SCS Global Services Report

Iturup Island Pink & Chum Salmon MSC Fishery Assessment Report Announcement Comment Draft Report

Authors Client Contact Ray Beamesderfer, Principle 1 & Lead J. S. C. Gidrostroy, Ludmila Voronova 15 Altalyskiy Lane, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Shelby Oliver, Principle 2 & Project Coordinator Sakhalin Oblast 693020 Russian Federation Geir Honneland, Principle 3 +7 (4242) 72 18 31 [email protected]

JULY 30, 2019

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax

SCS Global Services Report

1 Table of Contents

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6

4 REPORT DETAILS ...... 8 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 8 4.2 Version details ...... 9

5 UNIT(S) OF ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION AND RESULTS OVERVIEW ...... 10 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 10 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 10 5.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries 11 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 14 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 14 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 14 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 14 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 14

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 15 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 15 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 15 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 17 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 17

7 SCORING ...... 18 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores...... 18 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 19 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 19 Overview of fishery ...... 19 Pink Salmon ...... 28 Chum Salmon ...... 35 Enhancement ...... 38 7.2.2 Catch ...... 54 7.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 60 PI 1.1.1 – Stock Status ...... 60 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 63 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 65 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 68 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 71 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 73 PI 1.3.1 – Enhancement outcomes...... 78 PI 1.3.2 – Enhancement management ...... 81 PI 1.3.3 – Enhancement information ...... 84 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 87 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 87 Overview of Non-target Catch ...... 87 Primary Species ...... 92 Secondary Species ...... 92

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 2 of 3 SCS Global Services Report

Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 93 Habitat Impacts ...... 100 Ecosystem ...... 102 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 104 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 104 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 106 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 108 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 110 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 112 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 115 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 117 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 119 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 122 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 124 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management ...... 127 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 129 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 132 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management ...... 134 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 136 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 139 7.4.1 Background ...... 139 Area of operation and relevant jurisdictions ...... 139 Federal fisheries governance ...... 139 Regional fisheries governance ...... 141 Recognized interest groups and on-going consultations ...... 142 Objectives, management measures, and decision-making procedures ...... 143 Enforcement and compliance ...... 145 Research ...... 146 Planned education and training for interest groups .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Non-fishery uses or activities and arrangements for liaison and coordination Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 150 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 150 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 154 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 157 PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives ...... 159 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 161 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 165 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluations ...... 168

8 REFERENCES ...... 170

9 APPENDICES ...... 177 9.1 Assessment information ...... 177 9.1.1 Previous assessments ...... 177 9.1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 181 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 182 9.2.1 Site visits ...... 182 9.2.2 Stakeholder Participation: ...... 182 9.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 182

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 3 of 4 SCS Global Services Report

9.3 Peer Review reports ...... 182 9.4 Stakeholder input ...... 182 9.5 Conditions ...... 182 9.6 Client Action Plan ...... 182 9.7 Surveillance ...... 182

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 4 of 5 SCS Global Services Report 2 Glossary CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology IFQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg Kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LOA Length Over-All M Million (lbs.) MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PI Performance Indicator SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch WWF World Wildlife Fund

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 5 of 6 SCS Global Services Report 3 Executive Summary This Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) fishery, harvested by fish trap and purse seine gear on Iturup Island, considered to be a single Unit of Assessment (UoA). Within the report, the Unit of Assessment will be referred to more simply as the Iturup Salmon fishery. The assessment was conducted, and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Process and Guidance v2.1 (31 August 2018) and the MSC Fisheries General Certification Requirements (31 August 2018). The fishery was assessed against the modification to the default assessment tree for salmon fisheries under Fisheries Standard v2.01.

Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s).

Pacific chum salmon (O. keta), Pacific pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) produced in rivers and streams of Prostor and Stock/Species (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.a) Kurilskiy Bays on the northern coast of Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Pacific Ocean, Russian Federation Method of Capture (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.b) Fish Traps, Purse Seine Client group licensed to operate in the fishing area leased to JSC Gidrostroy off of Iturup Island, Russian Far East, managed Fishing fleet (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.c) by Sakhalin-Kuril territorial office of the Russian Federation Far East Fisheries Agency. Includes consideration of enhancement activities by client group

This is the second reassessment of this fishery following the original certification in 2009. The current certificate is scheduled to expire on 26 August 2020. The first reassessment occurred in 2015. A scope extension was also completed in 2017 to include purse seine gear along with the fish trap gear that was previously certified. The ACDR was published on July 30th giving more than the 30 days required for stakeholders to comment. The onsite is expected to occur on September 2nd through the 6th and meetings will be held at Yuzno- Sakhalin and Iturup Island. The assessment team consists of Ray Beamesderfer (Principle 1 and Lead), Shelby Oliver (Principle 2), and Geir Honneland (Principle 3). The team meets all requirements listed under Annex PC1 of the FCP. The fishery is expected to pass the second reassessment. Three PIs regarding enhancement of Chum salmon (i.e. 1.3.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3) are scored below 80. Several information gaps will be addressed at the onsite with the majority tied to evidence needed to assess progress on the open conditions. At the time of the fourth surveillance audit, there are 6 open conditions which were judged as on-target in the 3rd surveillance audit. Two conditions opened in the last re-assessment were closed in the first surveillance audit in 2016. Two conditions were opened as a result of the purse seine scope expansion in 2016. These conditions relate to catch information for non-target species (i.e. PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3). A sixth condition was identified in the first (2016) surveillance due to rescoring of PI 1.3.1 based on new

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 6 of 7 SCS Global Services Report

information regarding construction of two new Chum production facilities. This condition will carry over to the re-assessment because of the delay in marking/returns of Chum which prevents assessment as to whether it is ‘highly likely that the enhancement activities do not have significant impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks based on reasonable estimates of likely proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement’ for the Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya hatcheries (Fisheries Standard v2.01 PI 1.3.1). The assessment team will gather additional information at the onsite which may impact the draft scores estimated in the ACDR.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 7 of 8 SCS Global Services Report 4 Report Details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details Audit Team Mr. Ray Beamesderfer (Principle 1 & Team Leader), M.Sc., Senior Fish Scientist, Fish Science Solutions, USA. Mr. Beamesderfer holds a bachelor's degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology from the University of California, Davis, and a Master's in Fishery Resources from the University of Idaho. As a consultant, Ray has completed a wide variety of projects in fishery management, biological assessment, and conservation/recovery planning. He is the author of numerous reports, biological assessments, management plans, and scientific articles on fish population dynamics, fish conservation, fishery, and hatchery management, sampling, and species interactions. Ray has served on MRAG and other fishery assessment teams for salmon fisheries in Alaska, Japan and Russia and brings perspective and harmonization between salmon fishery assessments in the Pacific. Ms. Shelby Oliver (Principle 2 & Project Coordinator) has a Master of Environmental Science and Management degree from the Bren School at the University of California Santa Barbara. She specialized in coastal marine resources management with a focus on coastal and environmental policy, aquaculture, and natural resource economics. In addition, she holds a minor in strategic science communication. She has been involved with research projects assessing global patterns of shark and ray bycatch, marine resource management issues, aquaculture feed trails, and an economic assessment of seaweed aquaculture. Her bycatch research was published research in a scientific journal. Shelby has completed the necessary MSC Fishery training and is a qualified Lead MSC CoC auditor. Dr. Geir Hønneland (Principle 3) is a Director at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo, Norway, and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Oslo and has studied international fisheries management (with the main emphasis on compliance issues), international environmental politics and international Arctic politics. Among his recent books are Arctic Politics, the Law of the Sea and Russian Identity (Palgrave, 2014), Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012), International Environmental Agreements (Routledge, 2011), Arctic Politics and International Cooperation (Routledge, 2007) and Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006). He worked in the Norwegian Coast Guard from 1988 to 1994, where he was certified as a fisheries inspector. Geir also has a wide range of evaluation and consultancy experience, e.g. for the FAO and OECD, relating to responsible fisheries management. He has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 (covering cod, blue whiting, haddock, herring, mackerel and shrimp fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic and krill in the Southern Ocean) and was certified as MSC Team Leader in 2014.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 8 of 9 SCS Global Services Report

4.2 Version details Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 9 of 10 SCS Global Services Report 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment The certification units include the pink and chum salmon purse seine and fish trap fisheries managed by the Russian government and operated under a lease agreement by the J.S.C. Gidrostroy Company on Iturup Island in the Russian Far East (Table 3). The Unit of Assessment (UoA) is equivalent to the Unit of Certification (UoC). Eligible operators are those purse seiners licensed to operate within the area described. This UoA meets the MSC requirements to be in scope for fishery assessments. The scope of this expedited assessment differs from the current certificate scope only in gear type. The fishery of interest occurs along Iturup’s north coast in Kurilskiy Bay from Cape Vinogrodniy to Cape Breskens and in Prostor Bay between Cape Shpora and Cape Friza. A total of 18 significant rivers and streams with anadromous fish populations are located in or near the fishery areas. The four largest systems are the Kurilka River (with hatchery and Lebidinoe Lake), Reydovaya River (with hatchery), Rybatskaya River (without hatchery), Olya River (without hatchery, though Olya Bay does have a segregated hatchery), and Slavnaya River. The fishery area excludes a small section of the coast near Dobryninya Bay where two fish traps were operated by another company, but the assessment team was informed at the Year 1 surveillance that J.S.C. Gidrostroy had acquired this company and may also be acquiring this additional leased area. Other smaller fisheries (not subject to certification) occur to the north and south of the Gidrostroy fishery. J.S.C. Gidrostroy is a private company, established in 1991, that owns and operates the fishing, processing and shipment operations for much of the salmon on Iturup Island. J.S.C. Gidrostroy is also responsible for much of the infrastructure (housing, hospital, schools, roads, housing, etc.) on the island. Gidrostroy operates two processing facilities on the island, which directly employ almost half of the local population. Wild and hatchery pink and chum salmon are caught, processed and exported. The catch is sold in the Russian, Chinese, South Korean and Japanese markets. Products are then redistributed in North America and Europe. Eligible fishers are those that fish by set trap net or purse-seine gear within the area described with valid fishing licenses. This area is leased to JSC Gidrostroy by the Russian government. This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.1 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it . Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5) . The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCP 7.4.5.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. . Is not an enhanced fishery, is not based on an introduced species and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.8-13) . Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.4)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 10 of 11 SCS Global Services Report

. The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.5.1-7.7.7).

Table 3. The Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) are the same.

UoA 1 Description Species Pink Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Populations of Pink Salmon reproducing in rivers and streams of Prostor and Kurilskiy Stock Bays on the northern coast of Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Pacific Ocean. Geographical area Iturup Island, Russian Far East. FAO Major Fishing Area 61 (Northwest Pacific). Harvest method / gear Set nets/fish trap & Purse Seine Client group J.S.C. Gidrostroy Other eligible fishers None UoA 2 Description Species Chum Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Populations of Chum Salmon reproducing in rivers and streams of Prostor and Kurilskiy Stock Bays on the northern coast of Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Pacific Ocean. Geographical area Iturup Island, Russian Far East. FAO Major Fishing Area 61 (Northwest Pacific). Harvest method / gear Set nets/fish trap & Purse Seine Client group J.S.C. Gidrostroy Other eligible fishers None

5.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries There is no evidence of introduced species in this fishery. The Iturup pink and chum fisheries operate within an enhanced system but maintain enough of a link with the wild environment that the populations are within the scope of MSC assessments Table 4. The fishery meets the criteria of Table C1 in the MSC Certification Process (v2.1) (Table 4).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 11 of 12 SCS Global Services Report

Table 4. Scope criteria for eligible enhanced fisheries from Table 1 FCP V2.1 7.76 and evidence that the Iturup pink and chum fishery meet the qualifications and are considered an eligible enhanced fishery.

Scope criteria MSC requirement Iturup Description Ai. Linkages to At some point in the production process, the Broodstock is collected from wild streams and and system relies upon the capture of fish from naturally spawning salmon in the integrated maintenance of the wild environment. Such fish may be taken hatchery systems. a wild stock at any stage of the life cycle including eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. The ‘wild environment’ in this context includes marine, freshwater, and any other aquatic ecosystems. Aii. The species are native to the geographic Both pink and chum Pacific salmon are native region of the fishery and the natural to the Pacific and were found naturally on production areas from which the fishery’s Iturup Island before enhancement began. catch originates. Aiii. There are natural reproductive components Otolith thermal marking of hatchery fish of the stock from which the fishery’s catch demonstrates that the majority of the salmon originates that maintain themselves without returning to the fishery are un-marked having to be restocked every year. providing evidence that there are non- hatchery origin salmon returning to Iturup island. Aiv. Where fish stocking is used in hatch-and-catch Stocking does not form a major part of any (HAC) systems, such stocking does not form a rebuilding plans. None of the stocks are major part of a current rebuilding plan for considered by SakhNIRO to be depleted at depleted stocks. this time. Lebidinoe Lake continues to be studied to determine whether a unique lake spawning chum salmon population may be depleted. In the interim, increased enforcement on the lake to prevent poaching is currently a precautionary measure being employed while the study is in process. Bi. Feeding and The production system operates without Juveniles are raised to a small size (about 4 Husbandry substantial augmentation of the food supply. cm) before being released to the natural In HAC systems, any feeding is used only to system. Some feeding of chum salmon takes grow the animals to a small size prior to place at the hatchery to support growth, but release (not more than 10% of the average this is minimal compared with feeding in the adult maximum weight), such that most of the wild. After release, the salmon spend several total growth (not less than 90%) is achieved years at sea foraging a natural diet. during the wild phase. In catch-and-grow (CAG) systems, feeding during the captive phase is only by natural means (e.g. filter feeding in mussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenance of condition (e.g. crustaceans in holding tanks) rather than to achieve growth. Bii. In CAG systems, production during the captive This is a Hatch and Catch system (HAC). No phase does not routinely require disease antibiotics are used at the hatchery.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 12 of 13 SCS Global Services Report

prevention involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties. Ci. Habitat and Any modifications to the habitat of the stock Potential impacts on the habitat and ecosystem are reversible and do not cause serious or ecosystem include a small amount of water impacts irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s diversion at some hatcheries and effluent structure and function. water that runs through the hatcheries. Water temperature and contaminants are tested regularly and have been found to be within acceptable limits. No antibiotics are used and water temperature is equivalent to the natural system. Water is filtered naturally through gravel before entering the hatchery and could be restored.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 13 of 14 SCS Global Services Report

5.2 Assessment results overview

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 14 of 15 SCS Global Services Report 6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Eligibility date To be determined at the PCDR stage. 6.2 Traceability within the fishery The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering the pink and chum salmon purse seine and fish trap fisheries managed by the Russian government and operated under a lease agreement by the J.S.C. Gidrostroy Company on Iturup Island in the Russian Far East. The fishery maintains traceability of landed fish in a manner that is consistent with the MSC chain of custody requirements relative to the traceability risks present in the UoA. The purse seine vessels and stationary traps operated by Gidrostroy on Iturup are within the Unit of Certification. JSC Gidrostroy leases all of the fishing grounds included in the unit of certification. No other fishers operate set nets or purse seine nets within this area. If another operator not licensed to the area or set net/purse seine were to collect fish, the coast guard would be informed. The level of traceability from the purse seine vessels and set nets to the point of landing and into processing at the two shore plants or a floating processor as described above is sufficient to start the chain of custody, based on the information described below. The main stages of the supply chain within the UoC fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step include: The capture of the product: JSC Gidrostroy leases all of the fishing grounds included in the unit of certification. No other fishers operate set nets or purse seine nets within this area. If another operator not licensed to the area or set net/purse seine were to collect fish, the coast guard would be informed. Once the catch is hauled, it is taken to one of the two processing plants on Iturup (that only process salmon caught in the UoA), with occasional use of a floating processor (only those included in the CoC client group and contracted by J.S.C Gidrostroy) during the peak of the fishing season. The catch may be landed in either Prostor Bay or Kurilskiy Bay harbors. On-board processing: No onboard processing occurs and the catch is taken either to the two processing plants on Iturup (that only process salmon caught in the UoA) or to floating processors that included in the CoC client group and contracted by J.S.C Gidrostroy. Product unloading: The catch may be landed in either Prostor Bay or Kurilskiy Bay harbors. Upon transfer of fishing to a landing port or floating processor a landing receipt is filled in by the harbor’s or floating processor receiving master. The receiving master verifies that the license conditions are met, and records this information on a Mate’s Receipt and weighs the catch. A copy of the Mate’s receipt is given to the vessel operator, to the processing plant and to the government fisheries agency, SakRyvod. Product transport: There is minimal product transport, as all fishing activity is restricted to the leased area. Product transport is limited to transfer of catch either to processing plants or floating processors within Iturup. Product storage: Catch is stored in a single hold. The only salmon caught in the UoA is processed at Iturup. There is no transferring of non-processed salmon outside of the UoA. Product sale and the first change of ownership: The first link in the chain of custody begins at the processing plants, both of which are owned and operated by the client group, or one of the floating

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 15 of 16 SCS Global Services Report processors contracted by the client and included in the scope of the client group CoC certificate. Gidrostroy does not process any other fishing company’s catch.

Table 7. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit The fishery does not use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)? of Certification. J.S.C. Gidrostroy leases all of the fishing grounds included in the unit of certification, which occurs along Iturup’s north coast in Kurilskiy Bay from Cape Vinogrodniy to Cape Breskens and in Prostor Bay between Cape Shpora and Cape Friza. Only Gidrostroy can obtain permits to fish within the unit of certification. No fishers or floating processors not authorized by Gidrostroy may operate within this area. Any other operator fishing illegally in this area is subject to enforcement by the Coast Guard of a fishing violation. There are no other eligible fishers and certificate sharing is not anticipated.

Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC No, see explanation above in section above for more geographic area? information. Licensing in Russia is geographically restricted and vessels are only allowed to operate in areas that have been leased to specific companies.

Do the fishery client members ever handle certified No. All salmon catches in Iturup Island are included within and non-certified products during any of the the UoA. Gidrostroy does operate additional set nets on activities covered by the fishery certificate? This Sakhalin Island (which is outside the UoC), but these are refers to both at-sea activities and on-land activities. processed at Gidrostroy’s local Sakhalin facilities and the If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. frozen block packaging identifies the processing plant of origin. Products originating on Sakhalin and Iturup are therefore easily distinguished.

Does transshipment occur within the fishery? No transshipment occurs. All catch is processed either If Yes, please describe: onshore or by floating processors remaining within the UoA geographic area.

Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution No other risks have been identified. between certified and non-certified fish? If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 16 of 17 SCS Global Services Report

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the Iturup Island Pink and Chum fishery will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The catch is owned by JSC Gidrostroy from the time it is in the set net, through the processing plant and first point of preservation until the first point of sale to another company. Chain of custody begins at the processing plant because the product is changing form. At the plant, the catch is headed and gutted and block frozen for further processing from a buyer. Gidrostroy also separates roe and milt as a specialty product. Gidtrostroy’s chain of custody certificate covers the product from landing to the first point of preservation and the next link in the chain of custody begins at the point of sale from Gidrostroy. The team has determined that the point of first sale is also the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required. Lists of documents to be solicited by CoC adutior at point where CoC is required include the processing plant delivery records which must be requested by the CoC auditor. Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label:

• JSC Gidrostroy List of eligible landing points:

• Processing plants or floating processing vessels owned by JSC Gidrostroy 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody No IPI stocks have been identified for this fishery.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 17 of 18 SCS Global Services Report 7 Scoring 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores Table 8. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores. Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Pink Chum 1.1.1 Stock status 1 ≥80 ≥80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding na na 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 Management 0.333 One 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 1.3.1 Enhancement outcomes 0.333 ≥80 60-79 Enhancement 0.333 1.3.2 Enhancement management 0.333 ≥80 60-79 1.3.3 Enhancement information 0.333 ≥80 60-79 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 ≥80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 2.4.3 Information 0.333 ≥80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 ≥80 2.5.3 Information 0.333 ≥80 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 ≥80 framework Governance and 0.5 Consultation, roles & policy 3.1.2 0.333 ≥80 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 ≥80 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 ≥80 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision-making processes 0.25 ≥80 management 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 ≥80 system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 ≥80 performance evaluation

Table 9. Final Principle Scores Preliminary Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species ≥80 Principle 2 – Ecosystem ≥80 Principle 3 – Management System ≥80

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 18 of 19 SCS Global Services Report

7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background Overview of fishery Area description Iturup is located near the southern end of the Kuril chain, between Kunashir (19 km to the SW) and Urup (37 km to the NE) (Figure 1). It is the largest island located between the Okhotsk Sea to the west and the north Pacific Ocean to the east with a total area of 6,725 km2. The island is 203 km in length and 6 to 36 km in width. The landscape includes a series of volcanoes and mountain ridges connected by hilly or low- laying isthmuses running NE to SW on this elongated island. The highest is the point is Stokap (1,634 m). Most of the island is wild and remote. The vegetation mostly consists of spruce, larch, pine, fir, and mixed deciduous forests with alder, lianas and Kuril bamboo underbrush. The mountains are covered with birch and Siberian Dwarf Pine scrub, herbaceous flowers or bare rocks. Abundant rainfall feeds about 200 small rivers and streams which support abundant salmon runs. Streams are also fed by snowmelt and springs. Small lakes, including Lebidenoe Lake (Swan Lake) and Sopochnoye Lake, are located near streams. The shores of the island are high and abrupt on the Pacific side and do not generally support salmon populations. The lowlands allow streams to meander. Some salmon occur to the north and south of the unit of certification, but the majority return to Kurilskiy and Prostor bay tributaries.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 19 of 20 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. JSC Gidrostroy fishery areas in Kurilskiy and Prostor Bays (shaded) and associated rivers on the northern coast of Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Russia. Salmon have been harvested on Iturup for more than a century. The Japanese harvested salmon and built the first hatcheries during the 1800s. Iturup Island came under Russian Jurisdiction after World War II. During the war, the fisheries and hatcheries fell into disrepair but were subsequently rebuilt. The local village communities of Kurilsk and Reydova on Iturup Island depend almost exclusively on this fishing as their livelihood. Development is concentrated in these two small towns which are connected by road to various locations used for fishing, hatchery operations, processing operations, and power generation. The town of Kurilsk is the administrative center of the Kurilsky District. A military base is also located near the Pacific Coast. The human population of Iturup reaches about 2,000 at its seasonal peak in summer and early fall with an influx of temporary fishery workers. Fewer people inhabit the island in the winter. JSC Gidrostroy is a private company, established in 1991, that owns and operates the fishing, processing and shipment operations for much of the salmon at Iturup Island. JSC Gidrostroy is also responsible for much of the infrastructure (housing, hospital, schools, roads, housing, etc.) on the island. Gidrostroy operates two processing facilities on the island, which directly employ almost half of the local population. Wild and hatchery pink and chum salmon are caught, processed and exported. The catch is sold in the Russian, Chinese, South Korean and Japanese markets. Products are then redistributed in North America and Europe.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 20 of 21 SCS Global Services Report

Fishery Gear Fishing by Gidrostroy occurs predominately with stationary fish net traps set along the coastline and in the bays near the mouths of the rivers. The nets are placed seasonally, with fishing sites and the number of nets regulated by FFA-Sakhalin-Kurils Region Department. Fish are collected from trap boxes into the live hold of “Kungas” which are small net-bottomed dories with water-filled hulls towed by small tugboats. Since the last reassessment, the UoC has been expanded to include purse seines. The occurrence of storms and rough sea conditions increases later in the fishing season and can affect the ability of the fishery to harvest chum in the later months of the fall run. Purse seines provide an additional fishing opportunity during late season when fish traps are inoperable or removed to prevent storm damage and seas too dangerous for use of the small kunga vessels. Coastal trap nets typically consist of a mesh lead set perpendicular to shore to guide fish into one or more mesh wing-style traps where narrowing mesh fykes make it difficult for fish to exit. Fish traps are attached to the shoreline with net leads which are typically 200-600 m in length. Leads may or may not extend to shore. Mesh size of leads and wings is typically 75 mm to 100 mm – these sizes are small enough to avoid killing of target species. The wing is hung off the web of a brighter color, which is a visual (not physical) barrier. Traps are typically constructed of 30 mm web mesh size for pinks and 38 mm for chum. The set nets are put in place seasonally. The stationary nets are anchored into the soft or gravel sediments with sandbags and anchors. Fish are collected from trap boxes into the live hold of small boats, called “kungas.” Kungas are small dories which are essentially floating fish tanks with water-filled hulls towed by small tugboats. Fish are hauled into the kungas by 4 or 5 fishers by hand gathering the trap mesh to crowd fish and spill the catch. Minimal fish sorting occurs at the traps when the nets are hauled and fish are poured into the kungas. Some sorting at the traps occurs when fish are moved from the traps into kungas by lifting nets by hand. The fishermen can release non-target species as they are visible in the shallows of the nets or when in the kungas. All fish retained are required to be delivered to the fish plants. Seal-killed fish and other mortalities are not retained or counted (although these typically comprise a very small portion of the total). Once in the kungas, the kungas may come into the port directly or can be escorted by tenders. The tenders may use a fish pump to pump the fish into their receiving hulls so that the kunga may tend to another set net. Fish are taken from the kungas or tenders by fish pump directly into the processing facilities. Fish are pumped directly from the kungas into shoreside processing facilities and they are processed the same day. If there is additional bycatch that comes into the processing plant, it is sorted and recorded there. Gidrostroy processors are located in Kurilsk and Reydovo. The processor location near the fishing zone permits the production of high-quality fish products. Because fish are live trapped, traps can be checked and fish delivered by a schedule in order to maintain a regular supply to the processing facilities. At the new Reydovo facility which is capable of processing 400 tons of frozen fish per day, the whole production cycle typically requires just 3 to 9 hours from catching to packing. Mates’ receipts accompany each set net catch which indicates which net the catch came from, weight, date and fisher license information. The catch is landed daily during the salmon season at one of two processing plants which are located in Prostor and Kurilskiy Bays on Iturup Island. Fish are never taken to other islands for landing as they are too far away.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 21 of 22 SCS Global Services Report

