring This is a well written report of the status of a well-managed added in support of PIs 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. fishery supported by considerable ongoing research and monitoring and a state-of-the art stock assessment of the halibut population. Some clarification and additional text is needed, however, concerning the fishery-specific information available to support the scores of 80 for PI 2.5.2 a and b regarding ecosystem impacts.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: The CAB concurs with the Peer Given that the DFO CSAS peer-review of the new rougheye Reviewer. assessment, scheduled in mid-2019 occurs as planned, Condition 1 should provide the needed information to evaluate, by the first surveillance audit of the second re-assessment (2020), evidence that the stock assessment results have been considered in the management advice for rougheye rockfish.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? No Response Justification: The DFO letter was accidently omitted Although the general description of the proposed plan seems from the Peer Review Draft. It is likely to be effective (i.e., working closely with DFO), the DFO included in the PCDR, and the CAB letter to which reference is made was not included in the draft. welcomes review by the peer reviewers. Therefore, details of the plan could not be evaluated.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 205 of 245

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 206 of 245

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

The information brought forward to support the rationale for scoring is extensive and clearly presented, with the few exceptions noted in the detailed comments. I note that there are a few typographical/gramatical issues that will need to be addressed in the final revision of the report. The authors also need to address the yellow highlighted text on pages 8 and 122 of the report.

MRAG Americas response: The highlighted text indicates decisions that do not get made until the end of the review process. The assessment team will address the highlighted sections upon the official final decisions. Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.1.3 NA NA NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 207 of 245

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes SI 2.3.2b requires evidence that the The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer management strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Given that a new assessment is schedule for a DFO CSAS peer-review process in mid-2019, Condition 1 should provide the needed information to evaluate, by the first surveillance audit of the second re-assessment (2020), evidence that the stock assessment results have been considered in the management advice for rougheye rockfish.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 208 of 245

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA At SG100, SI 2.5.2b requires that a plan and The CAB added information from Lucas et measures are based on well-understood al. (2007) to help justify not meeting the ‘well- functional relationships between the fishery understood’ requirement. and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. The text describing the rationale for not awarding a score of 100 is somewhat vague, stating that “Some uncertainty remains on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components.” Perhaps the CAB could provide text that so that the reader will have a better idea of the specific shortcomings with respect to these “well- understood” relationships.

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 209 of 245

2.5.3 Yes No NA SI2.5.3a requires that information is The CAB agrees with the Peer Reviewer, adequate to broadly understand the key and has added text to Section 3.4.9 from elements of the ecosystem. Of the Lucas et al. (2007); we have also added the referecnes used to support the SG80, none citation from Lucas et al. (2007) to the appear to be specific to the ecosystem under reference list. While Lucas et al. (2007) consideration here (as noted in 2.5.3a). The predates the majority of Gulf of Alaska and Lucas et al. 2007 reference is not listed, so I Californnia Current references used to draw could not check where the research was inferences on the state of the British done. Furthermore, the DFO links are rather Columbia ecosystem (specifically PNCIMA), high-level reports with only indirect reference it summarizes the available ecosystem to ecosystem characteristics associated with information for the primarly area of Pacific the halibut fishery. Therefore, I think some halibut harvest and draws simplistic more explicit reference to Canadian conclusions on structure and function. The ecosysten research is need here to support revised rationale for 2.5.3a reflects the area- the score of 80. specific information.

The same concern applies to the rationale for The rationale for 2.5.3b has been edited to the 80 score in SI2.5.3b. Also, it is not clear provide clarity and a better reference. what the phase “regarding gear impacts on seafloor habitats are currently under detailed investigation …” actually means with respect ot impact on the ecosystem. Clarification is needed here.

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 210 of 245

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 211 of 245

Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

Document: Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 212 of 245

Overall Opinion (b)

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: The BC halibut fishery is one of the most The CAB concurs with the Peer extensively studied and managed fisheries in the world. Reviewer Continued MSC certification of the fishery is clearly justified and the assigned scores are appropriate.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: The condition raised dealing with bycatch of The CAB concurs with the Peer redbanded rockfish is appropriate and the SG80 will likely be Reviewer met as stated. DFO’s CSAS stock assessment peer review of rougheye rockfish is scheduled it time to meet the SG80 level.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient NA Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: the CAP is not included The DFO letter was accidently omitted from the Peer Review Draft. It is included in the PCDR, and the CAB welcomes review by the peer reviewers.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