Gidrostroy purchased two Alaskan purse seiners in the summer of 2016 and transported them to Iturup. These vessels are typical salmon purse seiners found in Alaskan waters. Alaskan purse seine crew were contracted for the 2016 fishing season to help guide and train local crew. Fishing permits for chum salmon were issued by the FFA September 2, 2016 (Appendix 4)). Gidrostroy has also retrofitted two smaller Russian seine vessels for purse seine operation but did not seek permits for these vessels to join in the commercial fishing effort in 2016. For 2016, J.S.C. Gidrostroy sought permits for the two Alaskan purse seiners, with the intention of sending the purse seine vessels to the northern point of the leased fishing area (UoA), to operate in late season when seas are often too rough for the operation of traps and kungas, particularly in fishing areas further from the Gidrostroy processing plants. As in the stationary trap operations, minimal sorting typically occurs during fishing operations when fish are landed aboard the purse seine vessel. Only the target species (chum and pink salmon), Char, and Sockeye are permitted for commercial processing and sale. All retained fish are required to be delivered to the fish plants. Seal-killed fish and other mortalities are not retained or counted (although these typically comprise a very small portion of the total). Salmon harvested within UoA waters, by stationary trap or purse seine, are processed in full at offloading, typically at the two shore plants owned by the client group, but sometimes on floating processors (contracted by the client group and included in the J.S.C. Gidrostroy CoC client group scope). If there is additional bycatch that comes into the processing plant, it is sorted there. Gidrostroy processors are located in Kurilsk (Yasniy Plant) and Reydovo (Reydovo Plant). The processor location near the fishing zone permits the production of high-quality fish products. The whole production cycle typically requires just 3 to 9 hours from catching to packing. A receipt note accompanies each purse seine offload which indicates species, weight, date, and authorization certificate information, whether the product is offloaded to a floating processor or to a shore plant. Purse seine vessel captains must additionally report daily landings totals cumulative landings on an incremental basis to Russian authorities, as dictated by Russian fishery regulations. This information is then used to produce the European Catch Certificate, a requirement for export from Russia.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 22 of 23 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 2. Commercial salmon fishery operations on Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Russia. (Photos courtesy of JSC Gidrostroy).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 23 of 24 SCS Global Services Report

Seasonal Operation of the Fishery The fishery targets pink salmon from mid-July to September and chum salmon in September and November. Purse seine gear was added to the UoC to enable for fishing later into the chum salmon season. Stock Assessment Spawning escapement of Iturup salmon is monitored through a combination of visual ground surveys of spawners and weir counts. Escapement data is collected for 14 pink and 6 chum populations, including hatchery and wild production rivers (Table 10). Escapement estimates are based on fish counts in areas of suitable spawning habitat. Surveys also assess the rate of movement and distribution of the spawner fish. Both government and Gidrostroy biologists conduct surveys 3 to 4 times per season on dates established based on historical average run timing. More frequently on major systems surveys may be conducted in major systems. Official estimates typically reflect spawner numbers at the time the fishery ends and are regarded as a minimum index of the escapement. Additional fish regularly return following the completion of the official counts, especially in years when the run timing is late. Additional information on the total return is compiled by Gidrostroy biologists based on stream surveys conducted after the completion of the fishery and the official index counting periods. The escapement is also estimated at weirs at the mouths of key rivers. Weirs have been operated since the 1990s. A total of eight are currently operated on the island. These include Reydovaya, Olya, Kurilka, Rybstkaya, with two more on the northern part of the Island and two to the south. Weirs are opened and closed to regulate escapement in key production areas. Numbers of fish passing are counted when the weirs are opened. Spawning ground surveys estimate fish densities visually relative to escapement goals and weirs are closed when spawning grounds are filled to 70% of capacity. The weirs are maintained by the fishing brigades. Hatchery staff is responsible for opening and closing weirs. Openings on rivers with hatcheries are monitored by fish inspectors. Weir operations are logged and reported. Openings are typically for 1-2 day periods on the ends of the run and for a few hours during the peak. Fishery Management Annual escapement benchmarks are established for significant wild populations harvested by the fishery. Escapement benchmarks are established based on target fish densities in areas determined to be suitable for spawning. These benchmarks represent the production capacity of each system under optimum environmental conditions. These numbers as used as reference points rather than hard objectives. The management system has inventoried the amount of spawning habitat available for each salmon species in streams throughout the Island. Estimates of suitable spawning areas were defined based on general habitat characteristics and areas where spawning occurs. Habitat availability and corresponding escapement benchmarks are periodically reassessed in specific areas as the information indicate that historical estimates were outdated. Spawning areas and corresponding escapement reference values are formally established for the region by the federal scientific authority (SakhNIRO). Long-standing spawner density targets are specified by the governmental science agency (SakhNIRO) for regional application based on historical studies of redd sizes in various Sakhalin and Kamchatka rivers (Rukhlov 1968, 1972). Corresponding fish spawning densities are 2 spawners/m² for pink salmon and 1.5 spawners/m² for chum salmon. These densities are applied to the estimated area of suitable spawning habitat in each stream determined by the regional scientific agency in order to establish spawning “optimum” spawning escapement objectives. The suitability of these generalized spawner densities to

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 24 of 25 SCS Global Services Report

Iturup salmon populations has been validated by long term monitoring results of the spawner, fry production, and adult return data (Kaev et al. 2007). Salmon escapement goals are typically managed based on production functions defined by stock- recruitment curves relating spawner numbers with adults produced in the next generation of return. Escapements greater than the habitat capacity will reduce productivity due to density-dependent regulating factors involving competition for limited space and food. Escapements substantially less than capacity reduce fishery yields. Maximum sustainable yield typically occurs somewhere between 50% and 100% of the habitat “capacity” where capacity is defined based on the point of maximum production in the stock-recruitment curve. Discussions with regional fish managers indicate that the spawning escapement goals for salmon are effectively treated as the point of maximum production beyond which the capacity of the habitat is exceeded and future returns of salmon decline. Thus, fisheries are managed for a stream-specific range of spawning escapements estimated to provide maximum recruitment and yield at spawner numbers between 70 and 100% of capacity (S. Makeyev, SahkRyvod, personal communication). A. Buslov (SakNIRO, personal communication) supported this interpretation, stating that it was better to fall below the goal than above it due to the potential for catastrophic mortality due to high escapements. In practice, escapements target may vary at the discretion of local managers based on in-season determinations of spawning conditions which can vary substantially within and among years depending on local weather patterns. Temperature and oxygen levels are monitored and used as a basis for establishing escapement levels appropriate to the prevailing conditions. Escapements within each stream or river system are also managed to distribute escapements to specific areas or tributaries within each system. In any given year, numbers might exceed reference levels in some portions of the stream and be less than reference levels in other portions of the stream. In-season escapement data of target stocks are used to regulate the fishery. The fishery is intensively managed on a daily basis using in-season spawning ground, weir, and harvest data. Escapement monitoring is also used to determine when returns can be directed to hatcheries and when and where fishing can and cannot take place. Escapements are provided in accordance with an annual schedule that provides for escapement times, daily escapement amounts and the locations where the fish-escapement devices are to be installed. The results of monitoring are used as necessary to adjust the escapement schedules for the spawners. The numbers of fish designated for escapement include the number of spawner fish necessary for artificial reproduction in the fish hatcheries as well as the number of productive fish to be allowed to proceed to the natural spawning grounds. Local fish trap and weir operations are managed on a daily or hourly basis to ensure that escapement objectives are met for every individual population. Fish numbers, distribution, and movement patterns observed in the ground survey and weir monitoring are used as necessary to adjust the escapement schedules for the spawners. Fish traps and weirs are opened and closed to ensure escapement adequate to reach but not exceed optimum spawner densities. The effectiveness of this management approach is facilitated by the close proximity of the fishery and the spawning areas. Escapements are provided in accordance with an annual schedule that is compiled by the employees of the fish hatchery companies based on recommendations from the scientific organizations (SakhNIRO), and ichthyological section of Sakhalinrybvod and is approved by the government agency responsible for control, currently, Sakhalin-Kurilskiy Territorial Management, which is under the Federal Fisheries Agency

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 25 of 26 SCS Global Services Report

(Rosrybolovstva). Each escapement operation is documented with an escapement certificate compiled by the representatives of the fish hatchery and the controlling agency. Every week, the hatchery specialists conduct a visual observation of the rivers jointly with the representatives of Central Northern Kuril ichthyological department of SakhRybvod, to monitor aquatic biological resources and their habitats by SakhalinRybvod to determine the rate of movement and distribution of the spawner fish. Every week, written reports are submitted to the state-owned enterprise “SakhalinRybvod” and Sakhalin- Kuril Territorial Management both on the numbers of productive fish allowed to pass into the rivers and those harvested in the fishing operations. On rivers with hatcheries, the data is collected by the hatchery specialists. Bio-statistical material on the other rivers is collected by the Scientific Research Institute and ichthyological service of Sakhrybvod. Control over escapement of spawners to the spawning grounds is maintained jointly by the Scientific Research Institute and the ichthyological service. Escapement for the river Olya is controlled by the specialists of the ichthyological service of Sakhalinrybvod. Fishery catch data is recorded for every delivery, compiled daily, and reported every 5 days to the government monitoring agency. Weights are recorded for each delivery. In addition, each vessel captain keeps a fishing log, issued by fish inspection. Each page is stamped so that pages cannot be removed. Net check times and deliveries are logged. At the end of the fishing season, the logbook is turned over to fish inspection. Biological data such as length, body weight, and sex are collected from pooled daily deliveries to the fish processing facilities. Age, sex and size information is collected every 5-7 days at the fish processing plants, the hatcheries, the hatcheries and in major river systems. Biological data is collected from natural spawners collected by beach seine (Kaev et al. 2007). Biological data is also collected at the weirs from a sample of fish (at least 100) removed when the weir is opened for fish passage. Monitoring activities also include juvenile sampling in selected systems to estimate migrant numbers from natural production. Sampling work for migrating salmon young in the rivers is an integral part of the annual scientific research work and is provided for in the "Plan for resource research and government monitoring of aquatic bioresources" for the current year. In order to carry out such counting work, traps and other counting devices are used, and data must be collected on the time frame of the migration, numbers of young, the size composition, biological condition, etc.). Historical monitoring activities from the 1970s until the 1990s also included near shore, marine environmental and juvenile sampling during Mary and June (until fish leave shore in late July). Management Examples Operation of the management system is illustrated by annual fishing patterns. Harvest of pink salmon during the 2010 fisheries was similar to the long term average for the fishery. The harvest of 22,000 t was slightly greater than forecast. The pink salmon run typically peaks in early August and is largely complete by mid-September. However, run timing in 2010 was approximately 20 days late. As a result, early-season catches were low but initial concerns of the fishing community were assuaged by strong later catches. Harvest of chum salmon in 2010 was less than average and less than forecast, and run timing was abbreviated. The typical run begins in mid-September and ends in early December but the 2010 run began late and ended early.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 26 of 27 SCS Global Services Report

The 2011 pink salmon return was the lowest in 95 years. The low run size of pink salmon was recognized early in the season when the sex ratio shifted prematurely from predominate males to predominate females. Based on these indicators, sea nets were completely removed in areas away from the rivers and leads were pulled up in closer nets. River mouth harvest was closed or limited to that needed for biological monitoring only. The chum run began normally but numbers never increased around the normal peak of the run. Substantial in-season restrictions were also implemented for the chum run. Abnormal numbers and run dynamics were believed to be related to anomalous ocean conditions but a complete assessment has not yet been made. As a result, the 2011 harvest of both pink and chum salmon was substantially less than forecast and the long term average. A harvest of 42,000t of pink salmon was forecast but the actual harvest was only 5,500t. Chum harvest was only 3,500 t compared with a forecast of 12,000 t. More typical pink salmon returns were seen in 2012 than in the 2011 season. In 2012, the pink salmon harvest was slightly above the 5-year average and chum salmon harvest was below the 5-year average. The pink salmon return was also later than average and the period of return was contracted but intense. Pink salmon typically begin returning in July but this year significant numbers were not seen until the middle of August. Sampling by SakhNIRO indicated that significant numbers were present in marine waters and so, no precautionary fishery restrictions were adopted for the leading edge of the run. However, the fishing season for pink salmon was extended for 5 days due to the lateness of the run. The run timing did cause processing problems. Some seasonal workers left early as there was no work during July. Then when large numbers of fish returned over a brief period, the shore-based processors were unable to handle the catch and ship-based processors were enlisted. Despite the non-typical run pattern, the stock included fish from the typical early, middle and later portions of the run that distribute themselves throughout the spawning grounds from the river mouths to the upper reaches. Numbers were sufficient to meet natural spawning and hatchery requirements. Reasons for the late run timing are unknown but suspected to be related to cooler-than-normal ocean temperatures which delayed maturation. Chum run timing and fishing season dates were normally timed in 2012. Numbers and harvest were less than average but within the normal range of harvest in recent years (Table 10). A very poor Pink Salmon run in 2015 was recognized early in the season when the sex ratio shifted prematurely from predominate males to predominate females. Based on these indicators, sea nets were completely removed in areas away from the rivers and leads were pulled up in closer nets. River mouth harvest was closed or limited to that needed for biological monitoring only. At the same time, the Chum run was among the largest on record. The fishery operated normally during the Chum return time frame after the Pink Salmon run was complete. As a result, the 2015 harvest of Pink Salmon was substantially less than forecast and the long-term average. The harvest of Chum Salmon was the largest on record. Both Pink and Chum Salmon numbers returned to more normal levels in 2016-2018. Normal management was effective in achieving escapement goals.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 27 of 28 SCS Global Services Report

Pink Salmon Distribution Among Pacific salmon, pink salmon have the second-largest distribution area after chum salmon. In the Russian Far East, this species is common from Primorye to Chukotka (Berg 1948), including streams of the Kuril Islands. Pink salmon spawn in almost all water bodies of Iturup Island, except for those with acidic water and streams ending in waterfalls. Spawning occurs in 54 rivers. Of these, only three rivers are over 20 km long; six rivers are from 11 to 20 km long; and the rest are referred to as small rivers and streams. The majority (80%) of the salmon spawning habitat (an estimated total of 600,000 m2) occurs on the Okhotsk Sea coast (Kaev et al. 2006). Natural production areas, hatcheries, and fisheries for pink salmon, including those of Gidrostroy, are concentrated on the Central and Northern Okhotsk Sea coasts. Approximately 95% of the total pink salmon catches occur in central and northern parts of the Okhotsk Sea coast of the island, primarily in Prostor and Kurilskiy bays. Little fishing occurs on the Pacific side. Russian pink salmon generally range into ocean waters of the Okhotsk and Bering Seas. The Okhotsk Sea’s deep-water is the major feeding ground of juvenile salmon within the Russian EEZ (Temnykh and Kurenkova 2006; Shuntov and Temnykh 2008). High seas tag-and-recapture experiments have revealed that pink salmon originating from specific coastal areas have characteristic distributions at sea which are overlapping, nonrandom, and similar from year to year. Pink salmon from Iturup Island range into ocean waters of the Okhotsk, and Bering seas. The western Bering Sea has low foraging importance for juveniles (Temnykh and Kurenkova 2006; Shuntov and Temnykh 2008a). Life History Pink salmon are the smallest but most abundant of the Pacific salmon and are found throughout the North Pacific. Iturup pink salmon typically average about 1.5 kg and 50 cm. Pink salmon return to Iturup Island to spawn from July until October with a peak in August (Figure 3). Spawning typically occurs in small to moderate-sized streams within a few miles of the sea or and in the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. Juvenile pink salmon do not rear for significant periods in freshwater as fry migrate to the sea soon after emergence in the spring. Pink salmon mature at two years of age which means that odd-year and even-year populations are essentially unrelated. Frequently in a particular stream, the other odd-year or even-year cycle will predominate, although in some streams both odd- and even-year pink salmon are about equally abundant. Occasionally cycle dominance will shift, and the previously weak cycle will become most abundant. Odd- year returns dominate the pink return throughout most of the Sakhalin-Kuril Island area outside Iturup (Smirnov 2006). On Iturup, both even and odd-year pink salmon runs are significant (Kaev et al. 2006). Prior to the 1980s, inter-annual differences were not great. In 1982-1991 odd year runs were typically double the size of the even-year runs. Since the early 1990s, even year run sizes have been generally larger than the odd year runs. Extensive research has been conducted on biology, ecology and habitats conditions (hydrology, forage base) of the early marine life period of juvenile salmon in the coastal waters (Kolomeytsev 2009; Temnykh et al. 2010). Following the entry into saltwater, the juveniles move along the beaches in dense schools near the surface, feeding on plankton, larval fishes, and occasional insects. Fry remain in coastal waters for several weeks or months before migrating to open sea. Temnykh et al. (2010) reported that juvenile

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 28 of 29 SCS Global Services Report

pink and chum salmon from southeast Sakhalin spend 1.5-2.5 months in the coastal zone before moving into the ocean feeding grounds by fall.

Figure 3. Run timing of Iturup island pink salmon based on forecast harvest patterns in 2008 near-shore fisheries.

This species typically spawns in small to moderate-sized streams within a few miles of the sea or in the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. Eggs buried in redds excavated by the females in coarse gravel or cobble-size rock, often of shallow riffles and the downstream ends of pools. Fecundity typically averages about 1,500 eggs per female. All pink salmon die after spawning. Embryonic development takes several months. After hatching, fry spends several weeks in the nest before emerging from the gravel in late winter or spring to migrate downstream into saltwater, typically during hours of darkness. Stock Structure The first Russian data on run timing and biological indices of Iturup pink salmon were obtained in the second half of the 1940s (Vedensky 1949). Quantitative assessments of pink salmon abundance began in the 1950s (Pavlov 1954). In the 1960s, Ivankov (1967a, 1967b; 1968) determined from migration and biological data that pink salmon have an intraspecific structure coherent with the ability of this species to form local populations and seasonal forms. Assessments of abundance and biological characteristics of Iturup pink salmon have been routine since 1967 (Chupakhin 1973a, 1975). Iturup pink salmon reportedly include early and late runs. Early and late runs generally occur in most rivers. One of the other may predominate. Northern tributaries (middle of Prostor Bay and north) tend to support more late-run fish. Early run fish tend to make up a higher proportion of the run in the southern portion of the Island. Run timing productivity has shifted over the last 30 years from predominately late run (75% of production during the 1970s) to predominately early run (60% of production during the 1990s). This change in productivity patterns has occurred island-wide and is not related to local hatchery effects. Fish returning at different times typically utilize different portions of any given river system. In the Reydovaya, returns to the east fork (Udobnaya) are typically earlier timed, peaking around June 20. Returns in the lower mainstem typically peak around July 20. Returns to the upper portion of the system, including the area of the hatchery, peak around August 10-15. In the Kurilka, approximately 25% of the natural production capacity is in the middle tributary (Kurilskaya) and this portion of the run is early-timed. Approximately 50% of the natural production capacity occurs in the mainstem (east fork) where the hatchery is located and this portion of the run is intermediately-timed. The remaining 25% of the capacity is in a west fork tributary (Lorka) and this portion of the run is late-timed.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 29 of 30 SCS Global Services Report

Genetic analyses of the pink salmon stock structure have generally identified broad geographical patterns but little or no difference among local populations in any given region. No major local differences were observed among 5 loci analyzed by Glubokovskiy and Zhivotovsky (1986) or among 76 loci from broadly- distributed populations on Sakhalin analyzed by Matsak (Noll Claire et al 2001). Genetic differences appear to be less in Asian pink salmon than in North American pink salmon (Zhivotovsky, personal communication). Natural straying among local populations of pink salmon is generally assumed to be more significant than in other salmon species (Sharp et al. 1994; Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). However, the available information on the pink salmon genetic stock structure and straying patterns are not conclusive. Genetic results to date are difficult to reconcile with patterns in run timing and distribution of pink salmon population components on Iturup Island. It remains unclear where historical genetic methods found no stock structure because none existed or because the available methods lacked sufficient power to identify differences. More recent genetic analyses of pink salmon using microsatellites have been similarly inconclusive. Status The Iturup Island pink salmon return currently averages about 20 million fish per year and has varied from 6 to 32 million (Figure 4). Combined annual escapements of hatchery and natural origin fish are typically average over 1 million fish (Kaev et al. 2006). Historical escapements ranged from 845,000 to 2,467,000. Combined wild and hatchery production is estimated to an average of 360 million fry per year. Annual fry- adult survival of Iturup pink salmon is typically 2-10% and is among the highest in the Russian Far East (Kaev et al. 2006, Smirnov et al. 2006). Fluctuations in pink salmon abundance on southern Sakhalin and Iturup Islands are more dependent on marine survival than on the abundance of fry migrating downstream (Kaev et al. 2007). Ocean productivity and temperatures are reported to be particularly favorable for juvenile pink salmon along the Okhotsk seaside of Iturup Island due to a convergence of warm and cold currents (Kaev et al. 2006). Iturup Island’s rivers, as a rule only freeze during periods of low discharge, whereas other rivers in the region are almost completed covered with ice during the winter (Kaev et al. 2007). Numbers consistently approach or exceed optimum levels for all major populations (Figure 5). Optimums are generally reached on average and in individual years. Patterns are consistent in mixed production areas (Kurilka, Reydovaya) and natural production areas (Rybatskaya, Olya, Slavnaya). Exceptions are limited to very small systems with variable habitat availability from year to year (Podoshevka, Udobnaya, Beliy). The Podoshevka, Gushj, Privoljniy and Udobnaya Rivers consistently fall under 50% of the optimum level.1 High levels of escapement were consistently achieved again in 2012 despite an abnormal run timing. Escapements reached greater than 50% of optimum levels in all but three of the 15 monitored streams. Preliminary information also indicates that most escapement goals were met in 2013 despite the abnormal run timing.

1 The re-assessment team identified 50% of optimum as a reference point for identifying low escapements that on average would be expected to substantially reduce future returns based on typical stock-recruitment relationships observed among salmon. This reference point was inferred from salmon population dynamics theory as the point in the stock-recruitment relationship where spawning escapements may result in significantly lower production than maximum levels.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 30 of 31 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Changes in abundance (catch and escapement, bars) and fork length (line) of pink salmon on Iturup Island in 1967-2010. Dark Bars are even year returns and light bars are odd year returns. (Kaev 2011).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 31 of 32 SCS Global Services Report

Table 10. Populations of pink and chum salmon in rivers and streams contiguous with JSC Gidrostroy fisheries on Iturup Island. The area is the estimated availability of suitable spawning habitat.

Length Area Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha) Chum salmon (O. keta) English Russian (km) (m2) Type Area (m2) Capacityb Type Area (m2) Capacityb Kurilskiy Bay КУРИЛЬСКИЙ Rybatskaya R. Рыбацкая Р. 15,600 Wild 12,000 24,000 Wild 3,600 5,760 Kurilka System Курилка Р. 22 121,900c Mixeda 101,650c 203,300 Mixeda 20,250 32,400 Kurilka main Курилка R -- -- 78,650 -- -- 11,500 18,400 Lebidinoe Lk. Оз. Лебединое -- -- 4,650 -- -- 6,750 10,800 Kurilsky Курильский -- -- 11,000 -- -- 2,000 3,200 Lorka Лорка -- -- 12,000 ------Podoshevka R. Подошевка Р. 6 5,500 Wild 10,000 20,000 ------Prostor Bay ПРОСТОР -- Aktivniy R. Активный 8 6,000 Wild 6,000 12,000 ------Beliy Cr. Белый Руч.. 6 3,000 Wild 1,000 2,000 ------Chistaya R. Чистая 8 14,500 Wild 11,500 23,000 ------Doljniy R. Дольный руч 7 3,500 Wild 3,500 7,000 ------Glush R. Глушь 14 -- Wild 18,000 35,000 ------Lk. Sopochnoye Оз. Сопочное 37,500 Wild 11,000 22,000 Wild 26,500 42,400 Lovushka R. Ловушка Р. -- Wild 1,000 2,000 ------Olya R. Оля 8 17,500 Wild 17,500 35,000 Wild 650 1,040 Privoljniy R. Привольный руч. 6 No data Wild 2,000 4,000 ------Reydovaya System Рейдовая 18 44,000 Mixeda 25,500 51,000 Mixeda 14,600c 23,360 Reydovaya R. Рейдовая ------2,500 4,000 Reydovaya Lk. Оз. Рейдовое ------7,500 12,000 Argyn Аргунь ------4,600 7,360 Senokosniy R. Сенокосный Руч. 3 1,100 Wild 1,200 2,400 ------Skaljniy R. Скальный руч. 9 800 Mixeda 8,000 16,000 ------Slavnaya R. Славная 23 196,000 Wild 185,000 370,000 Wild 11,000 17,600 Sofjya R. Софья 5 2,000 Wild 2,000 4,000 ------Udobnyi R. Удобный руч. 6 1,200 Wild 1,300 2,600 ------a Hatchery and wild production of both O. gorbuscha and O. keta b based on target densities of 2 spawners/m² for pink salmon and 1.5 spawners/m² for chum salmon) c Number revised in 2009 based on a new assessment by SakRbyVod.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 31 of 33 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 5. Recent average escapements (2005-2017) of pink salmon in Iturup streams expressed as a percentage of optimum levels compared with the most recent (2013 & 2017) escapement. (Analysis by re-assessment team of escapement data provided by the client included in Table below).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 32 of 34 SCS Global Services Report

Table 11. Recent spawning densities of Pink salmon in rivers and streams contiguous with Gidrostroy fisheries on Iturup Island (thousands of spawners) (Historical Fishery Data). 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Avg. Kurilskiy Bay Rybatskaya R. 38.4 36.5 37.2 28.5 25.4 26.8 13.5 16.1 27.5 25.3 16.5 45.5 25.3 27.9 Kurilka R. 355.2 197.8 198.1 255.9 247.1 234.1 189.3 221.9 300.3 180.5 135.7 360.0 320.9 245.9 Podoshevka R. 1.0 2.4 26.8 -- -- 0.2 1.1 0.5 8.4 4.8 5.7 Prostor Bay Aktivniy R. 12.0 15.4 9.1 6.6 12.5 12.8 12.3 12.2 12.5 12.5 0.8 15.5 15.3 11.5 Beliy Cr. 1.0 6.2 0.5 2.6 Chistaya R. 14.3 17.1 13.0 17.1 31.1 24.0 28.0 25.9 25.8 25.3 21.3 51.0 33.5 25.2 Doljniy R. 9.0 10.2 7.1 3.5 7.8 8.5 7.0 3.8 7.5 7.7 5.7 8.1 8.9 7.3 Gushj R. 36.4 36.7 18.2 7.6 25.7 6.5 39.6 1.6 8.3 1.2 13.6 Lk. Sopochnoye 24.0 32.6 27.7 24.6 23.7 23.4 18.9 25.9 26.5 23.7 24.2 45.6 -- 26.7 Lovushka R. 2.6 1.5 3.1 2.8 2.4 Olya R. 57.8 51.8 51.8 38.5 37.1 35.7 48.5 39.1 47.5 36.6 36.4 46.6 45.1 44.0 Privoljniy R. 2.0 0.3 3.6 -- 1.4 -- 5.5 5.3 3.0 Reydovaya R. 77.3 75.7 68.2 64.9 74.7 58.2 54.8 68.1 55.8 49.6 48.7 120.0 73.3 68.4 Senokosniy R. 3.6 3.3 3.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 0.5 2.6 2.9 3 2.2 3.1 2.7 Skaljniy R. 28.8 25.6 25.4 26.6 28.0 23.5 15.9 25.9 19.5 6.8 5.6 35.6 25.0 22.5 Slavnaya R. 410.7 407.0 414.4 290.1 589.8 418.5 390.6 420.1 460.8 395.5 340.6 550.0 475.5 428.0 Sofjya R. 6.0 5.7 5.0 1.1 4.5 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 0.4 5.2 2.6 4.0 Udobnaya R. 1.4 1.0 2.5 1.2 1.9 0.6 2.1 1.5 0.5 3.9 3.5 1.8 Total 1,037 880 861 762 1,093 898 794 894 1,000 863 640 1,307 1,043 919.0

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 33 of 35 SCS Global Services Report

Kaev et al. (2006) evaluated stock-recruitment relationships for the aggregate return of pink salmon to Iturup Island. Fry production was weakly correlated with spawner abundance (R =-0.02). Adult returns were strongly correlated with fry numbers (R = 0.43) and fry to adult survival (R = 0.83). Survival of migrants was estimated to average 4.6% per year. This high rate for fry migrants accounts for the high productivity of this pink salmon stock. Differences in productivity of odd and even year runs were small. Annual fry-to-adult survival was highly variable, ranging from 1.8% to 9.7%. Kaev et al. (2006) concluded that abundance of returning adults was mostly dependent on environmental conditions in the early marine life period. On average, Kaev et al. (2006) estimated that 1.438 million natural spawners entered rivers which is very similar to escapements producing maximum sustained yield (1.6 million) that we estimated from a Ricker stock-recruitment curve derived from data reported by Kaev (Figure 6). Average annual exploitation rates at MSY based on the stock-recruit analysis are approximately 82% although the broad, flat shape of the curve and annual variability in production suggest a little effect on future returns from observed exploitation rates around 90%.

Figure 6. Stock-recruitment relationship of wild pink salmon for aggregate Iturup Island run based on information in Kaev et al. (2006). Hatchery fish are removed from adult recruits based on relative proportions of wild and hatchery fry.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 34 of 36 SCS Global Services Report

Chum Salmon Distribution Chum salmon have the widest distribution of any of the Pacific salmon. They range south to the Sacramento River in California and the island of Kyushu in the Sea of Japan. In the north, they range east in the Arctic Ocean to the Mackenzie River in Canada and west to the Lena River in Siberia. Ten significant chum populations are identified within the certification area on Iturup. Asian chum includes summer and fall run. Iturup chum is a fall run which returns in October and November. Fall chum is found in Japan, the west coast of Sakhalin Island, the southern Kuril Islands, and the Amur River (Salo 1991). Chum runs on Iturup are very diverse with a variety of run timing as well as river and lake forms. Life History Chum salmon are larger but less abundant than pink salmon on Iturup. Chum salmon typically mature at 2 to 5 years of age (primarily at 4 years of age). Iturup chum generally averages about 3.5 kg. Chum returns and fisheries are typically greatest in September and October (Figure 7). On Iturup Island, chum populations are generally restricted to the larger systems and spawning occurs in upwelling areas in the lower reaches of rivers or in lakes. Juvenile chum salmon do not rear for significant periods in freshwater as fry migrate to the sea soon after emergence in the spring.

Figure 7. Run timing of Iturup island chum salmon based on forecast harvest patterns in 2008 near-shore fisheries. Chum salmon generally spawn in low gradient temperate and subarctic rivers and streams, not far from the ocean. Spawning areas often include small streams, intertidal zones, and small side channels and other areas of large rivers where upwelling springs provide excellent conditions for egg survival. Fecundity typically ranges between 2,400 and 3,100 eggs. Chum fry migrate into marine waters emerge from the gravel in the spring and rear briefly in freshwater before migrating to the ocean. They feed on small insects in the stream and estuary before forming into schools in saltwater where their diet usually consists of zooplankton. Recent fry-to-adult survival rates have averaged about 5-10% based on numbers from the Reydovo Hatchery.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 35 of 37 SCS Global Services Report

Stock Structure Detailed genetic studies have recently been completed for Iturup chum populations using microsatellite analysis (Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). Groups of chum from Kurilka and Reydovaya populations are clearly differentiated from each other and from other Iturup chum populations, confirming their individuality as populations. Differentiation was attributed to a highly developed homing sense of chum. Samples from tributaries closely associated with the hatchery continue to show differentiation. Microsatellite DNA analysis has also determined that a shoreline-spawning population in Lebedinoe Lake was genetically different from a stream-spawning chum in the Kurilka system (Zhivotovsky et al. 2011). Status Historical natural populations of chum salmon on Iturup Island were relatively small but numbers have been building island-wide over the last decade. This increase has been attributed to the combined effects of reduced high-seas harvest, management that prioritizes spawning escapements, and enhancement activities. The numbers of chum salmon reaching natural spawning grounds on Iturup Island are estimated to average about 110,000. Spawning escapement goals are consistently being reached or exceeded (Figure 5, Table 12).

Figure 8. Recent average escapements (2005-2017) of Chum salmon in Iturup streams expressed as a percentage of optimum levels compared with the recent annual escapements (Historical Fishery Data).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 36 of 38 SCS Global Services Report

Table 12. Recent spawning densities of Chum salmon in rivers and streams contiguous with Gidrostroy fisheries on Iturup Island (thousands) (Historical Fishery Data). 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Avg. Kurilskiy Bay Rybatskaya R. 1.9 2.7 7.8 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.8 6.9 6.1 6.8 7.1 6.3 0.7 5.4 Kurilka R.a 11.1 15.5 25.9 35.6 35.6 35.3 33.6 33.9 40.5 38.6 60.3 38.0 33.6 33.6 Kurilka main 22.6 22.4 25.3 Lebidinoe Lk. 11.1 10.9 10.1 Kurilsky 1.9 2.3 5.1 Prostor Bay Sopochnoye Lk. 42.0 27.1 43.2 48.9 46.2 42.5 43 43.2 43.3 10.6 -- 35.5 -- 38.7 Reydovaya Rb 25.3 21.8 34.4 22.3 23.1 37.1 34.9 39.9 17.3 39.6 17.3 30.1 32.5 32.5 Reydovaya main 4.4 4.6 6.0 Reydovaya Lk. 10.2 10.7 4.2 Argyn 7.7 7.8 7.1 Olya R. 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Kroxalynyj Total 94.7 67.0 111.4 113.2 111.5 119.4 113.7 124.2 108.1 98.7 109.8 110.3 66.9 108.6 a Includes Kurilka River, Kurilsy River, and Lebedinoe Lake. b Includes Reydovaya River, Argun River, and Reydovaya Lake.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 37 of 39 SCS Global Services Report

Enhancement Objectives Large hatchery programs are operated on Iturup by Gidrostroy for the primary purpose of enhancing the fishery harvest of pink and chum salmon. Gidrostory has identified the following objectives for the operation of their hatchery programs:

. The salmon hatcheries are designed to complement the river ecosystem. . Hatchery workers are to view their work primarily from the perspective of helping to reinforce the natural spawning grounds, rather than just in terms of the numbers of fish returned from the fish released from the salmon hatchery. . The salmon hatcheries must serve as a means of preserving the genetic fund of the population, conserving the environment and restoring populations that have been lost. The salmon hatchery system must be seen as one of the components of the ecosystem as a whole. Consistent with these objectives, hatcheries are operated for:  conformity with legislation aimed at preserving the environment,  structure of operations at the salmon hatchery based upon scientific developments,  funds and number of personnel adequate to meet the goals set for each individual salmon hatchery. Facilities The southern Kurils were inhabited from the 1800s until 1945 by the Japanese who fished for salmon and built the first salmon hatcheries sometime between the late 1800s and the early 1900s. Prior to 1940, the Japanese operated 10 hatcheries on the island with a total capacity of over 180 million eggs (Smirnov et al. 2006). Iturup Island came under Russian Jurisdiction after World War II. After Russia assumed control in 1946, only one hatchery was operated until 1956. A total of 13 salmon hatcheries are operated on Iturup (Figure 9). Nine of these are operated by Gidrostroy – these account for about 90% of the local salmon hatchery production (Table 13). Facilities include older hatcheries leased from the government and newer hatcheries owned outright by Gidrostroy. Gidrostory hatcheries currently release about 115 million Pink Salmon and 175 million Chum Salmon annually (Table 14, Table 15). Since the original certification in 2009, Gidrostroy has substantially expanded hatchery production of Chum Salmon on Iturup. Five new facilities were constructed and began operation. Gidrostory also purchased an existing hatchery Olya Bay Hatchery It was built on the sea coast of Prostor Bay in an area segregated from natural salmon spawning areas. The hatchery uses spring and/or well water. Fish were first released in 2010 from a Reydova Hatchery brood source. Releases have been otolith marked for assessment purposes. Kitovvy Hatchery It was built on the sea coast of Kurilskiy Bay in an area segregated from natural salmon spawning areas. The hatchery uses spring and/or well water. Fish were first released in 2012 from a Reydova Hatchery brood source. Releases have been otolith marked for assessment purposes. Initial returns from Kitovvy

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 38 of 40 SCS Global Services Report

have shown significant straying back to hatcheries where initial broods were incubated prior to transfer to the new hatchery for feeding and release. However, broodstock collection, incubation, rearing and release subsequently occurred entirely at each facility which substantially reduced straying. Yankito Hatchery This hatchery began operation on the coast of Kurilskiy Bay, first releasing fish in 2015. This is a segregated program in an area without wild spawners and hatchery practices are designed to encourage hatchery- origin adults to return directly to facilities with minimal straying into other systems. Lebedina Hatchery This hatchery began releasing Chum Salmon in 2016. This hatchery was constructed on a tributary to Lebedinoe Lake in the Kurilka River system. The hatchery is operated with water diverted from the tributary. The Kurilka hatchery is also operated on the same system. Mineralnaya Hatchery The hatchery began releasing Chum Salmon in 2017. This hatchery was constructed on a tributary to the Reydovaya River system. The Reydovo hatchery is also operated on the same system. Konservnaya Hatchery This hatchery will begin releasing Chum Salmon in 2019. This is a segregated program in an area without wild spawners and hatchery practices are designed to encourage hatchery-origin adults to return directly to facilities with minimal straying into other systems. Reports were provided for the Lebedinoe, Mineralnaya and Konservnaya Hatcheries prepared as part of the regulatory review and approval process. Hatcheries on freshwater systems were assessed by regional authorities and hatcheries on marine waters are assessed by the Federal Scientific agency (SakNIRO). Current broodstock needs at capacity are approximately 200,000 Pink Salmon and 190,000 Chum Salmon (Table 16). Smaller numbers of Pink Salmon broodstock were collected many recent years based on availability. Chum Salmon broodstock numbers have increased substantially with the development of new hatcheries.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 39 of 41 SCS Global Services Report

Aktivniy R.

Glushj R. Slavnaya R. Doljniy R. Privoljniy R.

Chistaya R. Skalnyy Sofjya R. Konservnaya Dobrynina R. Sopochnaya Skaljniy R. Senokosniy R. Sopochnoye L. Yankito Olya Okeanskiy Olya R. Mineralnaya Kitovi Lebedinaya Podoshevka R. Beliy Cr. Reydovaya R. Kurilskiy Udobnaya R. Saratovka Kurilka R. Reydovo Blagodatnoe Rybatskaya R. Ozero

Kuibyshevka Kuybycheyka R.

Syetizna R.

Figure 9. Locations of existing salmon hatcheries (red), new hatcheries (green) and other hatchery sites that were previously evaluated by SakhNIRO (yellow) on Iturup Island.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 40 of 42 SCS Global Services Report

Table 13. Production by hatcheries currently operated on Iturup Island (recent releases) (JSC Gidrostroy 2017, unpublished information). Pink Chum No. % of No. % of the Hatchery Area (millions) total (millions) total Kurilsk Курильский Kurilskiy Bay 75 56% 32.8 13% Kitovyy Китовый Kurilskiy Bay -- -- 17.6 7% Yankito Янкито Kurilskiy Bay -- -- 25.0 10% Lebedina Лебединый Kurilskiy Bay -- -- 25.0 10% Reydovo Рейдовый Prostor Bay 43 32% 35.8 15%

Olya Bay Бухта Оля Prostor Bay -- -- 29.9 12% Skalnyya Prostor Bay 8 6% 1.7 1% Mineralnaya Prostor Bay -- -- 25.0 10%

Gidrostroy Konservnaya Prostor Bay -- -- 25.0 10% Osennyy Osennyaya -- -- 9.7 4% Kuibyshevka Kuibyshev Bay 6.8 5% 8.9 4% Ozero Kuibyshev Bay -- -- 4.8 2%

Others Okeanskiy Pacific side -- -- 3.2 1% 132.8 100% 244.4 100% a Purchased by Gidrostroy in 2015-16.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 41 of 43 SCS Global Services Report

Table 14. Annual numbers (millions) and mark rates (%) of juvenile pink salmon released from Gidrostroy hatcheries (J.S.C. Gidrostroy unpublished data). Kurilsk Reydovo Olya Bay Kitovvy Mineralnaya Skaljniy Total Year No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1991 103.0 -- 62.1 -- 165.1 -- 1992 103.1 -- 51.8 -- 154.9 -- 1993 73.0 -- 34.4 -- 107.4 -- 1994 57.4 -- 10.2 -- 67.6 -- 1995 77.0 -- 34.8 -- 111.8 -- 1996 30.0 -- 32.5 -- 62.5 -- 1997 48.8 -- 24.5 -- 73.3 -- 1998 49.2 -- 20.4 -- 69.6 -- 1999 52.3 -- 13.3 -- 65.6 -- 2000 54.8 -- 34.7 -- 89.5 -- 2001 56.4 -- 42.5 -- 98.9 -- 2002 52.2 -- 45.8 -- 98 -- 2003 55.5 -- 42.8 -- 98.3 -- 2004 61.9 -- 44.2 -- 106.1 -- 2005 70.5 -- 43.8 -- 114.3 -- 2006 65.2 -- 40.7 -- 105.9 -- 2007 74.4 -- 41.7 -- 116.1 -- 2008 73.0 -- 42.1 -- 115.1 -- 2009 73.1 11 42.2 100 115.3 45 2010 58.0 84 42.2 100 100.2 91 2011 73.3 100 42.9 100 116.2 100 2012 51.3 100 27.7 100 79.0 100 2013 71.6 100 43.7 100 115.3 100 2014 75.3 100 42.7 100 118.0 100 2015 45.3 59 25.3 11 70.6 42 2016 40.3 0 18.5 0 58.8 2017 74.2 0 41.5 0 115.7 0 2018 68.4 0 42.3 0 3.8 0 12.5 9 5.8 0 0.9 0 132.7 0 2019

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 42 of 44 SCS Global Services Report

Table 15. Annual numbers (millions) and mark rates (%) of juvenile chum salmon released from Gidrostroy hatcheries (J.S.C. Gidrostroy unpublished data). Kurilsk Reydovo Olya Bay Kitovyy Yankito Lebedina Mineralnaya Total Year No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1991 -- 9.2 ------9.2 -- 1992 0.5 -- 6.0 ------6.5 -- 1993 0.0 -- 2.2 ------2.2 -- 1994 1.0 -- 20.0 ------21 -- 1995 1.0 -- 11.3 ------12.3 -- 1996 0.0 -- 10.7 ------10.7 -- 1997 0.0 -- 10.5 ------10.5 -- 1998 0.0 -- 8.9 ------8.9 -- 1999 0.1 -- 15.3 ------15.4 -- 2000 0.0 -- 23.2 ------23.2 -- 2001 0.0 -- 22.9 ------22.9 -- 2002 0.0 -- 22.7 ------22.7 -- 2003 0.0 -- 23.1 ------23.1 -- 2004 10.4 -- 23.3 ------33.7 -- 2005 4.7 -- 23.8 ------28.5 -- 2006 19.0 -- 23.5 ------42.5 -- 2007 17.7 -- 26.0 ------43.7 -- 2008 20.6 -- 25.2 ------45.8 -- 2009 20.4 12 23.9 100 ------44.3 61 2010 27.0 52 26.4 100 19.5 100 ------72.9 79 2011 20.6 13 26.5 100 26.2 100 ------73.4 100 2012 32.8 43 36.6 100 29.9 100 17.6 15 ------116.1 87 2013 20.4 13 29.4 100 35.4 100 28.4 100 ------113.6 84 2014 21.9 36 27.8 100 39.2 100 29.8 100 ------118.7 49 2015 22.1 42 28.5 100 51.5 36 34.3 63 21.6 0 ------158.0 49 2016 21.8 0 24.1 0 51.5 0 34.4 0 21.9 0 21.4 0 -- -- 175.1 0 2017 18.5 0 23.5 0 41.3 0 31.5 0 19.4 0 21.2 0 21.9 0 177.3 0 2018 20.8 0 23.8 0 44.0 0 12.7 0 4.0 0 4.5 100 8.5 0 118.3 4 2018

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 43 of 45 SCS Global Services Report

Table 16. Annual broodstock collection numbers at Gidrostroy hatcheries. Pink Chum Kurilsk Reydovo Skalnyy Total Kurilsk Kitovyy Reydovo Olya Bay Yankito Lebedinoe Mineralnaya Skaljniy Total 2007 135,561 79,447 -- 215,008 18,879 -- 22,971 0 ------41,850 2008 109,048 69,468 -- 178,516 19,642 -- 30,818 0 ------50,460 2009 86,669 72,983 -- 159,652 27,793 -- 26,607 19,515 ------73,915 2010 121,852 77,323 -- 199,175 20,635 -- 32,097 24,041 ------76,773 2011 82,926 48,694 -- 131,620 62,225 0 36,576 27,522 ------126,323 2012 114,940 62,044 -- 176,984 22,237 31,450 32,698 36,674 ------123,059 2013 78,456 46,134 -- 124,590 23,749 32,130 32,478 50,277 ------138,634 2014 48,241 28,029 -- 76,270 24,068 38,000 32,398 56,177 24,525 -- -- 175,168 2015 42,819 20,438 -- 63,257 23,835 38,014 26,348 55,931 24,485 24,138 -- 192,751 2016 78,900 46,100 8,000 133,000 20,300 35,100 26,300 44,800 21,450 23,400 23,850 950 196,150 2017 71,993 46,156 7966 126,115 23,496 14,329 26,324 44,702 4,401 4,706 9,541 0 127,499 2018 Source: J.S.C. Gidrostroy

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 44 of 46 SCS Global Services Report

Production Gidrostroy facilities accounted for 85% of the pink salmon and 81% of the chum salmon releases on Iturup (Table 13). Production of pink salmon from Gidrostroy Hatcheries currently averages about 100 million per year. Production of chum salmon from Gidtrostroy Hatcheries reached 116 million in 2012. Hatchery production of both species had declined by the 1990s but has increased in the interim. Pink salmon production has now stabilized at levels below historical maximums – larger historical releases were believed to exceed the production capacity of near-shore marine waters. Chum salmon releases have grown considerably from very low levels in the 1990s with the development of dedicated new facilities. Chum releases have increased 5-fold since 2003 with the completion of two new hatcheries at Olya Bay and Kitovyy. Enhancement activities of the Kurilsk and Reydovo hatcheries are similar to those reviewed in the original certification (SCS 2009). These hatchery programs operate as “integrated” systems intended to maintain the genetic characteristics of the local natural populations among hatchery fish by minimizing the genetic effects of selection or domestication. The hatchery programs employ a mixture of hatchery and natural- origin fish as broodstock, include large effective population sizes of broodstock, spawn fish over the duration of the run, avoid selective incubation and rearing practices, and minimize the duration of hatchery rearing. The Olya Bay hatchery began operation in 2009. Fish were first released in 2010. This hatchery releases chum salmon in a small artificial lagoon at the site of the hatchery which is right next to the Prostor Bay processing plant. Production capacity is 27 million with a goal of 1,000 to 2,000 tons of return. Production was established with broodstock from Reydovo hatchery and will rely on its own broodstock collected from the hatchery lagoon. The facility is being operated as a segregated program where the hatchery production will be maintained as a genetically distinct population from natural chum populations in the area. The hatchery utilizes spring water which provides a stable year-round temperature of 6-7°C and allows release in May-June at a larger average size. Early rearing will also utilize saltwater which is further expected to increase the size at release, survival, and returns. The production is 100% otolith marked so that fishery contribution and straying can be assessed (Smirnov and Bubunets, 2008). The Kitovyy Bay began operation in 2011 with Kurilsk hatchery broodstock. The production target will be 25-30 million chum initially. Fish were released in 2012 for the first time. This hatchery utilizes surface water from the adjacent Podsheka River. This is a small stream with very limited natural production potential for salmon. The facility is being operated as a segregated program where the hatchery production will be maintained as a genetically distinct population from natural chum populations in the area. An assessment of the hatchery feasibility prepared by the science branch of the Federal Fisheries Agency (VNiro) is also included on the web pages for this fishery (Smirnov and Bubunets, 2009).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 45 of 47 SCS Global Services Report

300 30 Kurilsk releases Harvest Reydovo releases

200 20

100 10 Hatchery releases (millions) releases Hatchery Harvest (thousandHarvest metric tons) 0 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 10. Annual pink salmon releases from the Kurilsk and Reydovo hatcheries and total harvest from the Iturup Island area (harvest data from Smirnov et al. 2006; release data from Gidrostroy, unpublished).

60 5 Reydovo releases Kurilsk releases 50 4

40 3 Harvest 30

2 20

1 10 Hatchery releases (millions) Hatchery Harvest (thousand metric tons) 0 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 11. Annual chum salmon releases from Kurilsk and Reydovo hatcheries and total harvest of chum salmon in Iturup Island area (harvest data from Smirnov et al. 2006; release data from Gidrostroy, unpublished).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 46 of 48 SCS Global Services Report

Practices The client reports that current protocols are generally designed to avoid divergence between hatchery and wild fish. These include collection of hatchery broodstock throughout the period of wild return, use of natural water sources and creation of incubation and rearing conditions like those found in the river, avoidance of significant mortality, sorting, or grading in the hatchery that might introduce selection, and release of fish at small sizes to complete the balance of their life cycle under natural conditions. The primary difference between hatchery and wild fish is that the hatchery fish are held slightly longer and are slightly bigger on average than the wild fish at emigration. However, the average size of hatchery fish is still within the natural range of wild out-migrants. If these hatchery practices are adequate to ensure that no directed or inadvertent selection or domestication results from hatchery practices, then this approach would be adequate to ensure that enhanced fish do not adversely affect the wild stock in mixed systems. Pink hatchery fish typically enter the rivers from mid-July through early October. Pink salmon egg take occurs from September 12-14 through October 10-14. Incubation is from November through January. Hatch is from the end of November through January. Fish are incubated with ambient river water and emergence timing is similar to that of wild fish. Post-hatch, larvae typically lay on the bottom until April or May. Natural out-migration occurs from the end of April to the end of May. Snowmelt occurs around the end of April and river temperatures are typically 1.5°C at that time. Fry are fed for 25-30 days before release between May 25 and June 25. Daily food rations are 2.2%. Daily production cohorts are ponded separately and released sequentially, although late season production groups are sometimes reared together. Fry are volitionally released from each pond in sequence on dates corresponding to egg take dates. Fish are released daily during the evening hours in lots of 1 to 3 million at a time. The beginning of pink salmon releases is timed to correspond to the beginning of the decline in natural out-migrant numbers. Because of feeding, pink fry is larger than natural fry emigrating at the same time, so the timing is offset to avoid competition to the extent possible. The later release timing also ensures that hatchery fry will enter the ocean after under favorable seasonal temperature and feeding conditions. Research has shown that spring temperature when fry enter the ocean are strongly correlated with subsequent return rates (Kaev et al. 2006). A significant increase in hatchery chum survival has been achieved since the institution of a program of rearing and releasing young salmon when conditions in coastal waters are optimum (Smirnov et al. 2006). Chum egg take typically begins October 12-14 and ends November 10-12. Hatch occurs from the end of December to the end of January. Swim-up begins in early April and continues to early May in Reydovaya and from April 20 to May 20 in Kurilka (Reydovaya is warmer). Chum are reared using river and well water. The cooler well water is used beginning in May when the river is 3°C warmer to avoid abrupt temperature changes and the influx of dirty meltwater. Fish can’t be released until the ocean begins to warm. Natural and hatchery outmigration timing is similar (May 25-June 10). Hatchery chum is larger than wild chum because of feeding. The goal of feeding is to improve post-release survival. Chum releases are distributed over an extended period. Kurilsk and Redova hatcheries were built on tributary streams and small springs or surface water diversion for their operations. These hatcheries are managed as integrated programs where hatchery fish are managed to be the same as wild fish where the hatchery is located. The sole exception concerns feeding