As this is the 2nd re-assessment and noting the long mature history of the stock assessment and management under the auspices of the IPHC, continued MSC certification of the BC halibut fishery is clearly appropriate.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 213 Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach available rationale used the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. been used to to score this performance to score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA a. The Assessment Team (AT) gave a score of The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer 100 for this PI. The rationale strongly supports the conclusion that there is a very low chance (<1%) that the stock is below the LRP (0.2B0). b. The AT justifiably gave a score of 80 for this PI. The target biomass reference point is 0.3B0 and there is a 6% chance that the stock is below that level. The conclusion that the SG100 is not met is supported because there is not a high degree of certainty (95% or greater) that the stock has been fluctuating at about the TRP for more than the last five years.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 214 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA The stock assessment process and analysis for The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer the stock is extremely mature and well developed. a. Agree that the reference points are appropriate for the stock and that the score of SG80 is supported based on the estimated stock level relative to B0. Although the SR relationship is not estimated, the 30-40% depletion level associated with BMSY, as reported by the AT, is consistent with other groundfish stocks. b. The AT justifiably scores this PI at SG100 and concludes that the LRP of .2B0 is appropriate and that the estimate of B0 is precautionary because it is calculated by multiplying the spawning biomass per recruit times the average coast-wide recruitment from an unproductive regime. The choice of LRP for other groundfish stocks, generally between 0.2B0-0.3B0 (see Sainsbury 2008 best practices), has been controvercial in some assessments. I initially would have argued for a higher LRP for Pacific halibut given the moderate productivity of the stock. However the long history of extensive simulation testing including years of MSEs shows that 0.2B0 meets the objective of maintaining the halibut stock above a low productivity regime with high probability. This point could be emphasized more in the text to strengthen the argument for an LRP of 0.2B0 given the controversy over the choice of LRP level in some assessment settings, albeit generally for less data rich situations. c. Agree with the scoring. The TRP of .3B0 or 1.5 times the LRP meets SG80 but because relevant precautionary issues such as ecological consderations have not been fully assessed SG100 is not met as noted by the AT. d. Pacific halibut is not a low trophic level species so 1.1.2d is not relevant.