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 47 of 49 SCS Global Services Report

and release timing. This is done to reduce the potential for competition and to improve survival. There is no evidence that this activity results in any corresponding changes in life history patterns. Olya Bay and Kitovyy were sited outside significant salmon-producing rivers and are designed as segregated programs intended to maximize harvest of returns and minimize wild escapement. Instead of being located on a stream, these facilities are located directly on bays adjacent to processing plants and utilize groundwater to run the hatchery. This imprints the groundwater signature on developing salmon. A small lagoon was built at the hatchery site for the salmon to acclimate to saltwater once released from the hatchery. Returning hatchery fish home in strongly back to the lagoon, which has a fish ladder that leads directly to the processing plant. Only local broodstock was used for the Gidrostroy hatchery programs. Each hatchery functioning on a particular base watershed has its own local school used for purposes of artificial regeneration. Spawning fish from other waters are not used. A paper produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides a review of chum salmon throughout the Pacific. In this review, the authors’ state: “Unlike Japanese programs, Russian hatchery programs were never designed to manage rivers exclusively for hatchery fish. Russian hatcheries have generally used local chum salmon for broodstock, and no attempt has been made to block natural production.” Historical operations may have included out-of-basin transfers but in the late 1970s, on the advice of Russian geneticists, hatchery managers reduced the number of egg transfers to reduce the effects of interactions between natural and hatchery fish (Helle 1979). Current hatchery genetics policies recommend taking broodstock from the beginning, middle and end of the run. Small numbers of broodstock are taken per day in consideration of maintaining a natural genetic population structure. Target daily broodstock number is 20 males and 20 females. Early and late season sex ratios might be skewed more to males and females, respectively. Gametes from all fish are mixed. Take for broodstock is regulated by the natural escapement. Chum salmon broodstock numbers have increased substantially with the development of two new hatcheries. Broodstock is collected from throughout the run and held until they ripen. Eggs are collected for the normal period even during late and contracted run timing of pink salmon as occurred in 2012. Eggs are collected without regard for adult size. No antibiotics or chemicals are used in the hatcheries. Water that is released from these older hatcheries is tested for several compounds including nitrates, phosphates as well as temperature by government monitors before being allowed back into the natural system. Hatchery protocols also include removal of char from the hatchery discharge channel at the time of hatchery releases. For instance, in May and June of 2007, 1,718 predators weighing an average of 0.35 kg were removed from the Reydovaya River (Table 15 in Mizina and Molchanov 2007). Fish are caught at night time using portable trap nets (Pogodin, email 6/30/2008). Catches in previous years ranged from zero to 1,600 fish. As many as 50-70 char per week have been caught and used to feed taimen temporarily held in captivity. As to the river proper, there are only sport fisheries for char using fishing rods. Rivers with no hatcheries are characterized with only a small scale sport fisheries for char, therefore, their stocks are stable and very abundant. Regulation Hatcheries production and practices are regulated by the government. Federal regulation and Company policy both establish goals and objectives for ensuring that natural spawning escapement is adequate to

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 48 of 50 SCS Global Services Report

seed the available spawning habitats (L. Voronova, personal communication). Neither current practice nor the management system distinguishes between “hatchery” fish released to complete their life cycle in the wild before returning to spawn in the wild, “wild” fish that never enter a hatchery, and “natural” fish that may include progeny of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. Spawning populations consisting of the hatchery, wild and natural fish are described as “mixed.” The escapement in mixed systems is not managed to control the incidence of hatchery or natural fish spawning in the wild although some degree of spatial separation apparently occurs in mixed systems due to homing of hatchery fish to specific streams and temporal run patterns throughout the drainage. Evaluations The significance of hatchery risks to wild fish is a subject of growing debate within the Russian management system and scientific community but the subject remains controversial. The current scientific literature regarding the management of salmon hatchery programs highlights the importance of avoiding divergence between hatchery and wild population characteristics in integrated systems like those operated within Iturup rivers (e.g. Busack and Currens 1995, NRC 1996, Lynch and O’Hely. 2001, Ford 2002, Kostow 2009). There is an emerging consensus that competition with hatchery fish can affect wild fish in some near-shore ocean areas due to limitations in the carrying capacity of the ocean ecosystem. Significant questions and disagreements exist regarding 1) differences in survivorship between hatchery and wild salmon at sea; 2) the significance of specific selection and thus in genetic changes in population which may accumulate in generations; 3) the magnitude and effect of straying by hatchery and naturally- produced salmon; and 4) the impact of high exploitations rates for hatchery-enhanced runs on wild populations. Kaev (2012) recently highlighted potential ecological risks associated with hatchery salmon production in the Sakhalin-Kuril region. Hatchery rearing clearly increases survivorship in the freshwater phase of the life cycle. The hatchery is estimated to increase net survival of pink salmon by approximately ten-fold relative to the wild. Thus, one female typically produces about 1,500 juveniles in the hatchery relative to about 150 juveniles in the wild. Post-release survival is also increased in some areas by increasing the fish size at release by incubation and early rearing at warmer temperatures and feeding for one to two weeks (pink salmon) or months (chum salmon) prior to release. However, differences in ocean survival of hatchery and wild fish are unclear. Current assessments of survival and productivity typically assume similar rates for hatchery and wild fish (Kaev et al. 2004; Kaev and Geraschenko 2008). The management system generally believes that artificial hatchery selection is limited by the short period of the life cycle spent in the hatchery and practices intended to emulate natural conditions. Geneticists working in the management system have also concluded that high natural stray rates of pink salmon help buffer wild populations from significant hatchery effects (although high stray rates would also increase hatchery influences on more distant wild populations as well). Relative run sizes have been estimated based on hatchery release numbers and wild production inferred from natural escapements and juvenile monitoring (Kaev et al. 2006). These estimates suggested that hatchery production accounted for 37 to 70% of chum salmon in the annual average run (combined harvest and escapement). Current hatchery contributions to the pink salmon return were reduced from about 55% during 1976-1984 by a reduction in hatchery production since the 1980s (Figure 12).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 49 of 51 SCS Global Services Report

1.0

0.8 Hatchery Natural 0.6

0.4 Proportion 0.2

0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 12. Estimated annual hatchery and natural proportions in juvenile fry production of pink salmon from Iturup Island (Kaev et al. 2006).

At the time of the 2009 certification, estimates of hatchery stray rates into natural spawning areas had not been quantified but run timing data provided strong evidence that stray rates were not significant. Pink salmon run timing varies in different portions of both the Kurilka and Reydovaya systems. For instance, spawners in the Kurilka River mainstem where the hatchery is located, predominately return during the peak of the run. About 50% of the natural production capacity in the Kurilka comes from the mainstem. Spawners in two downstream tributaries, each comprising about 25% of the productive capacity, are earlier-timed and later-timed on average than the mainstem spawners. This difference is consistent over time which would be unlikely if hatchery stray rates among tributaries were high. Hatchery and natural population characteristics including run timing, age, sex ratio, and size are also being monitored for potential hatchery-related changes. Significant annual variation in age composition has been observed in the chum return but hatchery fluctuations characteristically coincide with those of naturally spawning chum. Similarly, there has been no trend towards a change in the average age of maturity, or any relationship between age of maturity and number of fish released or the size of the spawning population of chum. Sex ratio and fish size typically vary over the duration of the annual spawning return. Selective egg take from early or late portions of the run can result in corresponding changes in timing or fish size in the return but the lack of any shift among Iturup chum suggests that the current broodstock collection practice has effectively avoided a hatchery selection effect (Smirnov et al. 2006). To better address the questions regarding the contribution of hatchery-produced fish in the harvest and the natural spawning escapement, otolith marking of pink and chum hatchery production were initiated in 2009. Marking of hatchery fish with the year and hatchery-specific otolith patterns was initiated by Gidrostroy hatcheries (Akinicheva 2011) with a goal of 100% marking of both pink and chum. Marking is accomplished using the dry method except at Reydova the water system allows for use of the wet method. All Reydovo and Olya pink and chum hatchery releases and a portion of the Kurilsk and Kitovvy hatchery releases are currently being otolith-marked (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Marking at Kurilsky is constrained by technical issues - incubation ponds for a portion of the chum production have gravel bottoms subject to upwelling which complicates marking efforts. A sampling program was initiated in 2010 which provided the first opportunity to recover marked adults. Marked pink salmon began returning in 2010. Chum salmon, which spend long periods of time at sea, began returning in 2012. Samples were collected from sea nets, hatchery broodstock, and natural

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 50 of 52 SCS Global Services Report

spawning areas. Similar sampling was also conducted in 2013. Results of sampling in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were reported by Akinicheva (2011, 2012, 2013). Results of 2010 sampling (Akinicheva 2011) found that: 1) hatchery-origin spawning stock includes some number of naturally-produced pink which reduces the potential for domestication, 2) substantial numbers of hatchery-origin fish spawn naturally in rivers where hatcheries are located, 3) hatchery-origin pink salmon comprise a relatively small fraction of natural spawners in rivers not connected to hatchery rivers, and 4) the number of hatchery-origin fish is reduced with ever-increasing distance from the mouths of rivers with hatcheries. These results corroborated information on run timing of fish in the hatchery and non-hatchery rivers, and supported conclusions regarding limited hatchery contributions to wild populations in the original assessment. Results of 2011 sampling (Akinicheva et al. 2012) found that: 1) As a result of the tagged pink salmon identification in the return of the years 2010-2011, data were obtained about the proportion between wild and hatchery-origin pink salmon in the areas of Reidova and Kurilka salmon hatcheries; in Prostor and Kurilskiy Bays; as well as the ways of migration to the spawning grounds of the Northern part of Iturup Island. 2) A significant portion of hatchery-origin pink salmon was registered in approaches to the basic rivers of hatcheries. 3) A significant part of catches in the year of 2011 was provided by the hatcheries activities. 4) In 2011 the straying portion for pink salmon from Kurilka Salmon Hatchery was larger than for the pink salmon from Reidova Salmon Hatchery; it may be connected with the longer period of spawning migration along the Iturup Island coast. 5) The initial data provides a supposition that a significant portion of hatchery-origin pink salmon migrates through the Friz Strait. At the same time, the registered presence of spawners with tags from Reidova Salmon Hatchery in net catches in Kurilskiy Bay, without visiting Kurilka River, can be explained by straying in the rivers of the Bay, or by the existence of other paths of migration. 6) The obtained data will become a basis for the development of calculation methods for counting quantity of the return of hatchery-origin pink salmon to Iturup Island. Results from sampling in 2012 saw the first returns of chum salmon that were marked in 2009 (Akinicheva 2013) and found that: 1) In 2009, 23.89 million chum were released from Reydova and 18.7 million chum were released from Kurilsky hatchery. The paper notes that marking success for chum salmon was 100% from Reydova hatcheries while marking success from the Kurilsky hatchery system was 12.3% or roughly 10 times more chum salmon were marked from Reydova than Kurilsky hatchery. This was due to natural upwelling from a spring at the Kurilsky hatchery site influencing hatchery water source temperature. Those that were marked were clearly identifiable for hatchery origin.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 51 of 53 SCS Global Services Report

2) Samples were collected from purse seines within the bays, at the mouths of rivers, within the river systems and some samples were taken from the lakes. Ten different systems were sampled more than once from September through November 2012. Of 2,893 chum samples collected, 526 were of hatchery origin indicating that almost 82% did not have marks. 3) Of the chum salmon that did contain marks (~18%), ~16% were from Reydova, ~1.6% were from Kurilsky and one sample was intercepted from Japan (purse seine). These results indicate that returns from Reydova and Kurilsky are in about the same proportions as releases (~10X as many from Reydova). 4) There was a small proportion of marked chum salmon found at the approaches to Slavnaya River (2.5% from Kurilsky and 3.8% from Reydova). There were no marked samples found in Lebidinoe lake samples (n=54) or Sopochnoe lake samples (n=99). Since the previous assessment, Zhivotovsky et al. (2011) reported results of genetic evaluation of hatchery impacts on wild chum in the Kurilla system. This study found that, following releases of chum salmon from Kurilsk hatchery beginning in 2004, the more numerous river-spawning form of chum salmon produced by the hatchery had strayed in significant numbers into nearby Lebedinoe Lake and may have swamped a genetically-distinct beach-spawning population. This conclusion was based on comparisons of age composition and microsatellite DNA information between the two populations before and after hatchery fish began to return in large numbers. To address this issue, the paper recommended: 1) careful estimation of the carrying capacity of the natural spawning ground, 2) concerted efforts to restore and conserve the unique population characteristics, 3) development of a marking program for direct estimation of straying, and 4) evaluation of ecological and genetic impacts of hatchery fish on neighboring wild and natural populations. These results are not definitive. Sample sizes and dates were limited, the degree of interaction between wild and hatchery spawners was not assessed, contributions of hatchery and wild chum to production for this system is unknown The microsatellite DNA and the otolith mark-recapture studies appear to have conflicting results regarding the hatchery influence on Lebidinoe Lake. Both Zhivotovsky et al. (2011) and Akinicheva (2013) reported that results were based on limited sample numbers and dates. The relative contributions of natural and hatchery fish to chum production were not assessed. It is unknown if the reproductive success of hatchery and wild is similar in the conditions endemic to Lebedinoe Lake. Both studies will continue and increase sample sizes and the period over which samples are taken to determine the level of impact of hatchery origin spawners on natural spawning populations. In the 2010 surveillance, Gidrostroy was directed to prepare an action plan for addressing the issue of stray hatchery chum into the unique wild population of Lebedinoe Lake. This plan was to include: 1) an assessment of the significance of the problem, 2) a description of interim remedial measures for addressing the issue using current management tools, 3) additional information on current wild population status, the incidence of hatchery strays based on marking data, and the occurrence of other lake-spawning populations on Iturup, and 4) identification of a long term strategy for identifying, evaluating and implementing appropriate conservation alternatives.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 52 of 54 SCS Global Services Report

5) A plan for implementation with timelines and responsible parties An interim assessment plan was developed and substantive assessment measures were implemented in 2012 (Pogodin 2012). New assessments included supplemental spawning ground surveys to estimate Lebedinoe Lake spawner numbers at intervals throughout the duration of spawning and collect otolith from carcasses. These activities indicated that a substantial population might still remain and that the potential for detrimental hatchery effects may be mitigated by differential run timing of the wild fish. Historical information on the status of this population has been identified in governmental records and is currently being reviewed and evaluated. In addition, consideration of hatchery development at the Lebedinoe Lake was suspended based on recognition of the significant local chum population. Fishery managers continue to monitor escapement and have increased enforcement to prevent poaching on the lakes. Fishery and hatchery operations have been adopted to limit over escapement of hatchery chum salmon into Lebedinoe Lake to help protect the beach-spawning population. The weir at the mouth of the Kurilka River is operated to limit the influx of large numbers of fish into natural spawning areas. A weir in the hatchery tributary stream is operated to maximize the collection of hatchery fish. Hatchery weir closures are avoided to reduce the likelihood of hatchery fish straying into other portions of the system. A more-intensive annual monitoring program was implemented beginning in 2013 for chum salmon in Lebedinoe Lake by a formal agreement between Gidrostroy and VNIRO (http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/ENG_Calendar_work_plan_for_Lake_Lebedinoye.pdf). According to a survey done by the experts of FGBU “Sakhalinrybvod”, the number of chum salmon spawning in the lake was 10-12 thousand fish in 2008 and 2009 (102-107%). In the interim from 2009 to 2013, the ichthyologists of FGBU “Sakhalinrybvod” did not conduct a survey of the spawning grounds of the lake. Fish counts and carcass sampling was scheduled from mid-October until December. Results of the study were to provide a basis for a population assessment and a plan for its preservation. Otolith sampling results in 2013 included returns of 2+, 3+ and 4+ chum salmon. 1) Reidova hatchery origin chum salmon comprise 80-90% of the total return to the hatchery Reydovaya River mouth and broodstock collection site. 2) Kurilsky hatchery origin chum salmon comprise about 90% of the total return to the hatchery Kurilka River mouth and broodstock collection site. Tagged fish comprised only about 13% of the total sample but are expanded to account for the 12-20% hatchery mark rate. The percentage of Kurilsky hatchery in the run decreases from 100% in early October to about 60% by the end of October. 3) No significant exchange of Reidova and Kurilsky hatchery chum was observed between Reydovaya and Kurilka systems. 4) Straying of Kurilsky hatchery chum salmon into natural spawning areas of the Kurilka system was documented. 5) Straying of Kitovvy Hatchery chum salmon was also observed in the Kurilka system. These fish were incubated at the Kurilsky hatchery prior to feeding and release at Kitovvy. This interim production strategy for Kitovvy likely increased the propensity to stray.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 53 of 55 SCS Global Services Report

6) Hatchery origin chum salmon were documented in Lebedinoe Lake and tributaries. The majority of these were Kitovvy Hatchery origin but Kurilsky Hatchery fish were also observed. Approximately 30% of the chum sampled from October 18 through November 13 were of hatchery origin. Hatchery percentages dropped substantially by the end of October although sample sizes were low. With respect to Lebedinoe Lake chum, spawning ground surveys and otolith sampling conducted to date support a conclusion that a significant natural spawning population exists in this system. Hatchery-origin strays occur primarily during October while the natural population returns primarily in November to spawn after lake temperatures cool. While sampling of widely distributed streams has been limited, the lack of straying of hatchery chum salmon outside the river system of origin indicates a high level of homing fidelity (with the exception of the Kitovyy anomaly related to the first year of the program). All sampling to date in non-hatchery rivers and lakes suggests that populations in these areas are almost entirely comprised of natural-origin fish.

7.2.2 Catch Table 17. TAC and Catch Data (Pink salmon) in the Gidrostroy Iturup salmon fishery. TAC Year 2018 Amount Same as catch (below) UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 100% UoC share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 100% Total green weight Year (most recent) 2018 Amount catch by UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2017 Amount 12,222 metric tonnes

Table 18. TAC and Catch Data (Chum salmon). TAC Year 2018 Amount Same as catch (below) UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 100% UoC share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 100% Total green weight Year (most recent) 2018 Amount catch by UoC Year (2nd most recent) 2017 Amount 3,211 metric tonnes

Commercial salmon fisheries in the Russian Pacific have a long history, with official harvests documented since 1876. Harvest of pink salmon in combined Russian commercial fisheries is currently at or above record historical levels (Figure 13). Catches increased following the 1977 regime shift in ocean conditions which provided very favorable conditions for salmon survival throughout the North Pacific (Irvine et al. 2009). High levels of hatchery production have also contributed to continuing high catch levels. Catches have remained high since the 1990s with no indication of decline (Irvine et al. 2009) although numbers can vary substantially from year to year. Catches of pink salmon at Iturup Island fisheries increased progressively beginning in the late 1960s in response to improving climatic conditions for pink salmon across the North Pacific and increases in

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 54 of 56 SCS Global Services Report

artificial production (Smirnov et al. 2006). Harvest peaked during the late 1980s during a period of record hatchery production but declined during the 1990s following a decline in hatchery production after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Harvest increased again after 2000 to current levels following the revitalization of the fishery and hatchery system led by Gidrostroy. Ten-year average harvest by Gidrostroy on Iturup is approximately 13,000 mt of Pink Salmon and 6,500 mt of Chum Salmon (Table 19). These equal the 9 million Pink and 1.9 million Chum per year. Gidrostroy accounts for about two-thirds of the Iturup Pink harvest and 90% of the Chum harvest. Annual exploitation rates in combined Iturup Island fisheries average about 90% on Pink Salmon (Kaev et al. 2006). Recent Pink Salmon returns have been highly variable in recent years. Chum Salmon returns have been consistently strong with the development of new hatchery programs.

300 Odd year 250 Even year

200

150

100 Harvest (mt) Harvest 50

0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Figure 13. Annual catches of pink salmon in Russian commercial fisheries (Irvine et al. 2009).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 55 of 57 SCS Global Services Report

35,000 Pink Salmon 30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

Catch (thousands of fish) of (thousands Catch 5,000

0

8,000 Chum Salmon 7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000 Catch (thousands of fish) of (thousands Catch

1,000

0

Figure 14. Annual catches of Pink and Chum Salmon in Kuril Islands (North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission data: https://npafc.org/statistics/).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 56 of 58 SCS Global Services Report

Chum 30,000 Pink

20,000 Harvest (mt) Harvest 10,000

0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 15. Recent harvest trends of Pink and Chum Salmon in Gidrostroy Iturup fishery.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 57 of 59 SCS Global Services Report

Table 19. Annual harvest of Pink and Chum Salmon in Gidrostroy Iturup fishery. Pink Chum Year kg Numbera kg Numbera 1998 15,650,211 11,200,000 419,805 120,000 1999 10,422,707 7,400,000 872,018 250,000 2000 29,452,129 21,000,000 878,170 250,000 2001 15,081,190 10,800,000 1,369,904 390,000 2002 24,180,131 17,300,000 3,157,866 900,000 2003 10,541,711 7,500,000 4,496,341 1,280,000 2004 20,153,990 14,400,000 2,849,466 810,000 2005 21,703,700 15,500,000 1,157,440 330,000 2006 30,699,000 21,900,000 2,967,400 850,000 2007 24,062,378 17,200,000 5,043,787 1,440,000 2008 22,235,128 15,900,000 10,302,337 2,940,000 2009 16,869,773 12,000,000 9,623,381 2,750,000 2010 21,430,000 15,300,000 5,518,000 1,580,000 2011 3,451,126 2,500,000 3,382,895 970,000 2012 22,007,069 15,700,000 3,468,524 990,000 2013 14,097,729 10,100,000 4,354,717 1,200,000 2014 3,453,737 2,500,000 7,497,427 2,100,000 2015 879,515 600,000 13,551,746 3,900,000 2016b 11,156,746 8,000,000 4,676,556 1,300,000 2017b 12,221,222 8,700,000 3,211,261 900,000 2018 10-yr avg 12,780,205 9,130,000 6,558,684 1,863,000 a Number of individuals estimated from assumed average annual weights of 1.4 kg for Pink and 3.5 kg for Chum salmon. b From 2016-on, catch volumes include harvest by purse seine vessels. Purse seine gear is certified as of November 10, 2017. Tagging data indicate that the pink salmon harvest in Iturup fisheries is primarily comprised of local stock (Kaev et al. 2006). This conclusion was based on the coincidence of fishing sites and spawning streams and results of tagging adults in coastal waters along the northern extremity of the island – tagged fish were recaptured only in bays and rivers of Iturup Island. The Iturup fishery also apparently intercepts small numbers of Sakhalin Island pink salmon because this area is on the migration routes from wintering areas to spawning grounds. High straying between Sakhalin and Iturup pink salmon were reported in fin marking studies of pink salmon released from Kurilskiy Hatchery in 1976-1977. Tagging data of pink salmon during the 1980s and 1990s showed significant numbers of Iturup Island fish being intercepted off Sakhalin Island (Lubaev 2005). However, these findings have been called into question by subsequent analysis of this information (Kaev et al. 2006). Sakhalin salmon are also subject to some harvest by Russian and Japanese fisheries on the high seas. For instance, Japan has secured quota from the Russian Federation for 10,275 tons of salmon in 2007 and 9,735 tons of salmon in 2008 from the Russian EEZ. These fisheries primarily target sockeye. By-catch of pink, chum, and cherry salmon were taken in high seas drift nets are typically discarded. The combined chum and pink bycatch are reportedly significant in some years. High seas harvests of Iturup salmon are not directly accounted for by the management system but are reflected in marine survival rates estimated

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 58 of 60 SCS Global Services Report

for local stocks. The pressure of ocean driftnet fishing is stable in recent years, which makes it easier to account for. Chum salmon harvest gradually began to increase after 1995 following the redevelopment of chum hatchery programs and a more concerted effort to provide natural escapement. Production from Reydovo hatchery has increased chum harvest in Prostor Bay from about 100 t prior to 1996 to 5,000 t in 2003 (Figure 11). In Kurilskiy Bay, no traps were operated during the chum return period from 1984-2006. In 2007, following the reestablishment of chum hatchery production, two traps were fished.

South Coast North Coast Kuibyshev Bay 7% 8% 19%

Prostor Bay Kuril Bay 25% 41%

Figure 16. Distribution of average annual harvest of pink salmon among Iturup fishing areas, 2001-2005 (Kaev et al. 2006).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 59 of 61 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 1.1.1 – Stock Status PI 1.1.1 The stock management unit (SMU) is at a level which maintains high production and has a low probability of falling below its limit reference point (LRP) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status

Guide post It is likely that the SMU is It is highly likely that the SMU There is a high degree of above the limit reference is above the LRP. certainty that the SMU is point (LRP). above the LRP.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Long-term production trends provide a high degree of certainty that the wild stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired by fishing. Iturup pink salmon have maintained consistently high levels of production for over 20 years. Survival and productivity estimates of pink salmon reported by Kaev et al. (2006) are also quite high relative to other pink salmon populations, highlighting the resilience of this stock in response to fishing and environmental variation. Very high replacement rates of 6 to 8 fold are consistently apparent in brood year escapements. Consistently high levels of spawning escapement (averaging 900,000 per year) are achieved annually in salmon habitats throughout the fishery area (Figure 8). Escapements are typically near the productive capacity of the systems estimated based on the quantity and quality of available habitat. Hatchery otolith marking and subsequent sampling indicates that wild fish comprise the majority of pink salmon returns to the fishery area and to wild spawning grounds. The aggregate wild and hatchery production consistently appears to support exploitation rates of 90%. Chum? Yes Yes No Rationale Increasing trends in spawning escapement of chum salmon throughout the last decade in response to management that prioritizes spawning escapements indicates that it is likely that the wild stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Consistent returns to wild streams coupled with evidence for the strong homing affinity of hatchery- origin chum salmon suggests that wild fish are currently at or above replacement levels even with significant harvest rates. Information from otolith sampling in wild production areas appears to corroborate this observation. Hatchery chum salmon have been otolith- marked and 2013 was the first year when age 2+, 3+ and 4+ returns of hatchery fish were marked. Otolith sampling on the spawning grounds in 2012 and 2013 indicates that straying of hatchery-origin chum salmon is not significant among hatchery and non- hatchery streams. Straying of hatchery chum salmon is significant in natural spawning areas of streams where hatcheries are located. However, the majority of chum-producing streams in the assessment area are wild streams. Straying of hatchery chum has also been documented in the Lebedinoe Lake of the Kurilka system. However, spawning ground surveys and otolith samples indicate that that the wild lake-spawning population is temporally segregated by a latter run timing to spawn after lake temperatures cool in the fall. Additional otolith sampling will be required in more years and areas demonstrate a high degree of certainty that assessments of wild stock status are not confounded by hatchery fish. b Stock status in relation to target reference point (TRP, e.g. target escapement goal or target harvest rate)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 60 of 63 SCS Global Services Report

Guide post The SMU is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around its TRP. certainty that the SMU has been fluctuating around its TRP, or has been above its target reference point over recent years.

Pink? Yes Yes Rationale Annual estimates of spawning escapement by the stream for significant natural production areas provide a high degree of certainty that the wild stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point which represents the production capacity of each system under optimum environmental conditions. Stream-specific escapement benchmarks which function as target reference points were consistently exceeded. As in many productive salmon fisheries, formal limit reference points are not established because target reference points provide effective operation equivalents. Escapements of 50% or more of benchmark values (a proxy for point of recruitment impairment) were achieved 92% of the time. Otolith sampling results indicate that spawning escapements in non-hatchery streams are predominately wild-origin fish. Thus, there is a high degree of certainty that the SMU has been fluctuating around its TRP, or has been above its target reference point over recent years. SG 100 is met. Chum? Yes Yes Rationale Annual estimates of spawning escapement by the stream for significant natural production areas indicate that the wild stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point represent the production capacity of each system under optimum environmental conditions. Stream-specific escapement benchmarks which function as target reference points were consistently exceeded. As in many productive salmon fisheries, formal limit reference points are not established because target reference points provide effective operation equivalents. Escapements of 50% or more of benchmark values (a proxy for point of recruitment impairment) were consistently achieved. Run distribution patterns suggest that spawning escapements in non-hatchery streams are generally of wild-origin fish. Information from otolith sampling corroborates these observations. Streams without hatcheries can be considered indicators of wild stock abundance relative to target reference points because otolith sampling indicates that hatchery straying among streams is low. Because wild streams are observed to fluctuate around target reference points, it can be concluded with a high likelihood that wild populations are independently meeting their escapement objectives. Thus, there is a high degree of certainty that the SMU has been fluctuating around its TRP, or has been above its target reference point over recent years. SG 100 is met. c Status of component populations

Guide post The majority of component populations in the SMU are within the range of expected variability.

Pink? Yes Rationale The wild stock of Iturup pink salmon does not obviously include discrete subcomponents but does include a spectrum of natural diversity expressed in run timing and spatial distribution. Consistent differences in run timing among different systems and different streams within a system reflect this diversity. Target and limit reference points are highly

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 61 of 63 SCS Global Services Report

likely to maintain this inherent diversity because escapement goals include streams throughout the fishery area as well as specific spawning grounds within streams. Each run component is explicitly identified and monitored during the course of the run. Temporal and spatial elements of subcomponents allow for monitoring to provide for target levels of escapement of each subcomponent to the extent that it can be achieved through fishery management. Thus, management to fill all available portions of the spawning grounds implicitly protect wild subcomponents. Wild and hatchery origin fish might also be considered subcomponents although pink salmon hatchery management is intended to avoid significant divergence between hatchery and wild fish originating from the same system. Otolith sampling and run timing patterns indicate that hatchery-origin fish do not comprise a substantial portion of natural spawners in most pink salmon populations. Chum? No Rationale The wild stock of Iturup chum salmon includes unique stream and lake spawning subcomponents as well as a spectrum of natural diversity expressed in run timing and spatial distribution. Target and limit reference points are highly likely to maintain this inherent diversity because escapement goals include streams throughout the fishery area as well as specific spawning grounds within streams. As with pink salmon, each run component is explicitly identified and monitored during the course of the run and management to fill all available portions of the spawning grounds implicitly protect wild subcomponents. Wild and hatchery origin fish might also be considered subcomponents although chum salmon hatchery management is intended to avoid significant divergence between hatchery and wild fish originating from the same system. Because escapement goals do not explicitly consider wild and hatchery components, the 100 scoring guidepost is not met. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to a reference point

Reference point Pink Salmon: 90% on used in scoring average (Table 11) relative to LRP (SI a) Equivalent to Bmsy Stream specific (Table 10) Chum Salmon: 80% (Table 12) Reference point used in scoring Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable relative to TRP (SI b) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 62 of 64 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding PI 1.1.2 Where the stock management unit (SMU) is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the SMU that is rebuilding timeframe is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for SMU. generations are less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Pink? Not applicable Not applicable Rationale Not applicable. This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Iturup pink salmon are currently enjoying record levels of productivity. Chum? Not applicable Not applicable Rationale Not applicable. This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Iturup chum salmon were reportedly depleted until the 1990s but have currently been restored to significant levels of natural production by concerted management efforts. b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that post determine whether the fishery-based rebuilding the rebuilding strategies are fishery-based rebuilding strategies are being being implemented strategies are effective in implemented effectively, or effectively, or it is highly rebuilding the SMU within it is likely based on likely based on simulation the specified timeframe. simulation modelling, modelling, exploitation rates exploitation rates or or previous performance

previous performance that that they will be able to they will be able to rebuild rebuild the SMU within the the SMU within the specified specified timeframe. timeframe.

Pink? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale Not applicable. This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Iturup pink salmon are currently enjoying record levels of productivity. Chum? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale Not applicable. This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Iturup chum salmon were reportedly depleted until the 1990s but have currently been restored to significant levels of natural production by concerted management efforts.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 63 of 65 SCS Global Services Report

C Use of enhancement in stock rebuilding

Guide Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are post not routinely used as a stock very seldom used as a stock not used as a stock rebuilding rebuilding strategy but may rebuilding strategy. strategy. be temporarily in place as a conservation measure to preserve or restore wild diversity threatened by human or natural impacts.

Pink? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Iturup pink salmon are currently enjoying record levels of productivity. Enhancement activities are for the purposes of increasing the harvest of fish. They have not been employed for stock rebuilding. Chum? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale This PI is not scored if the stock is not considered depleted. Enhancement activities are for the purposes of increasing the harvest of fish. They have not been employed for stock rebuilding. Chum Salmon were historically depleted on Iturup by overfishing but have since recovered to significant levels of natural production following implementation in the 1990s of policies and practices for the protection of natural production. The Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya Hatcheries were constructed for the purposes of the increasing harvest of fish. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: Not applicable Chum Salmon: Not applicable Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 64 of 66 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve SMU responsive to the state of responsive to the state of the management objectives the SMU and the elements SMU and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 of the harvest strategy work achieve SMU management including measures that together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI address component SMU management 1.1.1 SG80 including population status issues. objectives reflected in PI measures that address 1.1.1 SG80 including component population measures that address status issues. component population status issues.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place involving intensive daily in- season monitoring of harvest, river mouth returns, hatchery returns and spawning escapements and in-season fishery management based on this information. Fishery times and areas are designed and regulated specifically to fill the available natural spawning areas and to achieve corresponding escapement objectives. For instance, fishing areas, specific nets or dates may be closed to ensure escapement. River mouth nets may also be opened on a daily schedule to pass fish upstream where needed to fill spawning grounds or closed to avoid excessive escapements while holding fish in the fishery area. Meeting escapement targets is a primary priority of the management system. Chum? Yes Yes Yes Rationale See pink salmon justification. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the post to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain SMUs at target levels.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale The current harvest strategy has been in place for over a decade and the effectiveness of the cooperative government-private system has clearly been demonstrated by the consistent achievement of escapement goals under a wide range of conditions. This system has been tested by inherent variability in annual abundance and run timing of salmon. The effectiveness of the current harvest strategy was very clearly demonstrated during the record low return of pink salmon in 2011. The fishery was effectively closed in response to in-season information on run strength with total pink salmon harvests of less than 20% of average. These closures were enacted despite severe economic impacts on the heavily-

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 65 of 67 SCS Global Services Report

capitalized fishery infrastructure on Iturup. As a result of these closures, escapement goals are consistently met or exceeded in 16 monitored systems. Chum? Yes Yes Yes Rationale The current harvest strategy has been in place for over a decade and the effectiveness of the cooperative government-private system has clearly been demonstrated by the consistent achievement of escapement goals under a wide range of conditions. This system has been tested by inherent variability in annual abundance and run timing of salmon. The effectiveness of the current harvest strategy has been demonstrated by consistent success in producing high levels of spawning escapement over a range of run sizes and harvests. The fishery has been effectively regulated in response to in-season information on run strength. As a result of fishery regulation, stream-specific escapement of chum salmon has consistently met or exceeded target levels. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Pink? Yes Rationale The harvest strategy involves extensive in-season monitoring of harvest, biological indicators (sex and age), river-mouth returns, spawning escapement. These indicators are compared with historical values and patterns to determine run size and timing and make corresponding adjustments in fishing times and areas. Chum? Yes Rationale See pink salmon explanation. d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Pink? Yes Rationale The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Extensive changes in the strategies adopted by the regional management system since 2008 provide for more local and responsive regulation are evidence to this effect. Escapement objectives are also periodically reviewed and revised based on updated assessments of the spawning habitat availability. Chum? Yes Rationale See pink salmon explanation. e Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place.

Met? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale Sharks are not the target species.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 66 of 68 SCS Global Services Report

f Review of alternative measures

Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative alternative measures to alternative measures to measures to minimize UoA- minimize UoA-related minimize UoA-related related mortality of mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch unwanted catch of the target of the target stock. of the target stock and they stock, and they are are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Pink? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale There is no unwanted catch of the target stock. Chum? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Rationale There is no unwanted catch of the target stock. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 67 of 69 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available place that ensures that the keep the SMU fluctuating at which are expected to exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level reduce the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached, are consistent with MSY, or as the SMU LRP is expected to keep the SMU another more appropriate approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with MSY. ecological role of the stock, most of the time.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Well defined control rules include time and area fishery closures based on real-time escapement monitoring data in conjunction with other indicators of run strength and timing based on harvest and biological composition of the harvest. Harvest control rules are specifically defined in-licenses issued for commercial fishery operation and in-season regulation changes adopted by an Anadromous Fish Commission as appropriate at the recommendation of the local fishery manager. Exploitation rates are reduced at low abundance to ensure that escapement goals are generally met. Chum? Yes Yes Yes Rationale See pink justification b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a post robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the SMU, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Pink? Yes No Rationale Main uncertainties in the implementation of harvest control rules are primarily related to run strength and timing. While run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns, recommended harvest levels based on these forecasts are utilized primarily as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. Data are referenced to seasonal patterns in previous years to distinguish run timing and strength. Forecasts are typically uncertain and run timing may also vary from year to year. Overfishing might occur when run timing effects are mistaken for run size (for instance, mistaking a strong earlier-than-average return for a larger-than-forecast number). In-season management utilizes indicators based on biological characteristics of the harvest to avoid this potential problem. For instance, the onset portion of each run typically includes a larger percentage of males which declines as the run progresses. Average fish size varies in tandem as male and female sizes are different. Managers also employ terminal fisheries in river mouths to regulate upstream escapements

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 68 of 70 SCS Global Services Report

to avoid overseeding spawning areas in the event of very large run sizes. Excessive escapements have been observed to result in reduced production as habitat capacity is exceeded and extreme events may even result in large-scale pre-spawning mortality due to oxygen depletion of the water, particularly in warm, dry years. Harvest control rules do not appear to fully consider uncertainties related to annual variation in hatchery and wild fish survival and contributions to the total return which could potentially confound estimates of wild abundance under some circumstances. Chum? Yes No Rationale See pink salmon rationale c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the controlling exploitation. levels required under the HCRs. HCRs. Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Catch per effort, fish size, sex ratio, and distribution are all utilized as indicators. The fishery is managed on a daily basis to regulate harvest consistent with escapement targets. Fisheries are restricted as appropriate based on actual run size and escapement objectives are consistently achieved. Chum? Yes Yes Yes Rationale See Pink Salmon rationale d Maintenance of wild population components

Guide It is likely that the HCRs and It is highly likely, that the There is a high degree of post tools are consistent with HCRs and tools are certainty that the HCRs and maintaining the diversity and consistent with maintaining tools are consistent with productivity of the wild the diversity and maintaining the diversity and component population(s). productivity of the wild productivity of the wild component population(s). component population(s).

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Diversity in salmon is represented among stocks and populations inhabiting different rivers within a species management unit and substocks returning to different areas within each river, often with different run timing (early vs. late for instance). The management practice of establishing weekly passing days maintains diversity by protecting escapements in all rivers and across the duration of the run. Stock assessment data indicates this system is generally effective. Harvest of salmon returning in different portions of the run is estimated based on timing. Time-stratified catch and escapement data provides information on the significance of fishery harvest on each run component. Harvest of specific stocks harvested in each bay is estimated based on the hatchery-specific otolith marks. This information has shown that the harvest in each bay may include fish originating in streams of the other bay, and that migration patterns may vary from year to year, apparently in response to marine survival conditions.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 69 of 72 SCS Global Services Report

Chum? Yes Yes Yes Rationale See Pink Salmon rationale References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 70 of 72 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to SMU structure, information related to SMU information (on SMU post SMU production, and fleet structure, SMU production, structure, SMU production, composition is available to fleet composition, and other fleet composition, SMU support the harvest strategy. data is available to support abundance, fishery removals Indirect or direct information the harvest strategy, and other information such is available on some including harvests and as environmental component populations. spawning escapements for a information), including some representative range of wild that may not be directly component populations. related to the current harvest strategy, is available, including estimates of the impacts of fishery harvests on the SMU and the majority of wild component populations.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale A large amount of relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data on biological characteristics of the run, run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Comprehensive information not directly related to the harvest strategy is generally not collected. Direct estimates of natural stock productivity are not available. Chum? Yes Yes No Rationale See pink salmon justification b Monitoring

Guide SMU wild abundance and SMU wild abundance and All information required by UoA removals are monitored UoA removals are regularly the harvest control rule is post and at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored information [data] and the with sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale The excellent information is collected on harvest in the Gidrostroy commercial salmon fishery on Iturup. Numbers are estimated at every stage of the harvest and processing chain including net-specific deliveries from the fishing brigades to the processing plants, amounts

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 71 of 73 SCS Global Services Report

received and amounts processed. Detailed records are required and kept by the fishery and the government. Changes in the management system over the previous decade ensure accuracy of catch reporting by removing incentives for inaccurate accounting to avoid taxes or remain within a designated allocation. Catch data are reported on a real-time basis during the fishing season. Uncertainties in the information required by the harvest control rule are generally understood but formal consideration of the effects of uncertainty on assessments and management have not been reported. The reason for the very poor return of pink salmon to Iturup in 2011 has not been explained. Similar anomalies in recent years on Sakhalin have been attributed to marine environmental conditions which were thought to affect migration patterns. Chum? Yes Yes No Rationale See pink salmon rationale c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on all other fishery removals post from the SMU.

Pink? Yes Rationale General information is available on the significance of incidental harvest of pink salmon in marine drift net fisheries and its effects are implicitly included in production estimates based on estimates of juvenile and adult numbers. Some Iturup origin salmon may also occur in Sakhalin Island terminal harvest areas but numbers are likely limited by the distance between fishing areas. Additional information on Sakhalin harvest of Iturup salmon will likely be provided in the future by implementation of an otolith sampling program in selected Sakhalin fisheries. Chum? Yes Rationale See pink salmon rationale References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 72 of 74 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status of the SMU

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into Post appropriate for the SMU and account the major features for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

Pink? Yes Yes Rationale The assessment includes real-time in-season estimation of harvest, catch per effort, biological characteristics, an abundance of fish returning to river mouths, timing and distribution of harvest and returns, spawning escapement, and hatchery returns. Harvest is controlled in-season based on real-time data on spawning escapement as well as numbers and characteristics of fish entering the fishery. Assessments take into account major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery including differences in run timing and spawning distribution within and among each river system, and needs of wild and hatchery systems. Chum? Yes Yes Rationale The assessment includes real-time in-season estimation of harvest, catch per effort, biological characteristics, an abundance of fish returning to river mouths, timing and distribution of harvest and returns, spawning escapement, and hatchery returns. Harvest is controlled in-season based on real-time data on spawning escapement as well as numbers and characteristics of fish entering the fishery. Assessments take into account major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery including differences in run timing and spawning distribution within and among each river system, and needs of wild and hatchery systems. New information on the unique characteristics and status of the lake- spawning population in Lebedinoe Lake has come to light since the previous certification but concerns regarding hatchery straying into this population are being addressed with additional assessments of the status of the lake spawning population. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to with a high level of post generic reference points reference points that are confidence both stock status appropriate to salmon. appropriate to the SMU and and reference points that are can be estimated. appropriate to the SMU and its wild component populations.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Salmon escapement goals are often managed based on production functions defined by stock-recruitment curves relating spawner numbers with adults produced in the next generation of return. Escapements greater than the habitat capacity will reduce productivity due to density-dependent regulating factors involving competition for limited space and food. Escapements substantially less than capacity reduce fishery yields. Maximum sustainable yield typically occurs somewhere between 50% and 100% of the habitat capacity

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 73 of 75 SCS Global Services Report

where capacity is defined based on the point of maximum production in the stock recruitment curve (Ricker 1975). Under the Russian management system, maximum production is defined based on estimates of habitat capacity and spawner densities determined to be consistent with habitat capacity based on average size of spawning redds. Stock-recruitment curves have not been formally estimated for Iturup salmon. However, escapement numbers have been demonstrated to produce high levels of sustained yields over several decades of use and these escapements have been observed to produce high rates of replacement. Therefore, it can be concluded that escapement goals for Iturup pink salmon are representative of the point of maximum production. Stream-specific spawning escapement targets are established based on the amount of suitable spawning habitat and a target fish spawning density in suitable habitats. Management for stream or stock-specific spawning escapement targets is a common practice for salmon fisheries throughout the Russian far east, Alaska, and Canada. Iturup fisheries are managed to achieve these targets which consistently provide for high levels of spawning escapement of about million per year. Management for these target reference points provides an operational equivalent of a limit reference point in salmon management systems by effectively avoiding lower escapements to the extent that this is possible by regulating fisheries. Highly variable annual run sizes are characteristic of salmon, particularly pink salmon. Thus, it is not always possible to meet optimum targets in every population and year. However, effective management for target reference points should ensure that average escapements will be maintained over the long term above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. Reference points are appropriate for the wild stock because otolith sampling in wild production has identified a relatively low incidence of hatchery-origin fish in natural production areas (see Section 0), particularly in non-hatchery systems which include the majority of Iturup streams. Management for optimum spawning escapement levels provides a conservative standard for protecting populations from critically low levels that impact diversity, resilience and future production. Management for these target reference points effectively provides an operational equivalent of a limit reference point in salmon management systems by effectively avoiding lower escapements to the extent that this is possible by regulating fisheries. Consistent high levels of pink salmon production confirm that the management strategy based on target reference points has effectively maintained the reproductive capacity of the aggregate pink salmon stock. Occasional poor run years and escapements into portions of some systems are characteristic of salmon. Long term population viability and fishery sustainability for salmon is maintained under these circumstances by a diverse meta- population structure including multiple, interacting populations and subpopulations. (McElhany et al. 2000). Chum? Yes Yes No Rationale Stream-specific spawning escapement targets are established based on the amount of suitable spawning habitat and a target fish spawning density in suitable habitats. Application of these targets is as described for pink salmon. Escapement objectives are established for natural spawning areas without respect to the relative contributions of wild and hatchery fish. Hatchery production is limited to only a few systems and the majority of wild production occurs in non-hatchery systems. Reference points are appropriate for the wild stock because otolith sampling in wild production has identified a relatively low incidence of hatchery-origin fish in natural production areas of non-hatchery systems which include the majority of Iturup systems. Management for optimum spawning escapement levels provides a conservative standard for protecting populations from critically low levels that impact diversity, resilience and future production. Management for these target reference points effectively provides an

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 74 of 76 SCS Global Services Report

operational equivalent of a limit reference point in salmon management systems by effectively avoiding lower escapements to the extent that this is possible by regulating fisheries. Consistent high levels of chum salmon production confirm that the management strategy based on target reference points has effectively maintained the reproductive capacity of the aggregate stock. Occasional poor run years and escapements into portions of some systems are characteristic of salmon. Long term population viability and fishery sustainability for salmon is maintained under these circumstances by a diverse meta- population structure including multiple, interacting populations and subpopulations (McElhany et al. 2000). However, without explicit consideration of limits of hatchery-origin spawners in wild production areas, it cannot be concluded that limit reference points provide a precautionary standard sufficient to meet the 100 scoring guidepost. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is post uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale Major sources of uncertainty related to environmentally-driven variability in productivity and the nature of hatchery-wild interactions are identified. Stock status is not evaluated relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Chum? Yes Yes No Rationale See Pink Salmon rationale d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been tested and shown to be post robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Pink? No Rationale A rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches has not been reported. Chum? No Rationale See Pink Salmon rationale e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of SMU The assessment, including status, including the choice design for using indicator post of indicator populations and populations and methods for methods for evaluating wild evaluating wild salmon in salmon in enhanced enhanced fisheries, has been fisheries is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed.

Pink? Yes No

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 75 of 78 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale The stock assessment is subject to extensive peer review within the management system. Assessment information is collected and exchanged by local agency staff from both SakhNiro and SakhRybvod. SakhNiro scientists regularly review and improve assessment methodologies and results which are subject to additional review by the regional scientific institute (VNiro). External peer review is limited. Chum? Yes No Rationale See pink salmon justification. f Representativeness of indicator stocks Guide Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are used as the primary source used as the primary source used as the primary source of post of information for making of information for making information for making management decisions on management decisions on management decisions on SMUs, there is some SMUs, there is some SMUs, the status of the scientific basis for the evidence of coherence indicator streams are well indicators selection. between the status of the correlated with other indicator streams and the populations they represent status of the other within the management unit, populations they represent including stocks with lower within the management productivity (i.e., those with unit, including selection of a higher conservation risk). indicator stocks with low productivity (i.e., those with a higher conservation risk) to match those of the representative SMU where applicable. Pink? NA NA NA

Rationale Indicator stocks are not utilized for making management decisions. Assessments are based on indicator populations rather than indicator stocks. Detailed information is collected by local fishery managers and Gidrostroy biologists on systems throughout the area including large and small, hatchery and non-hatchery systems. Chum? NA NA NA

Rationale Indicator stocks are not utilized for making management decisions. Assessments are based on indicator populations rather than indicator stocks. Detailed information is collected by local fishery managers and Gidrostroy biologists on systems throughout the area including large and small, hatchery and non-hatchery systems. g Definition of Stock Management Units (SMUs) Guide The majority of SMUs are The SMUs are well-defined There is an unambiguous defined with a clear rationale and include definitions of description of each SMU that post for conservation, fishery the major populations with a may include the geographic management, and stock clear rationale for location, run timing, assessment requirements. conservation, fishery migration patterns, and/or management, and stock genetics of component assessment requirements. populations with a clear rationale for conservation, fishery management, and

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 76 of 78 SCS Global Services Report

stock assessment requirements.

Pink? Yes Yes No

Rationale Pink salmon harvested in Iturup fisheries are almost entirely comprised of local populations returning to area streams. Assessments are based on a combination of time and area-specific estimates of spawning escapement; size, age, and sex structure; downstream migration of juveniles; and harvest and catch rate patterns. Conservation, fishery management, and stock assessment all take details of these subcomponents into account. When hatchery and wild portions of the return are considered subcomponents, it is not clear that a specific rationale for conservation, fishery management, and stock assessment requirements for each has been effectively addressed. Chum? Yes Yes No

Rationale Chum salmon harvested in Iturup fisheries are almost entirely comprised of local populations returning to area streams. Assessments are based on a combination of time and area-specific estimates of spawning escapement; size, age, and sex structure; downstream migration of juveniles; and harvest and catch rate patterns. Conservation, fishery management, and stock assessment all take details of these subcomponents into account. It is not clear that a specific rationale for conservation, fishery management, and stock assessment requirements for each has been effectively addressed for hatchery and wild portions of the return or for river and lake spawning population components. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 77 of 79 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.3.1 – Enhancement outcomes PI 1.3.1 Enhancement activities do not negatively impact wild stock(s)

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Enhancement impacts

Guide It is likely that the It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post enhancement activities do enhancement activities do certainty that the not have significant negative not have significant negative enhancement activities do impacts on the local impacts on the local not have significant negative adaptation, reproductive adaptation, reproductive impacts on the local performance or productivity, performance or productivity, adaptation, reproductive and diversity of wild stocks. and diversity of wild stocks. performance or productivity, and diversity of wild stocks.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale The potential for negative impacts of hatchery fish on wild populations depends both on the proportions of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas and the significance of effects on hatchery practices which might alter characteristics related to local adaptation, reproductive performance, and productivity. Two hatcheries produce pink salmon for release in streams of the fishing area but wild fish continue to comprise a large majority of the total production and return based on aggregate run reconstructions reported by Kaev et al. (2006). Virtually all of the pink salmon hatchery production is now otolith marked and subsequent sampling of the harvest and returns has demonstrated that hatchery fish comprise a very low proportion of the escapement in the majority of streams (Akinicheva 2011, Akinicheva et al. 2012; Akinicheva 2013). Hatcheries are located on only two systems relatively few hatchery fish strays into non-hatchery streams. Wild fish comprise a substantial portion of the samples even in most natural production areas of hatchery systems. No new hatcheries are currently planned in the region. The potential for hatchery impacts on wild attributes is also limited in local hatcheries due to the relatively small portion of the pink salmon life cycle spent in the hatchery and hatchery practices intended to emulate natural conditions to the extent possible. Straying of hatchery pink salmon has proven to be much less than previously hypothesized. Low levels of genetic diversity among pink salmon populations and sporadic use of small systems that provide suitable spawning conditions only in some years were previously believed by many scientists throughout the North Pacific to be indicative of a high rate of inter-population straying. However, otolith mark-recapture studies for hatchery pink salmon in Alaska, Iturup, and Sakhalin has shown a much lower incidence of widespread hatchery straying than was previously feared. In addition, more advanced genetic methods have shown more population differences than was previously detected. On Iturup, otolith sampling of pink salmon corroborates previous inferences for a relatively low incidence of hatchery straying into non-hatchery systems based on spatial and temporal correlations between hatchery and wild run patterns. A degree of uncertainty remains regarding the potential for differentiation of hatchery origin fish due to hatchery practices and the effects of any differences on wild-hatchery interactions in systems where both are present. Chum? Yes No No

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 78 of 81 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale The situation with Chum Salmon appears similar to that of Pink Salmon on Iturup except that otolith sampling results are incomplete. Representative portions of current hatchery production Chum are being marked but significant numbers of marked hatchery fish did not begin to return until 2013 (Chum Salmon primarily return at 4 years of age vs. 2 years of age for Pink Salmon). The available information indicates a strong affinity by Chum Salmon for natal streams. Significant straying occurs among natural spawning areas within mixed hatchery-wild systems. However, otolith sampling indicates that little straying of hatchery fish occurs into wild systems. Stray hatchery fish from the Kurilka Hatchery Chum salmon appear to be straying into Lebedinoe Lake but a significant wild population is temporally segregated from the hatchery influence. However, the construction of the hatchery at Lebedinoe Lake since the 2015 reassessment has resulted in concern regarding the impact of enhancement activities for Chum on wild populations. Gidrostroy has begun operation of two new Chum hatcheries at Olya Bay and Kitovvy since the original certification (2009). In 2015, J.S.C. Gidrostroy constructed another hatchery: Yankito. All of these facilities are designed as segregated programs where production occurs at locations without wild spawners and hatchery practices are designed to encourage hatchery-origin adults to return directly to facilities with minimal straying into other systems. Otolith marking occurs or will occur at these facilities and initial returns from Kitovvy have shown significant straying back to hatcheries where initial broods were incubated prior to transfer to the new hatchery for feeding and release. However, broodstock collection, incubation, rearing and release now occur entirely at each facility which is expected to eliminate significant straying. Another hatchery was constructed at Lebedinoe Lake in 2015. Construction of this new hatchery on a tributary stream to Lebedinoe Lake raises the level of concern for a local impact and precludes assignment of a high likelihood of no significant impact for this indicator. A similar concern does not exist for the new Yankito Hatchery which was constructed on the seashore distant from natural spawning streams. In 2017, the new Mineralnaya Hatchery began releasing Chum Salmon in a tributary to the Reydovaya River. This system already has significant production of hatchery fish from the Redova Hatchery. The proximity of the new hatchery to significant natural production areas is unclear. In aggregate for the Unit of Certification, Chum Salmon hatcheries are still considered likely not to produce a significant negative impact. This conclusion is based on inferences from otolith sampling to date which indicates that hatchery chum salmon straying is negligible in natural production areas outside of hatchery systems. Five of eight chum-producing streams in the UoC are separated from areas of significant hatchery production. The scoring of this SI recognizes the need for additional sampling in other wild production areas in order to more- specifically quantify hatchery contributions. Additional otolith sampling will be required to demonstrate a high degree of certainty with respect to this guidepost. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: 60-79 Information gap indicator Results of chum salmon otolith marking and sampling