1.1.3 Yes Yes NA The stock has not fallen below the LRP and no The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer rebuilding policies have been in place so agree 1.1.3 is not relevant.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 215 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA a. The AT assigned a score of 100. The stock The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer assessment process and analysis for Pacific halibut is of a very mature level. The IPHC has done extensive simulation testing to assess the harvest strategy. All the elements of SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met because the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. b. The AT narative describes recent changes to the assessment model and the understanding of the population dynamics of the stock so while the SG60 and SG80 are met and evidence exists that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives, because the current assessment process has not been fully simulation tested given the recent changes I agree that the SG100 is not met. c. There is an extensive monitoring plan that is implemented each year and therefore the SG60 is met. d. The MSE process and review that started in 2013 through to 2017 supports the SG100 score. e. Agree not relevant as no sharks are a P1 species.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 216 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA a. Agree with the AT conclusion that the fishery The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer meets SG60 and SG80 because a well-defined harvest control rule is in place that is consistent with the harvest strategy and ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as LRPs are approached. b. Agree that the stock assessment and harvest control rule takes into account a wide range of uncertainty as described by the AT. An extensive amount of simulation testing of the current harvest control rule has been done. The SG60 and SG80 has been met c. Agree that SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels have been met, as there is evidence that clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 217 1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes a. The stock assessment information in support The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer of fishery management and the harvest strategy rank as one of the best available anywhere. The fishery meets the SG60, SG80, and SG100, specifically that there is a comprehensive range of information available in support of management and the harvest strategy. b. Agree that the fishery meets the requirements of the SG60 and SG80 noting that 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, and the robustness of the assessment to this uncertainty. The rationale could be strengthened by noting that catches are monitored with 100% coverage. Agree that SG100 is not met because of a concern that US monitoring deficencies are occurring. To what degree is this occurring and are there steps contemplated to rectify the potential problem? Some more explanation on this issue would be useful. c. The SG80 is met because, as stated by the AT, there is outstanding data available on all halibut removals from BC due to the effort of DFO to collect data at sea on all commercial fishing vessels.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 218 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA a. The SG80 and SG100 are met. The stock is The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer subject to one of the most intensively assessed fishery resources anywhere. b. The fishery meets SG60 because the assessment estimates stock status relative to established reference points. c. The SG60, SG80 and SG100 are clearly met. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. d. SG100 is met. The stock assessments are state-of-the-art technically and has been rigorously explored through simulation testing. Importantly, changes to the assessments are an on-going process and have been improved in the last five years e. SG80 and SG100 are met. The AT notes that stock assesssments are subject to internal and external reviews now by an independent scientific review board.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 219 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Sablefish: agree SG60 and SG80 are met but The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer not SG100 because there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock is within biologically based limits and fluctuating around its target reference points. Lingcod: agree SG60 and SG80 are met but not SG100 because considering uncertainty in the most recent assessment (2010), two of the four stock areas are only 67percent likely to be above 80% BMSY, the healthy zone. The other two areas are 88% and 95% likely to be above the 80%BMSY. Further support for failing SG100, as noted by the AT, is that the 2010/11 assessment is now out of date and does not account for potential recent fishery impacts and changes in population dynamics. Redbanded rockfish: agree SG60 and SG80 are met but because little is known about the stock status and there is a not a high degree of certainty that the stock is within biologically based limits. b. There are target reference points for lingcod and sablefish but not for redbanded rockfish. Therefore, the fishery meets the SG100 level requirements for two of three scoring elements in this scoring issue. c. Not relevant: agree that based on relative proportions in the fishery there are no main retained species. d. Not relevant: agree that based on relative proportions in the fishery there are no main retained species.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 220 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA a. As reported by the AT, the SG60 and SG80 The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer are not relevant because there are no main retained species, but agree the SG100 is applicable, and is met for all scored minor retained species. b. Agree with the AT assessment that the SG80 and SG100 are met because there are measures and a strategy in place to manage retained species with limits to fishing effort for sablefish, lingcod and redbanded rockfish 100% validation by EM or at-sea monitoring and 3rd party dockside validation. c. Agree with the AT assessment that the SG80 and SG100 are met. There is clear evidence that the strategy to protect lingcod, sablefish, and redbanded rockfish from overfishing is being implemented successfully that indicate that the halibut fishery and other commercial groundfish fisheries remains well below the recommended TAC. Size limits in the lingcod catch are also respected as verified through the 100% dockside and 100% at-sea monitoring and auditing meeting the SG100. d. Agree that the scoring issue is not met at the SG100 for lingcod, sablefish, or redbanded rockfish. As noted by the AT, the last lingcod stock assessment for the outside management units are in the healthy zone but that the lingcod stock assessment is out of date, sablefish is believed to be below its TRP, and little is known about the stock status of redbanded rockfish. e. Agree not relevant because there are not sharks retained in the halibut fishery.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 221 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that there are no main species retained The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer so SG80 and SG100 are not applicable and agree that the fishery does not meet the SG100 for lingcod, sablefish, and redbanded rockfish since the impact of the catch on the status of the stocks is unknown. b. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are not applicable as there are no main species retained and that SG100 is not met for all minor retained species. There is no stock status information for redbanded rockfish, the status of sablefish is believed to be below its TRP, and the lingcod assessment is likely out of date. c. Agree that the SG60 and SG80 are not applicable, and that SG100 is not met. The lingcod assessment, as noted by the AT, is out of date so key assessment parameter estimates potentially are not reflective of the current stock status. The impact of reductions in catch from the halibut fishery on sablefish stock status is not clear and little is known about redbanded rockfish. d. As reported by the AT, both the 100% catch monitoring policy and fishery-independent annual surveys support meeting SG80 and SG100.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that the SG60 and SG80 are not The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer applicable because here are no main bycatch species. The SG100 is not met because there is not a high degree of certainty that bycatch species (dogfish, longnose skate) are within biologically based limits. b. Agree that neither the SG60 or SG80 are applicable because there are no main bycatch species. c. Agree the fishery meets SG60 level because the halibut fishery is likely not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 222 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are not applicable The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer because there are no main bycatch species. Also agree the SG100 is not met because the relevant stock assessments are out of date. Although there is a strategy in place for managing and minimizing bycatch, it is not known if the various measures in place are relevant or appropriate. b. Agree the SG80 is met. Given the migratory nature of the spiny dogfish stock and the lack of recent stock assessments for the inshore spiny dogfish stock and the skates as well as the need for a current stock assessment on the outside migratory stock of spiny dogfish, there is not yet a high degree of confidence that the strategy will work so agree SG100 is not met. c. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are met and that the SG100 is not met. The SG100 is not met because the relevant species stock assessments are out of date. d. Agree that the SG100 is not met because the relevant stock assessments (dogfish, longnose skate) are out of date. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 223 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are not applicable The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer because there are no main bycatch species. The fishery does not meet SG100 because there is not adequate information of the stock status of all bycatch species, in particular spiny dogfish and longnose skate, and therefore it is not possible to determine the consequences for the status of affected populations. b. Again, SG60 and SG80 are not applicable. SG100 is not met because information is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. c. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are met and that SG100 is not. There is adequate information to support a partial strategy to manage bycatch species but the information is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. d. Agree that the SG80 and SG100 are met because there is 100% accounting of bycatch mortality of all bycatch species.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA a. Agree the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer because 100% of the catch of all species in the fishery is monitored and there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within national and international requirements for ETP species. b. Agree that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met because there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. c. Agree that both SG80 and SG100 are met because there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species given the justification provided by the AT.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 224 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes, the AT notes a. Agree that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer that a DFO CSAS because there is a comprehensive strategy in review of the place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP rougheye rockfish species, including measures to minimise stock assessment mortality, which is designed to achieve above is scheduled to national and international requirements for the meet the SG80 protection of ETP species. level. b. Yes, the SG60 is met for all ETP species but the SG80 is not met for rougheye rockfish triggering a condition that carries over from the first surveillance of the previous re-assessment. The condition is set because an objective basis that the management strategy will work still does not exist for rougheye rockfish. It is noted that a DFO rougheye rockfish stock assessment is scheduled in time to meet the condition. c. The AT scored the SG80 as met and SG100 not met. The justification provided supports the scoring. The AT notes that successful implementation of the strategies has not been demonstrated and, justifiably, therefore PI 2.3.2c does not meet SG100. d. Agree that SG100 is not met noting that research to estimate key life history parameters of ETP species are ongoing but the outputs are not sufficient at this time to know whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 225 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that SG80 is met but more information The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer is needed to estimate outcome status for some species to reach the SG100. b. Agree the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The information collected is highly accurate and verifiable to assess the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. c. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are met and that there is sufficient uncertainty to conclude that a strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore, agree that SG100 is not met.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The AT justification for meeting SG60 and SG80 The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer is strong. Evidence exists that the habitat footprint of the fishery is small relative to the continental slope area, the gear is relatively low impact to habitats, and sensitive areas are closed. Agree that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point of serious or irreversible harm but that there is no direct evidence, so the fishery does not meet the SG100.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 226 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA a. Agree SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer because there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. Most of the developed policy is aimed at reducing the fishery footprint of mobile gear recognizing that mobile gear such as trawls have much more impact on benthic habitats than the hook and line halibut fishery. b. Agree SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The ST justification notes that several surveys have been completed to assess the impacts of fishing gear and to understand changes over time. c. Agree that SG80 and SG100 are met because there is a well designed strategy plus documented implementation of requirements by the fishery. d. Agree SG100 is met. There is some evidence that the use of information obtained on sensitive habitats, use of risk assessments to determine the most vulnerable habitats, implementation of MPAs and other habitat protections has provided substantial protection to vulnerable habitats and hence achieving objectives.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer because the distribution of habitats is well known, including vulnerable habitats. b. Agree that SG60, SG80 are met because sufficient data exists to identify the habitats, the impacts of the fishery on the habitats, and the distribution of the fishery relative to the habitat. Agree that SG100 is not met because quantification of impacts has not occurred. c. Agree that SG80 is met because sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat. Also agree that SG100 is not met because surveys of habitats to detect changes in distribution over time do not occur.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 227