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 79 of 81 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Condition from previous assessment (Chum only) – Demonstrate that it is highly likely that the enhancement activities of Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya Hatcheries do not have significant impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks based on reasonable estimates of likely proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement (e.g., it is highly likely that hatchery-origin spawners occur in a small proportion of the natural spawning populations/locations and that they represent a small proportion of the total natural spawning escapement).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 80 of 82 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.3.2 – Enhancement management PI 1.3.2 Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are in place to address the effects of enhancement activities on wild stock(s) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide Practices and protocols are There is a partial strategy in There is a comprehensive post in place to protect wild place to protect wild stocks strategy in place to protect stocks from significant from significant negative wild stocks from significant negative impacts of impacts of enhancement. negative impacts of enhancement. enhancement.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale Practices and protocols are designed to emulate natural conditions. Highly integrated hatchery programs are designed and operated to avoid significant artificial selection or domestication due to hatchery practices. Very large numbers of broodstock are utilized and naturally-produced fish are included in the broodstock. Broodstock is collected from throughout the duration of the return to avoid alteration of natural run timing. Eggs are incubated at natural river temperatures so that incubation period and the timing of hatch are similar to natural conditions. Size and timing of the release are similar to that of wild fish. Releases occur over several weeks based on age. Feeding of fish in the hatchery is minimal and generally limited to years when local ocean conditions are unfavorable. Pink salmon hatcheries are operated on only two rivers - other streams continue to provide significant natural production potential in the region. Hatcheries have not been used as a substitute for the loss of natural habitat. Assessments of the relative magnitude of hatchery and wild production and the incidence of marked hatchery fish in natural spawning areas provide strong evidence that impacts are acceptably small. Release numbers of hatchery pink salmon have been reduced since the 1970s based on monitoring which indicated that large numbers were competing for limited food resources in the nearshore marine waters. Hatchery fish are also released a little later to avoid competition with wild fry. While the current hatchery strategy effectively limits the potential for detrimental impacts on wild stocks, the potential for some level of impact cannot be discounted and a comprehensive hatchery strategy must allow for this possibility. Hatchery selection and ecological effects can be quite difficult to avoid and some hatchery practices will inevitably pose a significant genetic or ecological risk. For instance, feeding or delayed release of fry might increase competition with wild fry. For pink salmon, the existence of even-odd year cycles implies a potential for impact of large hatchery-enhanced numbers. It has also been postulated that avoidance of natural selection in the incubation and early rearing stage can conceivably alter genetic characteristics. Finally, the presence of large numbers of enhanced fish can substantially increase exploitation rates and potentially-detrimental fishing practices, like river mouth fisheries in the latter stages of a run, with the potential for significant impacts on wild populations. Chum? Yes No No Rationale Practices and strategies are being employed to limit impacts of Chum hatcheries on wild populations. At the time of the reassessment, Chum Salmon hatcheries are operated in only two river systems within the unit of assessment - other streams continue to provide significant natural production potential in the region. Kurilsk and Reydovo Hatcheries are operated as integrated programs where practices and protocols are designed to emulate natural conditions so as to avoid artificial selection or domestication which might impact

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 81 of 83 SCS Global Services Report

wild fish spawning in the hatchery rivers. Olya Bay and Kitovvy hatcheries are operated as segregated programs where production and returns are designed to avoid straying of hatchery fish into wild systems. However, assessments of the relative magnitude of hatchery and wild production, and the incidence of marked hatchery fish in natural spawning areas are incomplete for Chum Salmon. Some evidence also suggests that significant numbers of Kurilsk Hatchery Chum may be straying into spawning areas of the unique Lebedinoe Lake population. However, temporal segregation of hatchery and wild populations in Lebedinoe Lake appear to be effective in limiting hatchery influence on this wild population. Distribution of hatchery-origin fish in natural production areas is being assessed through otolith marking and mark sampling programs. The available information indicates that current production strategies ensure that the presence of enhanced fish in the management units does not adversely impact a majority of the wild fish populations in the management unit. Hatchery contributions occur primarily in areas proximate to the hatchery and hatchery contributions in other systems are low. As a result, wild characteristics of populations in areas outside significant hatchery influence would be expected to retain the native wild population characteristics of the meta-population complex. However, revised strategies may yet be appropriate to address specific cases of straying by hatchery fish into natural production areas of hatchery streams and by fish from the new Kitovvy and Olya facilities pending assessments of the effectiveness of transitioning all aspects of production to those facilities in the after the start-up phase which incubated eggs off-site. Assessments necessary to make these determinations are already in place – all hatchery production continues to be marked and will be sampled upon return. Since the previous reassessment, three new hatcheries were completed. Yankito is a segregated program located on the sea coast like Kitovvy and Olya. However, Lebedinoe Lake was constructed on a natural spawning stream. In 2017, the new Mineralnaya Hatchery began releasing Chum Salmon in a tributary to the Reydovaya River. This system already has significant production of hatchery fish from the Redova Hatchery. The proximity of the new hatchery to significant natural production areas is unclear. Releases of juvenile chum salmon from Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya hatcheries were not otolith marked such that future stray rates into natural production areas could not be assessed. Therefore, it is unclear whether construction of these hatcheries is consistent with a strategy to protect wild Chum stocks from detrimental effects of enhancement. Additional assessment of the new programs at Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya hatcheries will be necessary to identify appropriate management activities to address the effects of enhancement activities on wild stock status. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The practices and protocols There is some objective basis There is clear evidence that post in place are considered likely for confidence that the the comprehensive strategy to be effective based on strategy is effective, based is successfully protecting plausible argument. on evidence that the wild stocks from significant strategy is achieving the detrimental impacts of outcome metrics used to enhancement. define the minimum detrimental impacts.

Pink? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Results of otolith marking and mark sampling provide clear evidence that the strategy has been effective. Chum? Yes No No

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 82 of 85 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale Results of otolith marking and mark sampling provide some objective basis for confidence that the strategy has been effective for segregated hatcheries but the additional evaluation is needed for new hatcheries constructed in proximity to natural production areas. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: 60-79 Information gap indicator Additional information on hatchery marking and mark sampling Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Condition from previous assessment (Chum only) - The fishery must demonstrate that there is a strategy in place to protect wild Chum stocks from significant detrimental impacts of enhancement. The strategy must be based on outcome metrics that are based on evidence and expected to cause the minimum impact on wild Chum stocks (e.g., related to verifying and achieving acceptable proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 83 of 85 SCS Global Services Report PI 1.3.3 – Enhancement information PI 1.3.3 Relevant information is collected and assessments are adequate to determine the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock(s) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy

Guide Some relevant information is Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post available on the contribution qualitative and quantitative relevant quantitative of enhanced fish to the information is available on information is available on fishery harvest, total the contribution of the contribution of escapement (wild plus enhanced fish to the fishery enhanced fish to the fishery enhanced), and hatchery harvest, total escapement harvest, total escapement broodstock. (wild plus enhanced) and (wild plus enhanced) and hatchery broodstock. hatchery broodstock.

Pink? Yes Yes No Rationale Information includes aggregate run reconstructions based on total hatchery releases and estimates natural production based on juvenile monitoring of representative streams, and sample data from the harvest and escapement for hatchery fish which were marked as juveniles with otolith growth patterns specific to the hatchery of release (see Section 0). The combination of production estimates and hatchery mark sampling information provides sufficient information to determine that the contribution of enhanced fish to harvest and escapement is low (Akinicheva 2011; Akinicheva et al. 2012; Akinicheva 2013). Hatchery fish comprise a relatively small fraction of the natural spawners even in hatchery rivers. The incidence of hatchery fish in rivers substantially removed from the hatcheries was negligible. While the tagging data may not yet be sufficient to precisely quantify the hatchery contribution to each stream under a range of annual run conditions, the information is sufficient to determine that hatchery fish are highly likely to comprise a small fraction of the total run and a small fraction of the natural spawners in most streams. Chum? Yes Partial No Rationale Information is available on the relative scale of hatchery and wild production based on numbers of spawners. Differences in run timing of Chum Salmon returning to the hatchery and natural systems also suggest that hatchery straying of Chum Salmon might be relatively low. Representative groups of hatchery Chum have been marked since 2009. All hatchery production is currently marked except for a portion at Kurilsk hatchery where springs in hatchery raceways in a portion of the facility prevent effective marking. Small numbers of marked began to return in 2012 as 3-year-olds and larger numbers in 2013 as 4-year-olds. Results of 2012 and 2013 mark sampling of the harvest and natural spawning areas are reported in Akinicheva (2013a, 2013b). This mark sampling information indicates that straying by hatchery Chum Salmon is relatively low and largely confined to natural production areas in hatchery streams. However, data is available from only a few years due to the 1-4 year lag time between when salmon are marked as fry and return as adults. In addition, initial assessments have identified the need for additional sampling to evaluate the effectiveness of continuing refinements in hatchery strategies. This guidepost was determined to be partially met because, while relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced fish to the harvest and escapement of the wild stock, additional information from future mark sampling will be needed to guide continuing hatchery refinements.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 84 of 86 SCS Global Services Report

Since the reassessment, three new hatcheries were completed. Yankito is a segregated program located on the sea coast like Kitovvy and Olya. However, Lebedinoe Lake was constructed on a natural spawning stream. In 2017, the new Mineralnaya Hatchery began releasing Chum Salmon in a tributary to the Reydovaya River. This system already has significant production of hatchery fish from the Redova Hatchery. The proximity of the new hatchery to significant natural production areas is unclear. Releases of juvenile chum salmon from Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya hatcheries were not otolith marked such that future stray rates into natural production areas could be assessed. Therefore, it is unclear whether construction of these hatcheries is consistent with a strategy to protect wild Chum stocks from detrimental effects of enhancement. This development does not require a change in score for this PI but the additional assessment of the new program at Lebedinoe will be necessary to identify appropriate management activities to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stock status. b Use of information in assessment

Guide The effect of enhancement A moderate-level analysis of A comprehensive analysis of post activities on wild stock relevant information is relevant information is status, productivity and conducted and used by conducted and routinely diversity are taken into decision-makers to used by decision-makers to account qualitatively. quantitatively estimate the determine, with a high impact of enhancement degree of certainty, the activities on wild-stock quantitative impact of status, productivity, and enhancement activities on diversity. wild-stock status, productivity, and diversity. Pink? Yes Yes No

Rationale Information on the relative contribution of hatchery fish to run size and escapement provides a basis for evaluating the effects of hatchery fish on wild stocks. However, current assessments do not yet fully consider the potential for impact of enhancement on wild stock productivity. Evaluations of enhanced fish are relatively new and have not yet been incorporated into all aspects of stock assessments in the region. Comprehensive information is not available regarding the potential for differentiation of hatchery origin fish due to hatchery practices and the effects of any differences on wild-hatchery interactions in systems where both are present. Chum? Yes No No

Rationale SG60 - The effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity are taken into account. Otolith sampling information is generally sufficient to assess the hatchery contributions to wild populations. SG80 - Information is not yet sufficient to assess the effects of hatchery fish on wild stock productivity and diversity where some straying occurs. References

See Section 6.2.1 Principle 1 background

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Pink Salmon: ≥80 Chum Salmon: 60-79

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 85 of 87 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Additional information on hatchery marking and mark sampling Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Condition from previous assessment (Chum only) The fishery must provide evidence that sufficient information is available on the contribution of enhanced fish to the harvest and escapement of the wild stock of Chum Salmon (an estimate of relative contribution of wild to hatchery fish). The fishery must also include any identified impacts of enhancement activities on wild Chum stock status, productivity and diversity in the Annual Otolith Sampling Report.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 86 of 88 SCS Global Services Report

7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained or discarded (assessed under Performance Indicator 2.1 or 2.2) and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5). Overview of Non-target Catch The design of the traps allows keeping the entire catch of pink salmon and all bycatch species (i.e. species that will be discarded) alive until it gets loaded into boats for delivery to a shore base. Bycatch can be returned to the sea alive or used for commercial purposes or personal consumption. Limited sorting of species occurs prior to delivery of the catch to the processing plants due to the volume of the catch and the fishing method that involves crowding of fish from the fish traps into the kungas (net- bottomed boats), which are used to deliver fish to the plants. Some bycatch can be sorted when the trap catch is manually loaded into the boats but the large volume of salmon catch can also make it difficult to sort small amounts of bycatch. Sorting of bycatch and retained species is very different in periods of large and small catches of pink salmon. When pink catches are large, most sorting takes place in the processing plant. While pink catches are small, bycatch and retained species are sorted when nets are pulled out of the water. Records of all non-target species are available from the processing plants where fish are offloaded. Detailed records are maintained at the plants of the volume of significant non-target species such as Char and Sockeye that are retained, processed, and sold. Harvest of these species is incidental to harvest of target pink and chum salmon.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 87 of 89 SCS Global Services Report

Table 20. The relative percentage of total harvest comprised of non-target retained species (Historical Fishery Data, SCS 2015). All retained Sockeye Char Year kg kg % kg % 1998 16,078,657 0 0.00% 8,641 0.05% 1999 11,302,160 0 0.00% 7,435 0.07% 2000 30,335,979 0 0.00% 5,680 0.02% 2001 16,465,818 3,279 0.02% 11,445 0.07% 2002 27,343,679 1,192 0.00% 4,490 0.02% 2003 15,059,317 741 0.00% 20,524 0.14% 2004 23,019,374 5,800 0.03% 10,118 0.04% 2005 22,870,193 563 0.00% 8,490 0.04% 2006 33,685,302 3,535 0.01% 15,367 0.05% 2007 29,121,834 4,363 0.01% 11,306 0.04% 2008 32,550,839 475 0.00% 12,899 0.04% 2009 26,513,107 845 0.00% 19,108 0.07% 2010 26,967,898 4,535 0.02% 15,363 0.06% 2011 6,838,184 450 0.01% 3,713 0.05% 2012 25,497,423 4,400 0.02% 17,430 0.07% 2013 18,461,739 580 0.00% 8,713 0.05% 2014 10,959,037 185 0.00% 7,688 0.07% 2015 14,435,287 175 0.00% 3,851 0.03% 2016a 15,838,415 730 0.00% 4,383 0.03% 2017 a 15,446,245 445 0.00% 13,317 0.09% 10 yr avg. 20,718,376 1,674 0.01% 10,445 0.05% a Includes catch from purse seine vessels.

There is not consistent ongoing documentation of bycatch at sea in the trap or purse seine fishery on Iturup. Thus, no consistent records of any discards sorted on deck are available, but bycatch is monitored and recorded at the processing facilities. Historic studies and test fishing in this UoA and in Alaska have confirmed the high selectivity of salmon fisheries of numerous gear types. The following information sources were used to estimate non-target species catch (retained and discarded) in purse seine and trap gear: . Purse seine & Trap: Information on the harvest of significant other retained species (Sockeye and Char) is submitted annually to the government since 2011. This information is recorded in processing records from the plants receiving the catches. Regulations require permits by volume for each non-target species that are sold and limit the harvest of non-target species to no more than 49% of the total. . Trap gear: a condition was placed in the first assessment requiring the collection of quantitative data for non-target catches. As a result, a bycatch assessment within the UoA was conducted by the regional scientific agency and daily sampling of the landed catch at fish processing plants occurred from 2009 and 2010 (Smirnov and Tochilina 2011). These results showed low catches of non-target species. . Purse seine & Trap: Non-commercial bycatch is recorded in a separate bycatch logbook, which is completed in the factory during the processing of the catch from all of the delivery vessels (D, Hartshorn, 7/4/17, email communication). Gidrostroy provided copies of bycatch logbooks for

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 88 of 90 SCS Global Services Report

the 2016-2017 pink and chum fishery. Because bycatch is so low, it is recorded by the number of pieces rather than weight. Bycatch is reported separately by trap net site and purse seine fishing vessel during the chum run (Sept 11-Oct). An assessment of all non-target and bycatch species from traps was conducted in 2009 and 2010 (Smirnov and Tochilina 2011). The study also compared bycatch with total allowable catch limits identified by the government for a number of commercially valuable species. This assessment was implemented to meet imposed Conditions from the original certification. Results of bycatch assessments in the pink salmon fishery period confirm that non-target species comprise a very low percentage of the total landings (Table 21). Similarly, low bycatch levels are reported for the chum salmon period (Smirnov and Tochilina 2011). All additional species combined accounted for an estimated 1.3 mt for the fishing year. The study also concluded that:

. 122 species of fishes from 37 families have been identified in waters of the Southern Kuriles, . Of these, 41 species of fishes from 18 families were observed in pink and chum salmon fisheries in Prostor and Kuril Bays, . The main volume of the non-target catch consists of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Iwana or white-spotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis), the total combined bycatch of which makes < 0.1% of the total catch. . The total amount of bycatch does not exceed recommended volumes of catches or “General admissible catch” of any species in bycatch. . The fishery does not render any influence on the number and condition of stocks of any species of the water biological resources found in coastal waters of Iturup Island. This includes the rare taimen.

Table 21. Prominent species of fish caught in sea nets fished for pink and chum salmon, 2009-2010 (Smirnov and Tochilina 2011).

Common Name Scientific name Total Catch (kg) % of UoA Catch Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 16,869,753 63.6% Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta 9,623,381 36.3% Char Salvelinus leucomaenis 19,108 0.1% Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 845 <0.01% Greenling Hexagrammidae 324 <0.01% Flatfish Pleuronectidae 374 <0.01% Dolphin fish Coryphaena hippurus 104 <0.01% Bull-head Hemitripteridae 193 <0.01% Rockfish Scorpaenidae 211 <0.01% Eastern dice Tribolodon brandtii 16 <0.01% Blennies Stichaeidae 4 <0.01% Saffron cod Eleginus gracilis 52 <0.01% Sandfish Arctoscopus japonicas 76 <0.01% Total UoA Catch 26,514,441 100

This work also included a comprehensive report on the life history and status of bycatch species. In addition, the regional scientific agency (Niro) conducted a survey of the freshwater fauna in the region including some rivers on Iturup Island (Tumanov et al, 2011). This information established environmental

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 89 of 91 SCS Global Services Report

baseline conditions. The survey evaluated the distribution and relative abundance of 20 species of fish including widely distributed species, species occurring primarily in the lake & river systems, and species limited to specific areas. Surveys also characterized physical conditions including Lebinaya, Reybodina, Sopochnaya lakes and Reydova, and Rybatska rivers on Iturup Island. Subjects also included the effects of predators (trout & char) on salmon and selected information on food habits and species condition. As discussed above, the non-target catch is extremely low for purse seine gear targeting salmon and has remained historically low for trap gear. According to company biologists, “The fishing area cannot be considered to be a location where non-commercial salmon species would gather. The occasional incidence of Char and Sockeye is of an accidental and insignificant nature due to the later timing of runs and fisheries for Pink salmon compared to the above-listed species.” Since the second re-assessment, the levels of retained non-target species have remained low in traps (Table 23). A scope expansion for purse seine gear was conducted in 2016 and only two years of catch data were available prior to the 4th surveillance audit.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 90 of 92 SCS Global Services Report

Table 22. Non-target catch reported in trap net and purse seine gears by Gidrostroy in 2016 based on sampling at processing plants (in numbers of fish). Pink and Chum's landings were 11,157 metric tonnes and 4,677 metric tonnes, respectively.

терпуг камбала шренка скумбри сельдь- корифена мальма яп. красноперк бычок кальмар я иваси волосозуб а Hexagrammo Pseudopleuronecte Scomber Sardinops Coryphaen Salvelinu Arctoscopu Tribolodon Myoxocephalu Todarode s sp. s schrenki japonicus melanosticu a hippurus s malma s japonicus sp. s sp. s s japonicus Greenling/ Flounder Mackerel Herring/ Dolphin Dolly Japanese Redeye Sculpins Squid Rock trout iwashi fish Varden sandfish Trap July 8 21 0 2 0 2 0 0 14 2 Aug 1 19 1 0 216 0 0 0 12 1 Sep 1-10 3 11 0 2 34 1 0 0 3 1

Sep 11-30 0 2 2 6 1 0 0 5 3 0 Oct 0 0 6 11 1 0 0 12 0 0 Seine Sep 11-30 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Kurilskiy Bay Subtotal 13 53 12 24 252 3 0 21 32 4 Trap July 3 33 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 0 Aug 7 44 2 4 1 0 45 0 0 0 Sep 1-10 0 3 2 4 1 0 3 1 1 0 Sep 11-30 0 0 6 51 96 0 0 18 0 0

Oct 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 Seine Sep 11-30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 Oct 0 0 2 20 1 0 0 3 0 0 Prostor Bay Subtotal 10 80 16 82 100 0 48 34 18 0 Trap July 11 54 0 4 0 2 0 0 31 2 Aug 8 63 3 4 217 0 45 0 12 1 Sep 1-10 3 14 2 6 35 1 3 1 4 1 Sep 11-30 0 2 8 57 97 0 0 23 3 0 Oct 0 0 10 11 2 0 0 15 0 0 Subtotal 22 133 23 82 351 3 48 39 50 4

Seine Sep 11-30 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 Oct 0 0 2 20 1 0 0 6 0 0 Totals Subtotal 1 0 5 24 1 0 0 16 0 0

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 91 of 93 SCS Global Services Report

Table 23. Catch Summary for the Iturup pink and chum fishery using purse seine gear from 2017. Data are from delivery records at processing plants in Iturup. The purse seine gear type was only certified, and used in the fishery, in 2016; 2017 was the first year data on non-target species was available. Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch % of UoA Common Name Scientific name (kg) Retained Discarded Catch Chum Oncorhynchus keta 668,645 100% 97.8 Pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1,020 100% 0.1 Char Salvelinus alpinus 13,317 100% 1.9 Sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka 445 100% 0.1 Mackerel Scomber japonicus 20.3 100% < 0.01 Dolly varden Salvelinus malma 18.3 100% < 0.01 Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus 6.8 100% < 0.01 Rock trout Hexagrammos sp. 5 100% < 0.01 Herring iwashi Sardinops melanistic 3 100% < 0.01 Total UoA Catch 683,480

Primary Species For the purposes of an MSC evaluation, primary species are those in the catch, and within the scope of the MSC program (fishes or shellfish), and not defined by the client as the target – which by definition is evaluated under Principle 1. Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the UoA or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock) will usually have some overlap in a jurisdiction with the UoA fishery. MSC assessment criteria further distinguish Principle 2 species based on the level of harvest. “Main species” constitute 5% or more of the catch by weight. There are also provisions for identifying a “main” primary species if there is a concern that the fishery is having a negative impact on the stock status or if the volume of the fishery is very large. All other species are identified as “not main.” For the purposes of this assessment, all gears are combined for scoring purposes. Given the lack of specific management regulations for non-target species, there are no primary species considered in this fishery. Though explicit management measures (i.e. escapement goals) are in place for Sockeye in the MSC Kamchatka Salmon fishery, there are such measures in place for Sockeye at Iturup. Sockeye has considered a secondary species are there is no overlap in jurisdictions between the two UoAs and the stocks are separate (SA3.1.3.3a). Catches of non-target species (i.e. Chum and Pink salmon) are well below 5% in both the fish traps and purse seine gear types. There are no main primary species for either the purse seine or set net gear types given the lack of stock management objectives for the species in Iturup (Table 21, Table 22). None of the species captured by the fishery are considered less resilient that would require classifying species as main that exceeded 2% of the catch. Secondary Species Secondary species include fish and shellfish species that are not managed according to reference points. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species. These types of species could in some cases be landed intentionally to be used either as bait or as food for the crew or for other subsistence uses, but

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 92 of 94 SCS Global Services Report

may also in some cases represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat unavoidable in the fishery. Given the often unmanaged status of these species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass or fishing mortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability. There are no main secondary species in either gear type. Char and Sockeye are the minor secondary species with the greatest catch volumes. Since 1998, Sockeye and Char catches have remained well below the 5% threshold of the main classification (Table 20). Catch proportion for Char consists of 0.1% of catch from the set net and 1.9% of purse seine catches. Sockeye is caught below 0.1% in both gear types. No other species catch volumes exceed 0.01% of the catch (Table 21, Table 22). Sockeye Salmon Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) is the third most abundant salmon species in the Pacific Ocean (preceded by pink and chum salmon). Their distribution ranges from northern Japan and the Bering Sea to northern California (Fish base. As with other salmon species, Sockeye is primarily anadromous but there are distinct populations called kokanee that complete their life cycle (spawn, maturation, death) in freshwater (Groot & Margolis, 1991). The anadromous population typically spend one to four years in the ocean and return in late summer and autumn to spawn. The predominant spawning area for Sockeye on the western Pacific side is on the Kamchatka Peninsula; the major spawning grounds are located on the Ozernaya River and Kamchatka River (Groot & Margolis, 1991). Small numbers of sockeye are produced in several Iturup Lake systems including Krasivoye which is located on the southern part of the Island (outside the fishery area). The 2007 escapement was estimated at about 15,000. Sockeye numbers have increased in recent years due to a decrease in ocean fisheries (Borzov 2007). Sockeye is classified as a primary species in the MSC Kamchatka salmon fishery because of escapement goals set by management authorities (MRAG, 2016). No such escapement goals are set for Sockeye spawning in/caught by the fishery in Iturup; therefore, they have classified as secondary species. Char East Siberian Char or Kundscha (Salvelinus leucomaenis) are abundant in rivers and streams of Iturup Island (Pogodin, pers. comm. 06/26/08). Char densities in the Reydovaya River System are estimated to reach 1,000 – 1,500 individuals per 100 m2 of the river area during the downward migration of salmon fry. Char densities increase and their body length decreases with the distance from the river mouth area towards the spawning grounds (maximum density is at the reeds in the spawning grounds area). Char is also considered a minor component of the fishery. Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species For the purposes of this assessment, endangered, threatened, or protected species are those that are recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g., CITES) to which jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are a party. The incidence of endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) in this fishery is reported to be negligible. In this case, national legislation provides for the protection of ETP species identified in the Russian Federation Red Data Book, also known simply as the Red Book. The Red Book is based largely on the International Union for Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)2, which formally designates