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Agree that SG80 is met because fishing effort The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer controls and fishing mortality limits near MSY suggests that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem models developed for the GOA and California currents do not apply directly to Canada and so agree that there is no direct evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function in Canadian waters, so agree the SG100 is not met.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA a. A strategy is in place meeting the SG100. The The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer. strategy is based on policies set out in Canada’s But see responses to PR-A comments and Oceans Action Plan and PNCIMA. The AT related edits to report text. justification acknowledges that IPHC data from 2010 and 2011 show that approximately 93% of the halibut catch occurs in PNCIMA, sufficient to consider the oceans ecosystem strategy applies to the fishery. b. Agree with the AT justification to support meeting SG80 and not meeting SG100 because some uncertainty remains on functional relationships between the fishery and ecosystem components. c. Agree that SG80 and SG100 are met becase the AT justification notes that the strategy to protect ecosystem components have been shown to be effective for the halibut longline fishery. d. Agree that SG80 and SG100 are met. The fact that the measures applied to the halibut fishery focus on monitoring and control of the fishery with 100% EM monitoring including GPS and 100% dockside validation by third parties and no evidence of systematic non-compliance. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 228 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that SG60 and SG80 are met through a The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer. broad range of ecosystem research activities But see responses to PR-A comments and including annual fishery independent surveys, related edits to report text. genetics and tagging studies, and ecosystem modeling. b. SG60 and SG80 are met because main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem modeling and gear impacts on habitat. c. Agree SG80 and SG100 are met. The main functions of the relevant species and habitat within the ecosystem are understood. d. Agree that SG80 is met because sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on ecosystem components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Agree SG100 is not met because of the difficulty in estimating the outcome status of some populations (e.g., ETP sharks, marine mammals) and not all consequences can be inferred. e. Agree that SG80 and SG100 are met. SG80 is met because ongoing research on predator- prey relationships, identification of vulnerable habitats and stock assessments provide periodic information to detect changes in ecosystem risk. SG100 is met because there is sufficient information to support development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 229 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA a. Agree the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer Given the strong international treaty focus on the halibut resource, the managemeny system is one of the best examples of a well managed fishery in the world. The IPHC and DFO have effectively managed the halibut fishery and the ecosystem in which it operates. b. Agree the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The AT justification provides evidence that the current dispute resolution framework incorporates an appropriate transparent mechanism for dispute resolution and is effective in dealing with most issues and that it is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Dispute resolusions between the Commission and citizens of either country’s decisions are to be settled through representation within the national section of each country. In Canada, DFO continually seeks and accepts advice from stakeholders through the various advisory forums described in the IFMP. d. Agree the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The management system in Canada formally commits to aboriginal rights, and actively implements those rights established through the constitution, legal commitments and formal policies.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 230 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer met. Clearly, the fishery has one of the best management processes in the world and organisations and individuals involved have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. b. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge from stakeholders and First Nations. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. c. Agree that SG80 and SG100 are met and agree with the support justification. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer Clear long-term objectives through the auspices of the IPHC that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy.

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Agree that the SG60, SG80 are met. The The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise. The AT noted however, that it is not clear that the system explicitly and regularly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures. This is a resonable conclusion and supportive of a partial score at the SG100 level of SG85.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 231

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer 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, and are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Agree that SG60 and SG80 are met. There are The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. b. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. c. Agree the SG80 is met. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. d. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The justification provided by the AT is evidence that formal reporting to all interested stakeholders provides comprehensive information on fishery performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. e. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met as provided in the justification wherein the management system has extensive consultative processes and dispute resolution systems in place to avoid legal disputes.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 232 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer met. A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. b. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The halibut fishery is extensively monitored through the use of 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. c. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The AT has shown that considerable enforcement effort is in place to monitor, control and enforce the Canadian halibut fishery and that 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. d. Agree that the SG80 is met. Based on reporting by at-sea and dockside observers and the follow up review and decisions made by DFO’s C&P program. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 233 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer met. There is a long history of research directed at the Pacific halibut stock. A comprehensive research plan provides the management system 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. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. The 5-yr research plan is publicly available online. The results of DFO peer-reviewd groundfish assessment and research are published and publicly available online on the DFO webpage.

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA a. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are The CAB concurs with the Peer Reviewer met. The IPHC and DFO evaluation mechanisms are comprehensive, covering effectively all parts of the management system. b. Agree that the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Both the IPHC and DFO fishery-specific management systems are subject to regular internal and external review.

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 234 Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 235 Appendix 4. Stakeholder submissions

1. The report shall include: a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in CR 27.15.3.1 b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference CR 27.15.3.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference CR 27.15.3.3)

No Stakeholders provided comments at the site visit or during the 30-day information gathering phase.

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change. (Reference: CR 27.15.4)

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 236 Appendix 5. Surveillance Frequency

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 5.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on- e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced site with remote that information needed to verify progress support from 1 towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be auditor provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 5.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 5.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 237 Appendix 6. Client Agreement

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 238 Appendix 7. Objections Process (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: CR 27.19.1)

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 239 Appendix 8 Supplemental Information

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 240 Appendix 8.1 Catch Data

See “Featured Project” at https://www.mragamericas.com/fishery-certification-division/

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 241 Appendix 8.2 Canada Enforcement Report

British Columbia – Pacific Halibut Marine Stewardship Council Re-Assessment 2017

HALIBUT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY

Enforcement Priorities Groundfish, including commercial Halibut, enforcement priorities for 2017 were identified in the Groundfish Integrated Fisheries Management Plan and by the Groundfish Enforcement Coordinator. Fishery Officers will:  Investigate incidents of fishing in closed areas such as Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs), sponge reef marine protected areas, and other closed areas;  Continue to enforce compliance with hail-out, hail-in and other elements of the Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP);  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;  Enforce compliance with conditions of licence for dual fishing, where dual fishing is defined as ‘fishing for and retaining groundfish under the authority of a Commercial Groundfish Licence and a Communal Groundfish Licence during the same fishing trip’; and  Enforce compliance with electronic monitoring (EM) conditions of licence, especially time gap occurrences.  Investigate false and misleading information provided to dockside observers.  Investigate allegations of dockside observers not carrying out their duties.

Occurrences and Violations – January 1 to November 10, 20177

There is 100% monitoring of the commercial Halibut fishery in British Columbia. This is accomplished through Electronic Monitoring (EM) and Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP). These monitoring systems, provided by a third party service provider contracted to industry, collect catch and fishing location information, and when this information suggests that fishing activity breached a condition of licence (e.g., fishing in a closed area, misreported catch), an occurrence report is generated. DFO’s Conservation and Protection Program (C&P) is responsible for enforcing regulations and investigating violations. DFO Fishery Officers access occurrence reports through a database maintained by the monitoring service provider in order to conduct investigations. Fishery Officers also generate occurrence reports and receive them from the general public and other sources. Conservation and Protection maintains an additional database, the Departmental Violations System (DVS), for managing occurrences, violations and all case files under investigation.

During 2017, 161 vessels participated in the Commercial Halibut fishery which opened March 11, 2017 and closed November 7, 2017. These vessels made 557 fishing trips. There were 19 occurrences recorded in DVS for the Commercial Halibut fishery (Table 1). 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 to more than one violation. The 19 occurrences reported in 2017 encompassed a total of 23 violations.

Table 15. Commercial Halibut Fishery Occurrences and Enforcement Action in 2017 Occurrence Type Investigation Unable To No Action Totals Total Initiated / Respond Warranted Number Of Underway Violations Closed Area / Time Gear – Illegal/Used 33333333333 3 3 Illegally Habitat 0

7 Sources: DFO Departmental Violations System (DVS) MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 242 Illegal Buy-Sell- 3 3 2 Possess Inspection 0 Other Legislation 0 Quota/Bag Limits 1 1 1 Registration – Licence 11 11 15 Reporting- Dual Fishing (FSC) Reporting- Hail Related 1 1 Issues Species / Size Limits 1 1 1 Totals 19 19 23

Of the Nineteen (19) occurrences reported in 2017, Nineteen (19) resulted in an investigation being initiated.

Eleven (11) of these investigations have since been closed through the following means;  One (1) investigation revealed that a vessel master had an agreement with his First Nation to fish their commercial halibut quota. Vessel had no commercial halibut licence. Groundfish Management Unit, local Fishery Officer, Groundfish Enforcement Coordinator and DFO Licencing worked together to resolve issue. An available FL licence was put on the vessel.  Five (5) investigations were closed with the issuance of warning letters.  Four (4) investigations resulted in the tickets being issued.  One (1) investigation resulted in Groundfish Management Unit and service provider working with the vessel master to resolve the issue. The eight (8) occurrences that continue to be under investigation encompass at least eight (8) violations. In three (3) of the investigations the total number of violations have yet to be determined as they are ongoing. Three (3) of these investigations involve illegal sales, three (3) involve no seabird avoidance gear deployed and one (1) involves prohibited species.

Seventy nine percent (79%) of the 2017 halibut occurrences that were put into DVS originated from fishery officers using program vessels, vehicles, two (2) mid-shore CCG vessels, and surveillance plane; sixteen percent (16%)from the general public and five percent (5%) from service provider audits.

Note: A number of occurrences have not been entered into DVS that were generated by the service provider DMP observers. See Table 2 below.

Table 2. Commercial Halibut Fishery Occurrences from Dockside Monitoring Program Observers – Third Party Service Provider – 2017 OCCURRENCE TYPE INVESTIGATI UNABLE NO TOTAL TOTAL ON TO ACTION S NUMBER INITIATED / RESPON WARRAN OF UNDERWAY/ D TED VIOLATION PENDING S CLOSED AREA / TIME 2 1 3 6 6 ROCKFISH RELEASES 11313 57 70 70 PROHIBITED SPECIES 3 3 3 CATCH HANDLED OUT 2 2 2 OF VIEW DUAL FISHING – NO 5 1 6 6 PERMIT DUAL FISHING – 14 14 14 INCOMPLETE PERMIT DUAL FISHING – FSC 4 4 4 FISH NOT RECORDED IN

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 243 OCCURRENCE TYPE INVESTIGATI UNABLE NO TOTAL TOTAL ON TO ACTION S NUMBER INITIATED / RESPON WARRAN OF UNDERWAY/ D TED VIOLATION PENDING S LOGBOOK DUAL FISHING – NO 3 3 3 HAIL-OUT, NO HAIL-IN HOLD CHECK NOT 8 (Unsafe 8 8 COMPLETED Conditions) SEABIRDS CAUGHT 3 3 0 PARTIAL OFFLOAD – 1 1 1 NOT AUTHORIZED PERSONAL USE 1 1 1 TOTALS 32 16 72 124 118 Note: C&P in consultation with Regional Groundfish Manager is planning to increase education and information about the vessel master’s requirements when hailing out on a dual fishing halibut trip. Multiple approaches will be used such as a Fishery Notice dedicated to dual fishing, one page information bulletin emailed to all commercial halibut licence holders and increased communication with First Nations in the Pacific region.

Fishery Officer Enforcement Effort – January 1 to November, 2017

Table 3. Fishery Officer Patrol Hours by Platform Type and Number of Persons, Vessels Checked - Aboriginal, Commercial and Recreational Halibut Fisheries – 2017

Sum of Sum of Sum of Persons Vessels Patrol FISHERY Checked Checked Hours ABORIGINAL - HALIBUT 9 274 59.75 AIRCRAFT - PROVINCIAL AIRLINES 0 271 33.75 PROGRAM VESSEL 7 3 7.5 VEHICLE 2 0 18.5 COMM. GROUNDFISH - HALIBUT 41 471 122 AIRCRAFT - PROVINCIAL AIRLINES 0 457 66 CCG - MSPV - CAPTAIN GODDARD 3 1 19.5 CCG - MSPV - M. CHARLES 0 0 12 PROGRAM VESSE 38 13 22.5 VEHICLE 0 0 2 REC - HALIBUT 209 58 151.5 CCG - MSPV - CAPTAIN GODDARD 8 4 4.5 CCG - MSPV - M. CHARLES 12 3 4.5 NO PLATFORM 0 0 16 NOT ON THE LIST 31 8 6.5 PROGRAM VESSEL 101 29 43.5 VEHICLE 57 14 76.5 Grand Total 259 803 333.25

 The platforms fishery officers use for enforcement work include, program vessels, vehicles, aerial surveillance plane (staffed with 2 permanent fishery officers and supplemented with several part time fishery officers), two mid-shore Canadian Coast Guard vessels dedicated to

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 244 C&P (one for North Coast and one for South Coast –permanently staffed by 2-3 Fishery Officers when in service).

 Intelligence Officers and intelligence analysts of the National Fisheries Intelligence Service (NFIS) now assist fishery officers in addressing the greatest risks to the halibut resources. This program continues to develop and C&P is evolving into an intelligence led program.

Priority Investigation Summaries:

 Sale of FSC fish to several seafood businesses. Charges have been laid for fisher and businesses and first appearance is in November 2017.

 Fish in Northern Reef Marine Protected Area and adjacent RCA. Under investigation.

 Fish in Northern Reef Marine Protected Area and an RCA south of area. Falsely claim FSC fish. Under investigation.

 Unauthorized FSC fishing during dual fishing trip. Under investigation.

Prepared by DFO Groundfish Enforcement Coordinator 2017-11-16

MRAG – MSC Re‐Assessment Canada Pacific Halibut – PCDR page 245