2 The MSC did not recognize IUCN vulnerable in v1.3.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 93 of 95 SCS Global Services Report

protected species subject to enhanced regulatory protection. The Red Book also contains species for which the population status is not well understood as a precautionary measure. Related natural conservation legislation was adopted in 1980s-1990s including laws for the protection of natural environment and fauna, natural (wildlife) areas under special protection, ecological expertise along with a number of various decrees by the Russian Federation Government. These regulations established conservation priorities for the Red Book’s rare fauna and flora species and liabilities for damage inflicted to the species and their habitats. State legal recognition of the Red Book is provided by the Russian Federation law "About protection of the natural environment" (1991), and by the Russian Federation law "About the animal world" (1995). According to Article # 65 of the “Law on the protection of natural environment” flora and fauna species entered into the Red Book shall be prohibited from economic activities. Activities leading to a declining abundance of such flora and fauna species and to deterioration of their habitats are prohibited. Article 24 of the Federal Law on fauna reads as follows: “Activities, which can lead to death, abundance reduction or deterioration of habitats of the Red Books’ fauna species, are not allowed.” In pursuance of the Russian Federation Government’s Decree of February 19, 1996, “On the Red Book of the Russian Federation,” the list of fauna species to be entered into the Red Book of the Russian Federation was established by the special ordinance # 569 of December 19, 1997 issued by the Russian Federation Committee on Environmental Protection. Upon the recommendation of the Commission on rare and endangered animals, plants and mushrooms, as many as 415 fauna species, needing special protection, were entered into the list. Simultaneously with the development of legislative base and formation of the Russian Federation Red Book, a process of creation of regional Red Books was underway. On March 16, 1999, a Sakhalin Region law “On Red Books of the Sakhalin Region” came into effect. To this end, a Commission on protection of the rare and endangered animals, plants and mushroom species was founded incorporating research scientists and specialists from the state environmental agencies. Upon the recommendation of the Commission, the State Ecological Committee of the Sakhalin Region prepared the list of fauna species to be entered into the Red Book of the Sakhalin Region, which was approved by the Regional’s Governor Ordinance # 230 of May 29, 2000. As many as 18 mammal species, 105 bird species, 4 reptilian species, 7 fish species, 10 insect species, 18 mollusk species, and 6 crustacean species are entered into the Red Book of Sakhalin Region. These numbers include all the fauna species entered into the International Red Book, Red Book of the Russian Federation, the species found on the territory of the Sakhalin Region, the species rare for the far-Eastern Area, and also newly identified species the range and abundance of which are not known. ETP species considered in this re-assessment are identified in Table 24. None have had reports of interactions with the fishery in the past 15 years other than some anecdotal reports with seals jumping in and out of fish pens. Due to the passive fishing gear, proximity to shore and allowing sufficient biomass into freshwater systems, the fishery is not considered to impact ETP species listed on CITES Appendix I or listed on the Russian Federation Red Book.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 94 of 96 SCS Global Services Report

Table 24. ETP species considered in this assessment. Scientific Name Common Name Listing Interaction Ursus thibetanus Asian black bear CITES Appendix I no Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale CITES Appendix I no Eubalaena japonica North Pacific right whale CITES Appendix I no Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale CITES Appendix I no Balaenoptera musculus blue whale CITES Appendix I no Balaenoptera physalus fin whale CITES Appendix I no Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale CITES Appendix I no Eschrichtius robustus grey whale CITES Appendix I no Physeter macrocephalus sperm whale CITES Appendix I no Berardius bairdii giant beaked whale (Baird's) CITES Appendix I no Phoebastria albatross Short-tailed albatross CITES Appendix I no Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle CITES Appendix I no Phoca vitulina Harbor seal Russian Red Book yesa Hucho taimen Sakhalin taimen Russian Red Book no they are capable of swimming in and out of set nets. No mortalities reported.

Marine Mammals Several species of whales are listed for the Russian Federation on CITES schedule I. These whale species do occur in the Pacific, but do not come near the set fishing nets, lest they become stranded in shallow water. Whales are not considered to be threatened by this type of salmon fishing. According to the company biologist, there are few protected, threatened, or endangered species in the waters around Iturup Island that interact with the fishing operations. Species found in the waters around the island include 20 kinds of Cetacea (examples include grey whale, southern whale, humpback whale, finback, killer whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, butterfly dolphin), six species of pinniped (mainly an eared seal and two forms of common seal) and one unique species of Marten family (kalan or sea-ape). Interactions of the fishery with marine mammals are negligible except for the ringed seal (Pusa hispida) which occasionally enter the trap nets to eat salmon. The seals can enter and exit the fish traps at will over the float lines. Birds The birds on Iturup island number about 200 species. About 100 species of those build nests on the island. Some birds of concern due to their rarity include whiteback albatross, petrel, mandarin duck, golden eagle, white-shouldered and whitetail eagles, merlin, peregrine, Japanese crane and snipe, fish eagle owl. Providing protection for birds is of high priority. The government has set up a reserve "Ostrovnoy" which occupies practically the entire southern half of the island. Habitual wintering birds here are different species of ducks - mallard, whistle teal, middle and big merganser, white swans and some predatory birds such as eagles. Short-tailed albatross nesting sites are in southern Japan where populations have recently been increasing (BLI, 2012). Fishing with passive gear on Iturup is unlikely to interfere with short-tailed albatross access to breeding grounds. Occasionally, SakNIRO observers will observe the hauling of the nets into the kungas. No reports of bird mortalities at the nets or at the processing plant have been reported at processing plant surveys or in the Gidrostroy 2009/2010 bycatch sampling survey.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 95 of 97 SCS Global Services Report

Sea Turtles Leatherback sea turtles also occur in the Pacific, but no reports of entanglement have ever been reported on Iturup. Sakhalin Taimen Sakhalin taimen (Hucho perryi) is a fish species of concern. They have entered as a category 3 species in the 2000 Red Book for the Sakhalin Region of the Russian Federation. Category 3 is defined as (a local endemic species characterized by dwindling abundance and in need of protection). In 2006, the IUCN listed Sakhalin taimen as a critically endangered (Rand 2006). This designation represents the highest potential risk of global extinction to the species. The assessment indicated that the range-wide population has dropped in size to less than 5% of historic levels based on declining catches in pink salmon fishery bycatch data from Sakhalin Island (Rand 2006). Similar declines in harvest and catch rates were reported since the 1970s by Safronov and Makeev (2000). Overfishing by various sectors (commercial, recreational, and illegal take) and habitat development have been identified as significant threats to this species Figure 13. Range Map for Sakhalin Taimen. (Safronov and Makeev 2000; Rand 2006). Fukushima et al. (2011) estimated that many or most Sakhalin taimen populations are extinct or endangered throughout their historical range on Sakhalin Island, the Russian Far East, and northern Japan surrounding the Sea of Japan. Taimen is a large migratory fish that can reach 2 m and 60 kg in size (Safronov and Makeev 2000). The species is known to exhibit both freshwater and anadromous life histories. They have been known to inhabit near-shore areas and freshwater systems of the northern Sea of Japan and the southern Sea of Okhotsk and including in rivers of Primorye, Sakhalin, the southern Kurils, Hokkaido, and northern Honshu. Typical habitats are near-shore marine waters, low gradient coastal rivers, estuaries, and large brackish estuarine lakes or lagoons. Fukushima et al. (2011) found that Sakhalin taimen populations are more likely to persist if they are present in rivers with wetlands and lagoons. Juveniles as large as 9-20 cm typically feed on insects but fish dominate the diet of larger taimen.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 96 of 98 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 17. Educational poster on taimen catch-and-release posted in a Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk fishing tackle store.

The abundance of taimen on Iturup Island has not been formally evaluated but some anecdotal information on occurrence is available. On Iturup Island, Sakhalin taimen have been seen over the years in the Kuibyshevka, Reydovaya, and Kurilka rivers and the Dobroye, Kuibyshevskoye, Blagodatnoye, Osenneye, and Maloye lakes (Borzov 2006). The range is typically confined to lake-river systems and is characterized by a patchy distribution. Taimen are not abundant in the Reydovaya or Kurilka rivers, and none have been recorded there for a number of years. Taimen are also occasionally seen in the Rybatskaya and Slavnaya rivers. Dr. Lev Zhivotovsky of Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences provided an informal verbal summary of results of genetic analysis of Sakhalin taimen population structure during a site visit in 2013. Dr. Zhivotovsky highlighted the difficulty of sampling this species due to the current status and protective regulations. However, sufficient samples were available from Sakhalin 30 populations to conduct an analysis based on 20 microsatellite loci. This analysis found clear genetic differences among taimen at the population level. Every population was distinct from every other. Genetic indicators were also consistent with a depleted status for many taimen populations. The article has been submitted for publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Taimen spawn in the middle and lower reaches in small rivers and in the upper reaches of large rivers from late April through early June at the peak of high water (Safronov and Makeev 2000). Spawning behavior and spawning habitat are typical of salmon. Juveniles spend 2 to 7 years in freshwater and often rear year-round in lagoons with brackish water and estuarine lakes. Juveniles as large as 9-20 cm typically feed on insects but fish dominate the diet of larger taimen. Juveniles typically migrate to the sea at sizes of 10-50 cm and subsequent rearing takes place in the inshore waters. The species is iteroparous and

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 97 of 99 SCS Global Services Report

sexual maturity is typically reached at 2 to 10 years of age at sizes of up to 90 cm and 6 kg (Safronov and Makeev 2000; Rand 2006). Males typically mature at age 7-9 years and bodyweight of 1800-2100 g (Borzov 2006). Females mature later typically at the age of 9-10 years. Adults can reach ages of 16 or greater (Safronov and Makeev 2000). Taimen often enter estuaries of large rivers or lakes in late November to overwinter in deep-water river areas with adequate flow. In spring, adults might migrate from rivers into the sea for a short period of time before migrating into rivers to spawn. Taimen do not make migrations over long distances and often enter freshwater during summer. Rivers with indigenous taimen stocks interchange with rivers with no taimen. On Iturup Island, migration and freshwater residence of taimen vary from river to river depending on the availability of overwintering space, critical summer temperatures, availability of food and other factors (Voronova, 7/16/08). The Kuibyshevka River south of the Gidrostroy fishing area has been identified from past evidence as one of the best-known taimen locations on Iturup. This system includes the river proper, Maloye Lake, (connected with the river via a channel) and several small meanders in the lower reaches. River gradient is low in the lower 5 km reach of this 26 km river. Upstream portions are steeper with habitat comprised of deep (3-4 m) pools interspersed with shallow rapids. Maloye Lake is 54 hectares, shallow, and overgrown with aquatic vegetation in summer. Summer river temperatures don’t exceed 16- 17ºC but water temperature in the lake can be over 20ºC as early as mid-June. Taimen adults and juveniles are thought to be present in the Kuibyshevka River year-round but abundance and distribution are seasonally variable. Adults typically overwinter from November until April in deep pools at river kilometers 4-7 and 16-18. They become sluggish, and won’t react to baits and stay in holes with felled trees often together with kundzha. Fish can be readily observed during this period in the low clear water. At a body length of 80-130 см mature taimen are easily recognized due to their specific coloring and body shape. Catches of large taimen individuals in lakes of the island in winter are uncommon. Adult activity increases as streamflow increase around April with migrations downstream into the lower portion of the system and marine waters, and upstream into spawning areas in the middle and upper portion of the system. Adult abundance in freshwater peaks in the spring-summer period, from March to June. In lakes, peak numbers occur right after removal of the ice cover (early May). Spawning occurs in May and early June generally between river km 5 and 18. During summer and fall, adult taimen are typically found in the lower and middle reaches where fish prey is abundant including smelt, redfin, lamprey, and juvenile salmon. Taimen migration to the upper reaches in October corresponds to the spawning migration of char. Juvenile taimen have been found throughout the lower and middle reaches of the Kuibyshevka River from May to October. Juveniles 25-50 cm long typically migrate around November into the lake and cut-off meanders where they overwinter until April. In May-June juvenile taimen may be found in the lakes and lower reaches of the river and also frequently enter and exit marine waters. Also, with the warming of the water, the larger juveniles in the 4 to 8-year age class start to migrate to the marine environment. Some biometric data are available from taimen collected in lakes Reydovoye, Lebedinoye and Maloye in May-June, 1995-1996 by gillnet (40-50 мм mesh size). Difficulties in obtaining sampling permits following listing of Sakhalin taimen in the Red Book for the Sakhalin Region have limited subsequent monitoring and study on Iturup Island. Growth data are available from fish 34 - 114 см long, 240 to 17,000 g in body weight, and age 4 to 13 years (Table 25). The diet of taimen sampled in Reydovoye and Lebedinoye lakes was broad, including pond smelt, lamprey ammocoetes, stickleback, goby, scud, and freshwater prawn.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 98 of 100 SCS Global Services Report

Table 25. Growth of Sakhalin taimen on Iturup Island based on back-calculation from scale samples. Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Length (cm) 6 14 22 32 40 48 56 67 79 93 97 106 114

Adult taimen were observed during winter – each in deep pools on the Kuibyshevka River. Normally at a distance 3-5, км upriver from the river mouth as many as two taimen individuals of approximately the same size could be observed within each still deep water area (pool) 300-350 m. long. On some days as many as 4-8 individuals had been observed within a compact deep hole with a reach of 100-150 м. The number of adults, observed on one boat trip, fluctuated from 2 to 14 individuals. The relative abundance of the taimen fry in the period May to June 1995-1996 (catch per unit effort) was equal to 6.2 individuals for Lebedinoe lake, 0.06 individuals for Reydovoye lake per one net and one day of not being in operation. In 2000 the same value was 0.05 individuals for Reydovoye Lake, 0.2 individuals for Lebedinoe Lake, 2 individuals for Maloye Lake and 2.75 individuals for the Kuibyshevka river cut-off meander. Taimen catch per unit effort in Lebedinoe Lake was substantially lower in 2000 as compared to 1996. Fry abundance in the Reydovoye Lake stayed at the same depressed level. Taimen are occasionally caught in Sakhalin Region commercial fisheries for pink salmon. Spawning migrations of taimen are substantially earlier than the period of the pink salmon fishery. Significant numbers may occur in local rivers but move directly to the sea and do not appear subject to high harvest rates in current pink salmon fisheries. However, taimen are susceptible to incidental harvest in commercial salmon fisheries during their nearshore marine feeding period which occurs from June to mid- September. In the northeast region, catches are thought to average approximately one to two fish per stationary net per year although no taimen were observed in the 2010 bycatch monitoring program. In 2013, the regional governmental scientific agency (SakhNIRO) published a review of current information on the status and limiting factors of taimen on Sakhalin Island. This report concluded that the primary threat to taimen is illegal to harvest by the general populace in readily-accessible rivers. Taimen catches in Gidrostroy fisheries are reported to be very rare or nonexistent. No taimen have been observed in the bycatch at the processing plants operated by the company for more than 15 years. Adults are large and conspicuous, so identification is readily made. Spawning is completed in May and June before the beginning of the salmon fisheries in July. Taimen are required by law to be released alive and compliance is assured by the Company and controlled by fishery observers from the governmental agencies for fishery monitoring (SakhalinRybvod) and science (SakhNIRO). As a result, close to zero mortality is expected for these fish as well. Taimen are incidentally caught by sport anglers on Iturup and are subject to illegal harvest in freshwater. Adults are easily located and caught using all types of lures in the sport fishery. Juveniles are also regularly observed in sport fishermen catches and should be released alive upon being caught. As of May 2008, the following catches of the Sakhalin taimen were registered: May 13, Argun river, 300 m. from the river mouth, body length 40 см; May 10, Kuibyshevka river, 250 m. from the river mouth (Borzov 2007a). It appears that Sakhalin taimen continue to be vulnerable to illegal harvest due to inherent biological features (long freshwater residence period, late maturation, large body size). Inclusion of Sakhalin taimen in the Red Book didn’t change this situation to the better and their abundance continues to drop markedly. A possible solution to the issue of the species’ conservation would be to set up the following measures: 1) Establishment of wildlife territories (preserves) under special protection within the species’ range; 2)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 99 of 101 SCS Global Services Report

Creation of reserve gene pool, and 3) active information and education aimed at the conservation of the species. The feasibility of taimen aquaculture has been periodically explored by several hatcheries in the Sakhalin region (Safronov and Makeev 2000) and experimental activities continue at several locations. Seven individual taimens were held at Reydovo Salmon Hatchery from 2000 to 2007 in order to preserve genetic material and work out holding and feeding techniques (Pogodin, pers. comm. 6/26/08). These taimens were collected with a beach seine at the mouth of the Kuibyshevka River in May 2000 and averaged 30 cm in length. In the period 1999-2000, taimen in the Kuibyshevka River System was poorly protected and subject to significant poaching pressure. Guardianship of the Kuibyshevka River has improved in the last five year period under management by the private security Company OOO Continent and the taimen population has begun to recover. Due to this reason, the taimen held at Reydovo hatchery were released into their native river in July 2007 at an average size of 80 cm. A Sakrybvod taimen hatchery project is also being conducted in southeast Sakhalin. Habitat Impacts Overview When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes). According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]: “A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA; and A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA 3.13.3.23) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity,

3 According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3.2: VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: . Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems . Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species . Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities . Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 100 of 102 SCS Global Services Report

functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.” Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes (GSA 3.13.3). Habitat Type: Commonly Encountered Salmon habitat extends from rearing natal stream areas and bays to the open ocean. Most of Iturup Island is uninhabited and there is very little industry other than salmon fishing on the island. Salmon habitats on Iturup are largely considered pristine. Gidrostroy and the Russian Federation government of the Far East are in the process of building new infrastructure including a new airport, a deeper harbor and a series of roads (to the airport). There are a few small quarries on the island for this purpose, but the quarries are not located near the rivers so pollution and siltation in the rivers is not a threat to freshwater habitats. Some modification of the environment has taken place to improve vessel accessibility in ports. Small numbers of few cattle and sheep are present but are not believed to contribute to freshwater habitat degradation. Oil and gas development has not come to Iturup. Hatchery construction on the river systems may have had some impacts during construction, but operational impacts are currently small. Small non-salmon bearing tributaries were diverted from their natural course to supply the hatcheries with a water source, but there is still plenty of water volume to support natural spawning and ecosystem function. The water from these tributaries is filtered through natural gravel seep before entering the hatchery. Water quality and the temperature are tested regularly before being released into the stream systems again. Small weirs may be installed, which may impede the upstream movement of returning salmon, but these are on the banks and not considered to be negatively impacting the habitat in any permanent way. In the 2016 first annual surveillance audit, the scoring on habitat impacts by enhancement activities was reduced due to apparent stream diversion in the construction of the new Lebedinoe hatchery. This reduced the score of PI 2.4.1 from 100 to 90. The set nets themselves are seasonally installed. Anchors, sandbags or moors have very little impact as they are localized, stationary, and are set on a substrate not considered vulnerable (i.e. on dynamic sand, gravel and mudflats; not on any coralline structures). Overall, purse seine gear is expected to have less impact than the stationary trap gear. The set nets used in the stationary trap gear are installed prior to fishing and removed thereafter. Anchors, sandbags or moors have very little impact as they are localized, stationary, and are set on a substrate not considered vulnerable (i.e. on dynamic sand, gravel and mudflats; not on any coralline structures). Purse seine gear is operated without any intentional contact with the seafloor. Test fishing was used to determine the optimal and maximum operating depth of the seines, and it was determined that purse seine gear would only be deployed in depths greater than 40m (Maxim L. pers. comm). Contact with the

. Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features”

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 101 of 103 SCS Global Services Report

seafloor is undesirable from an efficiency and cost perspective, as it risks gear entanglement and loss, and therefore it is expected that the captain and crew will seek to minimize incidental contact with the seafloor, making any such impacts localized and temporary. Habitat Type: Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) Neither the fish trap or purse seine fishery interact with Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) habitat. Ecosystem Condition 5 of the original certification was addressed in 2011 with a workshop to identify and consider any potential ecosystem risks in the fishery based on the available information. The purpose of the required workshop was not simply to know what species are present but rather to consider what the potential species or habitat effects may be from the fishery, hatchery, or fishing gear. The workshop employed the format patterned after stakeholder engagement meetings to assess ecological risk for target species, non-target species (with a special emphasis on ETP species), habitat impacts and the ecological community. Local stakeholders and authorities did not have significant concerns on the ecological impacts of the fishery. The primary concerns identified by non-local stakeholders in the international conservation community were focused on hatchery effects on target salmon stocks rather than bycatch species. The salmon life cycle encompasses a vast ecosystem including natal rivers and lakes, the nearshore ocean, and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. Salmon migrate across large areas of the North Pacific Ocean, which provides major feeding habitats for various salmon stocks originating from Asia and North America (Myers et al. 2009; Urawa et al. 2009). Juveniles gain over 90% of their biomass in the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn (Groot and Margolis 1991). Ecosystem effects of salmon harvest and enhancement can be significant. Upon their return, pink and chum salmon spawn in their natal streams and do not return to the sea. Their carcasses provide important marine-derived nutrients to the freshwater system. The influx of nutrients can be substantial (Gende et al, 2002). Returning salmon can also be prey items for terrestrial megafauna including bears. Marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses can have a significant impact on freshwater communities as well as those communities in the freshwater to the terrestrial interface (Wilson et al. 1998). The flux of salmon biomass entering freshwater from the ocean can be massive (Gende et al. 2002). Removal of salmon that would otherwise die naturally in the river can affect food and productivity of freshwater ecosystems either directly by reducing prey availability to species like bears and eagles, or indirectly by reducing delivery of marine-derived nutrients that feed the food chain. The relationships between salmon and the population dynamics of their terrestrial predators have been well documented (Gende et al. 2002). It has been reported that these nutrients also form a base for rich development of zooplankton in a coastal area, which serves as food for young salmon just after downstream migration. On the other hand, active fishery management might also help stabilize returns by avoiding excessively large escapements which can depress future returns under some conditions. Enhancement with hatcheries can substantially increase salmon numbers at certain times (Kaev 2011). Enhancement of Pacific salmon across the Pacific Rim since the 1970s has resulted in very large abundance in the North Pacific Ocean (Mahnken et al. 1998; Irvine et al. 2009; Ruggerone et al. 2010). There is some evidence that high salmon abundances in the ocean might adversely affect wild salmon through competition (Peterman 1991). Ocean growth of pink salmon is inversely correlated to their own

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 102 of 104 SCS Global Services Report

abundance, and survival of chum, Chinook, and sockeye appears to be reduced in years of high pink salmon abundance (Ruggerone et al. 2003, Ruggerone and Goetz 2004, Ruggerone and Nielsen 2004, Ruggerone et al. 2005; Ruggerone et al. 2010; Ruggerone and Connors 2015). There is a growing concern in some quarters that the ocean carrying capacity of pink and chum salmon has been globally reached. It is clear that salmon influence the food webs in the North Pacific although the effect varies widely between systems and is dependent on many factors like timing, scale, and alternative nutrient sources, etc. (Naydenko 2009; SCS 2011). Identification of significant interactions among food web components is difficult due to limited data and confounding effects of environmental forcing (Essington 2009). Ecosystem models that have been developed for the Eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (Gaichas and Francis 2008, Aydin et al. 2008) do not suggest a critical or unique role of salmon in respect to the structure of the food web in the ocean. Gaichas and Francis (2008) used network theory to identify potential key species in the Gulf of Alaska food web on the basis of high connectivity and four species were identified (Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, walleye pollock, and arrowtooth flounder) as highly connected species. Other predatory species, such as Pacific halibut, walleye Pollock and arrowtooth flounder were found to be highly connected. Extensive research has been conducted by the Russian Scientific Institutes on (1) Juvenile Anadromous Stocks in Ocean Ecosystems; (2) Anadromous Stocks in the Bering Sea Ecosystem (BASIS); and (3) Anadromous Stocks in the Western Subarctic Gyre and Gulf of Alaska Ecosystems (Temnykh et al. 2010). This work also involved substantial monitoring and research of related ecosystem components including food web composition, production, and dynamics. Based on this work, the Russian management system has generally concluded that there is no capacity limitation based on oceanographic data which indicates that pink salmon utilize only 20% of the plankton in the ocean (Shuntov and Temnykh 2004; Shuntov et al. 2010). A workshop was conducted in 2011 to identify and consider potential ecosystem risks in the fishery (if any). This workshop addressed a condition in the previous assessment. The purpose of the required workshop was not simply to know what species are present but rather to consider what the potential species or habitat effects may be from the fishery, hatchery, or fishing gear. The format of the workshop used the format patterned after stakeholder engagement meetings to assess ecological risk. The methodology used for the meeting was the same format used by Hobdday et al (2007). Meetings took place in the fall of 2011 and held in areas where significant stakeholder engagement has been centered including Yuzhno, Sakhalin Island, Russia and in Portland, Oregon USA. The meetings focused on the main components of the fishery including the target species, non-target species (with a special emphasis on ETP species), habitat impacts and the ecological community in which these components come together. For each of the main components, sub-components, or measurable metrics of the components, were identified. Stakeholders were asked to provide input on areas of interest or concern for each of the sub- components. Local stakeholders and authorities did not have significant concerns on the ecological impacts of the fishery. In contrast, biologists from the Wild Salmon Center based in Portland OR, USA did express concern that warrants further investigation.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 103 of 105 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales Principle 2 is scored jointly for purse seine and fish traps/net given the low level of non-target catches (i.e. no main species) and the limited habitat impact of the gear types. Separate rationales are presented when applicable. PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary post PRI. species are above the PRI and OR are fluctuating around a level OR If the species is below the consistent with MSY. PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence ensure that the UoA does not of recovery or a hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

There are no main primary species in the fishery for either gear type (see Table 23, Table 20). Per SA3.2.1, if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. As there are no main or minor primary species, the score for primary species PIs is 100. b Minor primary species stock status

Guide Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the post PRI. OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? Yes

Rationale

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 104 of 106 SCS Global Services Report

See SIa

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 105 of 107 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder the rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing post that are expected to necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main

primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above which are highly likely to be the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no main primary species in the fishery for either gear type (see Table 23, Table 20). GSA3.5.1 states that ‘if the UoA has no (or negligible: see below) impact on this component, scoring issue (a) does not need to be scored for SG60 and SG80 (see definition of ‘if necessary’ in Table SA3 and Table GSA2). However, there is no ‘if necessary’ clause in SG100 so that in order to score a 100 on this component, a management strategy should be in place for the UoA for P2 species, since gear loss or other incidental impacts could still occur.’ Based on GSA3.5.1, all SI in PI 2.1.2 meet the SG60 and SG80 level. However, while no main or minor primary species are identified in this fishery, there is no ongoing collection of discards at sea. Though the discarded component of the fishery is likely extremely minimal based on the gear type and other MSC salmon fisheries, it can not be said that there is a strategy in place for manage any main or minor primary species that may be discarded and are therefore not captured in the reports from processing plants. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered There is some objective basis Testing supports high likely to work, based on for confidence that the confidence that the partial post plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory will work, based on some based on information or comparison with similar information directly about directly about the fishery fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

See SIa. SG 60 and 80 are automatically met as there are no main or minor primary species, there are no management strategy in place and thus testing does not occur. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 106 of 108 SCS Global Services Report

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy post strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

See rationale SI a for how SG80 is met.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No primary species are sharks and this SI is not scored (SA3.5.2)

e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness post practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of related mortality of related mortality of unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all primary species. primary species and they are primary species, and they are implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

See rationale SI a for how SG80 is met. SG100 is not met because no review occurs to assess the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. Because discards are not monitored in this fishery, there may be some minor primary species where the impact of the fishery on these species cannot be adequately assessed.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 107 of 109 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of the impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to post impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary species respect to status. with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and the main primary species. susceptibility attributes for the main primary species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no main primary species in the UoA. Per SA3.3.1, the information PI shall still be scored despite the team determining that the UoA has no impact on a particular component. The lack of at-sea observation for verifiable catch records and consistent bycatch record system prevents the availability of quantitative information from being adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main primary species with a high degree of certainty. b Information adequacy for assessment of the impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative information is adequate to post estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 108 of 110 SCS Global Services Report

species with respect to status. Met? Yes

Rationale

See Sib. No minor primary species have been identified and the ongoing collection of catch information of non- target species at the processing plants are sufficient to meet the requirement at SG100 of some quantitiative information being available to assess the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage post main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

No main primary species were identified in this fishery and the ongoing collection of data at processing plants means information is adequate to support a partial strategy, thus meeting SG80. However, the lack of at-sea observation for verifiable catch records means this cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 109 of 111 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder the recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological-based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main post based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits.

OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no main secondary species (see Table 23, Table 20). Per FCP 7.17.9, this scoring issue was determined as not applicable because to contribute to the scoring of any PI, the team shall verify that each scoring issue is fully and unambiguously met. b Minor secondary species stock status

Guide Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above post biologically based limits. OR

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 110 of 112 SCS Global Services Report

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? No

Rationale

There are two minor species in the fishery (Sockeye and Char). A study was commissioned by JSC Gidrostroy in the first assessment to determine catch composition from fish traps and information on the life history and status of the non-target species (Smirnov and Tochilina 2011). The report concluded that the fishery does not impact the number or condition of stocks of any non-target species caught in the coastal waters of Iturup Island. The low level of non-target catch in the fishery has resulted in no biologically-based limits being established since exploitation rates are so low as to not be considered able to cause a significant impact on the status of the species. Therefore, while it is likely that the minor secondary species are within biologically-based limits there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that species are highly likely to be able biologically based limits and therefore SG100 is not met. References

Smirnov and Tochilina 2011

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought: • Review to determine if more information on the status of Char and Sockeye is available • A purse seine is a relatively new gear type and more catch information will be collected onsite to address uncertainties with management strategy/classification

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 111 of 113 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder the rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing post expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary

levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which are to be above biologically highly likely to be above based limits or to ensure that biologically based limits or to the UoA does not hinder ensure that the UoA does not their recovery. hinder their recovery. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species caught in this fishery and SG60 and SG80 are not scored. The primary measures in place to manage secondary species is the use of a highly selective gear and temporal focus of the fishery to target returning salmon. However, it cannot be said that there is a cohesive and strategic arrangement in place designed to manage the impact on secondary species, specifically. SG80, but not SG100, is met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered There is some objective basis Testing supports high likely to work, based on for confidence that the confidence that the partial post plausible argument (e.g. measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory or will work, based on some based on information directly comparison with similar information directly about about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The large quantity of historic catch data showing minimal non-target catches in trap gear and recent minimal catches from purse seine gear are sufficient to show testing supports an objective basis that the partial strategy will work. This is considered sufficient to meet the SG80; however, a lack of consistent and verifiable data on non- target catch directly from the UoA precludes scoring at the SG100 level. This is considered sufficient to meet the SG80; however, a lack of consistent and verifiable data on non-target catch directly from the UoA precludes scoring at the SG100 level. c Management strategy implementation

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 112 of 114 SCS Global Services Report

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy post strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is clear evidence that the fishing strategy is being implemented successfully to harvest pink and chum salmon with minimal bycatch of other species, as the trap nets inherently have low bycatch rates and allow for live releases of some bycatch species. Catch data from the purse seine fishery also shows low levels of non-target catch. However, there is not clear evidence due to a lack of verifiable at-sea catch information (e.g. observer records). SG80, but not SG100, is met. d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No minor or main secondary species are sharks.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of related mortality of related mortality of unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species. secondary species and they secondary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as

appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species in this fishery. Therefore, SG 60 and 80 are scored as NA. It is minimal at sea sorting of catches from purse seine or trap gear, but as there is a potential for low levels of unwanted catch this SI is considered relevant. SakNIRO has conducted some at-sea observations of the discards from net gear; no information is available for discards on purse seine gear. There is almost no ‘unwanted’ catch of secondary species, but as there is a potential for low levels of unwanted catch, this SI is considered relevant. There is not a formal or biennial review of potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of secondary species. SG100 is not met. References

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 113 of 115 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought: • Purse seine is a relatively new gear type and more catch information will be collected onsite to address uncertainties with management strategy/classification • Have recent discard surveys been conducted?

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 114 of 116 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to post impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no main secondary species in this fishery and therefore these scoring issues are not applicable.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative information is adequate to post estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

There is quantitative information available in the form of deliveries at the processing plant for minor secondary species. However, given the lack of ongoing information regarding discards, the quantitative information is not considered adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. SG 100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage post the main secondary species. manage the main secondary all secondary species and species. evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 115 of 117 SCS Global Services Report

strategy is achieving its objective. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species in the UoA. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species by minimizing bycatch in salmon fisheries by employing a highly effective and selective fixed trap net and purse seine gear. Information is only collected at the processing plant and no information on discards is available. Thus, information is not adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage catches of all secondary species with a high degree of certainty. SG 100 is not met.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 116 of 118 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Effects of the UoA on population/stocks within national or international limits, where applicable

Guide Where national and Where national and/ or Where national and/ or international requirements international requirements international requirements post set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA and combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of associated enhancement UoAs and associated certainty that the combined activities on the enhancement activities on effects of the MSC UoAs and population/stock are known the population/stock are associated enhancement and likely to be within these known and highly likely to be activities are within these limits. within these limits. limits. Met? Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA

Rationale

See SIb

b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree of UoA including enhancement including enhancement confidence that there are no post activities are likely to not activities are highly likely to significant detrimental direct hinder the recovery of ETP not hinder the recovery of effects of the UoA including species. ETP species. enhancement activities on ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

For the purposes of this assessment, endangered, threatened, or protected species are those that are recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g. CITES) to which jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are a party. Protected fish species potentially intercepted by the fishery include Sakhalin taimen which is included in the Russian Red Book of endangered species as well as the IUCN red-list. Harbor seals are also listed in the Red Book of Russia and therefore receive protections by law. The incidence of Taimen in the fishery is reportedly negligible owing to the absence of significant local populations. The fishery has had no reports of a Sakhalin taimen take in more than 15 years. See Section Sakhalin Taimen for more detailed information. Due to the low reported incidence of the harvest of these species, direct fishery effects of the fishery are highly likely to not hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG 80 is met. It must be noted that even a very low incidence of taimen occurrence in fishing nets could pose a concern where taimen are at critical low abundance levels. Given the lack of at-sea observer coverage for trap and purse seine gear and the concern over low levels of catches of ETP species, it cannot be concluded that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA including enhancement activities on ETP species. SG 100 is not met. c Indirect effects

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 117 of 119 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of considered for the UoA confidence that there are no post including enhancement significant detrimental activities and are thought to indirect effects of the UoA be highly likely to not create including enhancement unacceptable impacts. activities on ETP species. Met? Yes No

Rationale

No significant indirect effects of fisheries have been identified which might pose an unacceptable risk to these species and it is believed that indirect effects are thought to be highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. While existing information is adequate to make a qualitative determination regarding the effectiveness of the commercial fishery strategy in minimizing mortality of taimen, some level of uncertainty remains due to a lack of detailed quantitative information on taimen harvest and status. Thus, it cannot be concluded with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of the UoA and enhancement activities on ETP species. SG 100 is not met. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 118 of 120 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy PI 2.3.2 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements - ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimize the mortality of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive that minimize the UoA- managing the UoA and strategy in place for post related mortality of ETP enhancement activities’ managing the UoA and species due to the UoA impact on ETP species, enhancement activities’ including enhancement including measures to impact on ETP species, activities and are expected to minimise mortality, which is including measures to be highly likely to achieve designed to be highly likely to minimise mortality, which is national and international achieve national and designed to achieve above requirements for the international requirements national and international protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

See SIb

b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for post the UoA including UoA including enhancement managing ETP species, to enhancement activities do activities do not hinder the ensure the UoA including not hinder the recovery of recovery of ETP species. enhancement activities do ETP species. not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The strategy to manage the UoA and enhancement activities’ impact on ETP species includes setting fishery times and operating in areas where ETP species are uncommon. There is a ban on retention of these species which is judged as a strategy to manage the impact of the UoA on ETP species. Interactions with marine mammals are required to be reported. More information regarding the management measures for enhancement activities as they relate to ETP species will be gathered at the onsite. Though the existing measures in place for ETP constitute a strategy, it is not a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses. Therefore, SG 60 and 80 are met, but the SG 100 is not met. c Management strategy evaluation

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 119 of 121 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The measures are considered There is an objective basis for The strategy/ comprehensive likely to work, based on the confidence that the strategy is mainly based on post plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about based on information the UoA and/or species (e.g., general experience, involved, and a quantitative theory or comparison with directly about the UoA analysis supports high similar UoA/species). and/or the species involved. confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Observations of a low incidence of ETP catch in the fishery, consistent with the timing of availability of the ETP species not coinciding with the timing of the fishery, provide an objective basis for confidence that the fishery strategy based on qualitative information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Information on the distribution and abundance of taimen, in particular, does not allow for a quantitative analysis sufficient to support high confidence that the strategy is effective. SG 60 and 80 are met but not SG 100. d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive post being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes No

Rationale

The available information on catch and biology of taimen provides evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The incidence of taimen catch in the fishery is reportedly very low. Other factors, including illegal harvest in freshwater, are believed to be the primary contributors to the depletion of this species in this region. Clear evidence is lacking on the contribution of the fishery strategy to objectives for conservation and recovery for taimen. A definitive assessment is precluded by the lack of quantitative information on taimen status. Questions remain regarding whether the low incidence of taimen catch in the fishery is due to low exploitation rate or low abundance. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness post practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA measures to minimise UoA related mortality of ETP and enhancement related and enhancement related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 120 of 122 SCS Global Services Report

It is currently unknown as to whether there is a review regarding the effectiveness and practicality of measures to minimize UoA and enhancement related mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate for this fishery. The MSC Kamchatka Salmon Fishery has reported that SG 80 is met because ‘Effective protection of ETP species is regularly reviewed in the normal course of activity by regional fishery management and environmental protection agencies of the Government’ but that SG100 is not met because formal reviews are not scheduled (MRAG 2016). Based on the information provided in the Kamchatka MSC certified fishery, a draft score of SG80 is met. More information regarding review of ETP measures will be sought during the onsite. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought • Information regarding the review of ETP measures

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 121 of 123 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA and enhancement activities impacts on ETP species, including: - Information for the development of the management strategy; - Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a post impact of the UoA and assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the associated enhancement on mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA- and ETP species. determine whether the UoA associated enhancement and associated enhancement related impacts, mortalities, OR may be a threat to the and injuries and the if RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 protection and recovery of consequences for the status for the UoA: Qualitative the ETP species. of ETP species. information is adequate to OR estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for if RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 ETP species. for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

More information regarding the type of information available to assess the impact of the UoA on ETP species will be gathered at the onsite. There is extremely minimal interaction of the fishery with ETP species and thus the fishery is not considered a threat to the protection and recovery of ETP species. However, given the concern that even low levels of catches of taimen may have on the population, this cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty. SG 60 and 80 are met but SG 100 is not. b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage measure trends and support support a comprehensive post the impacts on ETP species. a strategy to manage impacts strategy to manage impacts, on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 122 of 124 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage the impacts on ETP species based on the prohibition of retention and fishing during times and areas where taimen are uncommon. However, the lack of observer coverage means that information is not adequate to support a comprehensive strategy. SG 60 and 80 are met, SG 100 is not met. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought: Information from managers/scientists will be sought during the onsite to understand the information available to estimate trends/impacts of the fishery and enhancement on ETP species

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 123 of 125 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome PI 2.4.1 The UoA and its associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to reduce The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the the structure and function of reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to post the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a function of the commonly there would be serious or point where there would be encountered habitats to a irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Purse seine gear and related operations have been observed to cause no significant habitat impacts. The purse seine gear operates without any intentional contact with the seafloor. The only likely effects would involve highly localized and temporary disturbances of the substrate due to accidental contact during gear deployment. The full assessment of the stationary trap fishery found that disturbance due to setting the nets is minimal as they are set over sand or gravel. Sand and gravel have a very quick and complete recovery from even moderate disturbance (van Delfsen and Essink, 2001). The amount of this type of habitat is plentiful near the coastal areas around Iturup (Pietch et al. 2003). Enhancement activities that may disturb freshwater habitats include water diversion for the older hatchery sites and effluent coming from the hatcheries being released into the freshwater systems. The audit team received water testing results that confirm regular testing and levels of effluent nitrates and other contaminants are within acceptable parameters. Water temperature is the same as the source temperature. The streams that are used for hatcheries were not fish-bearing streams, to begin with. With more than 200 river systems on the island (SakhNIRO, 1991), some small water diversion is not affecting overall habitat function. Evidence that the habitat is highly unlikely to have had its function and structure reduced includes the amount of biodiversity observed in freshwater, marine and terrestrial systems (Pietch et al, 2003). These systems continue to be very productive and diverse indicating that fishery operations (or any other anthropogenic effects) are not harming the habitat. During the first annual surveillance, the assessment team observed pink salmon in a stream being partially diverted for water use at the newly-constructed Lebedinoe Hatchery. This diversion reduces streamflow and wetted perimeter for several hundred meters of the small stream at the hatchery site. However, net impacts are negligible in scale relative to the ecosystem. Therefore, the assessment team concluded that habitat structure and function are not reduced to a point of serious or irreversible harm - should the scale of impact increase, the assumption of low net habitat impact may change. SG 100 is met. b VME habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to reduce The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the the structure and function of reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to post the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce the structure and to a point where there would function of the VME habitats to a point where there would

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 124 of 126 SCS Global Services Report

where there would be be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. harm. harm.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems are identified in the area of the unit of assessment.

c Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to post reduce the structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? No

Rationale

As in SIa, the nature of the gear types and evaluations of nearby salmon fisheries is sufficient to conclude that the UoA is highly unlikely to seriously or irreversibly harm habitats; however, there is no direct evidence to demonstrate this. d Impacts due to enhancement activities within the UoA

Guide The enhancement activities The enhancement activities There is a high degree of post are unlikely to have adverse are highly unlikely to have certainty that the impacts on habitat. adverse impacts on habitat. enhancement activities do not have adverse impacts on habitat. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Water quality coming into and going out of the hatcheries is tested regularly (at least once per month, usually once per week) by a third-party government water control board (records reviewed from May 2013). A number - + of potential contaminants are tested for including concentrations of NO3, NO2 PO4, HCO3, SO4 NH4 , etc. as well as pH and temperature. Hatchery managers and salmon biologists have a vested interest in keeping the hatcheries running well. They do not use antibiotics at any point during rearing or incubation. The streams are largely fed through upwelling groundwater (~50%) (SakhNIRO, 1991) and diversion from non-fish bearing creeks is limited. A natural gravel filter system is employed for effluent water and the source creek is very close to the hatchery, so water is not diverted very far or for very long before being tested and put back into the system. The physical features of the creeks and streams are not typically altered by hatchery operations or other means. Two temporary weirs are located at the mouths of the Reydova and Kurilka Rivers, which are mixed wild and hatchery rivers. They may be operated if a particularly large influx of salmon returns and there is a threat that they may deplete oxygen levels too quickly before they can spawn. In this way, the weirs mediate fish passage so that

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 125 of 127 SCS Global Services Report

survival is greater rather than preventing passage for wild fish completely. Escapement goals for wild rivers are consistently met or very nearly so (low returns are likely related to oceanographic conditions in some years). At the Year 1 surveillance, the assessment team observed pink salmon in a stream being diverted for freshwater input to the new Lebedinoe Hatchery, suggesting the potential for disruption of access for natural-origin fish to spawning grounds. Due to such localized impacts within the facility footprint for newly-constructed hatcheries, it cannot be concluded that no habitat impact occurs. However, the effects of enhancement activities are highly likely to have a minimal impact due to their small scale were considered on a regional basis. Therefore, the score for this issue was reduced from 100 to 80 in the year 1 surveillance. References

SakhNIRO, 1991; van Delfsen and Essink, 2001; Pietch et al. 2003

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought: More information regarding the impact of Lebedinoe Hatchery on wild fish populations will be sought Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 126 of 128 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA and associated enhancement activities do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all post expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of UoA and associated performance. performance or above. enhancement activities on habitats. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishing strategy involves the use of a gear that operates with no intentional contact with the seafloor. The enhancement strategy involves the operation of hatcheries on only a small number of rivers and concerted efforts to avoid local habitat effects at hatchery sites. The fishing strategy involves the use of passive trap net gear which has no significant physical habitat effects. The strategy is considered appropriate to the scale and context of the fishery. SG100 is met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial post based on the plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA, enhancement comparison with similar the UoA, enhancement activities and/or habitats UoAs/ enhancement activities and/or habitats involved. activities/habitats). involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The limited scale of fishery and enhancement relative to the available habitat provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and is being implemented successfully. Biogeographic surveys of the Kuril Islands indicate the high amount of biodiversity is being supported by the habitat (Pietch et al, 2003). This is in both freshwater and marine environments. More recently, there has been some additional infrastructure including deepening the main harbor and building an additional road that passes by some of the stream habitats. Indirectly, these activities are related to the salmon fisheries to improve access to goods and services for fishers and their families living on the island. Weir operation effects are less known and full testing on how the weir operation is affecting wild salmon access have not been fully explored. Only SG 80 is met. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial post measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 127 of 129 SCS Global Services Report

being implemented outlined in the scoring issue successfully. (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

Observations of marine habitat conditions in the fishery zone provide evidence that habitat impacts are very low or negligible at a regional scale. It cannot be said that there is clear evidence of the strategy implementation in regards to purse seine fishing simply due to the lack of time over which the gear has been operated locally. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

Guide There is qualitative evidence There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative

that the UoA complies with evidence that the UoA and evidence that the UoA and post its management associated enhancement associated enhancement requirements to protect activities comply with both activities comply with both its VMEs. its management management requirements requirements and with and with protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, MSC UoAs/non-MSC where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no VMEs in this fishery.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 128 of 130 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and associated enhancement activities and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their post understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 intensity of the UoA. for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 adequate to estimate the for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The nature and distribution of habitat types, including vulnerable areas, in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The amount of available spawning habitat is of particular interest to the fishery and fishery managers because escapement goals are based on habitat quantity and quality. Fisheries biologists walk the streams regularly pre-season and during the season to monitor the available habitat. Vulnerable habitat, including small creeks or embankments that may be prone to erosion are of particular importance. Iturup is a dynamic island with seasonal variability in rain and snow fall (SakhNIRO, 1991). If an obstruction in an important part of the stream occurs (trees falling across the stream, for example), biologists are quick to remove it to maintain fish passage for when the season starts. The nature and distribution of habitat types in freshwater streams affected by hatchery operations is known. SG100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear and enhancement post nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA and activities on all habitats have gear use and enhancement enhancement activities on been quantified fully. activities on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with spatial extent of interaction fishing gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing OR gear. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 OR for the UoA:

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 129 of 131 SCS Global Services Report

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 adequate to estimate the for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and is habitats. adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery and enhancement activities on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Purse seine gear is operated with no intentional contact with the sea floor. Sandy and gravelly areas are known to have quick and complete recovery times (vanDalfsen and Essink, 2001), so effects from incidental contact with purse seine fishing gear are expected to be negligible, but have not been quantified. The nature of impacts of hatcheries on habitats is identified and mitigated by regular testing for contaminants or changes in other parameters such as temperature or pH. The SG80 is met for this scoring issue. c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

Prior to salmon season and weekly during salmon season, the streams are surveyed to complete spawning escapement counts and monitor habitat functioning. This level of monitoring would provide quick indication if there were issues arising in the habitat that was affecting the viability of the wild salmon populations. It is difficult to conclude however that large scale changes over time are measured in a quantitative fashion as the amount of available habitat for calculating the spawning escapement goals has remained consistent for several years. This is either because the amount of available spawning habitat has not changed, or the estimated available habitat is not quantified annually. Fishing operations and hatchery operations are regularly reviewed by both Gidrostroy managers and government personnel. This includes regular physical testing of water effluent and regular checking by SakhNIRO officials that weir operations and fishing regulations are being adhered to. Every document is reviewed by managers that approve each copy by date stamping it and providing hard-copy signatures. This includes water sampling, instructions on weir closings, to fisheries operations on the kungas and permits for the number of set nets. Every aspect of the fishery has accompanying documentation that is reviewed by at least one, if not several personnel that each sign off. The SG80 is easily met for this scoring issue, but SG100 is not. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 130 of 132 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 131 of 133 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome PI 2.5.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to post ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem there would be a serious or point where there would be a structure and function to a irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. These ecosystem components are separate from retained, bycatch, and ETP species considerations already addressed by specific indicators. Potential ecosystem concerns related to fishing might involve effects of changes in salmon abundance on ecosystem structure, trophic relationships, and biodiversity. For instance, decreases in salmon abundance due to fishing might favor prey species of salmon and harm predator species of salmon. However, the Iturup salmon fishery has complex short and long term effects on pink salmon abundance. Salmon fishery management to provide escapements consistent with maximum sustained yield generally increases average abundance in the ocean and return relative to what can be expected in an unmanaged system. Conversely, high exploitation rates and management for optimum rather than equilibrium escapements will substantially reduce the average number of fish escaping to freshwater. Effects of salmon abundance on ecosystem productivity in the ocean have been the subject of extensive research over the last 20 years and the scientific literature generally suggests that high abundance of salmon on the high seas due to the net effects of fishery management and hatchery enhancement throughout the north Pacific Rim has is related to ecosystem changes. However, the contribution from any specific area, including Iturup Island, to total salmon abundance in the ocean is relatively small. Effects of salmon abundance on ecosystem productivity in freshwater have also been well documented in other systems. Larger escapements provide more food for salmon predators such as bears and eagles and also more marine-derived nutrients to support primary and secondary productivity. However, while fishery management may affect the abundance, it also reduces the variability in abundance relative to what can be expected in an unmanaged system, thus providing a more stable resource and avoiding catastrophic extremes. On balance, these effects are not expected to result in serious or irreversible harm to any other component of the ecosystem. Direct evidence demonstrating a high likelihood of no effect has not been provided. b Impacts due to enhancement

Guide Enhancement activities are Enhancement activities are There is evidence that the unlikely to disrupt the key highly unlikely to disrupt the enhancement activities are post elements underlying key elements underlying highly unlikely to disrupt the ecosystem structure and ecosystem structure and key elements underlying function to a point where function to a point where ecosystem structure and there would be a serious or there would be a serious or function to a point where irreversible harm. irreversible harm.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 132 of 134 SCS Global Services Report

there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At the current scale of enhanced fish are likely to have a minimal negative effect on the productivity of wild salmon and other aquatic populations as a result of predation, competition for resources, and disease transmission. While large numbers of hatchery fish are produced in the Iturup hatcheries, wild production continues to exceed that of the hatcheries. Mark and recapture information on recently returned pink and chum salmon indicate that the Gidrostroy hatcheries are getting good returns on the hatchery fish (usually 4% or more). This is indirect evidence that competition due to increased hatchery fry inputs from the many hatcheries around the Pacific rim is not impacting the Iturup returns at least. Iturup also has good returns of wild fish by meeting escapement goals in wild rivers. Both of these pieces are indirect evidence, which meets the SG80, but not the SG100 for this scoring issue. Disease transmission has not been an issue as rearing time in the hatcheries is relatively short and densities within the hatcheries are kept low so as to better mimic the natural environment. Direct evidence demonstrating a high likelihood of no effect has not been provided. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 133 of 135 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA and enhancement activities do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place post account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these

to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of

performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Measures include fishery management for spawning escapements adequate an additional to provide for ecosystem needs in freshwater including bears and marine derived nutrients. Hatchery production of pink salmon has been reduced since the 1970s based on observations of resource limitations in the nearshore marine environment. This strategy also involves significant monitoring and research of ecosystem components at a regional scale. It is determined that SG 60 and 80 are met, but SG 100 are not. b Management strategy evaluation

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

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery and enhancement activities on the ecosystem. It is not apparent that the strategy involves a specific plan containing measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, nor that all functional relationships between the fishery and the components and elements of the ecosystem are well understood. SG 60/80 are met, SG 100 is not. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy post strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 134 of 136 SCS Global Services Report

its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Qualitative information and observations readily indicate that stream and nearshore ecosystems of Iturup are intact, diverse, and productive. Iturup is one of the most remote and pristine areas in the eastern Pacific. d Management of enhancement activities

Guide There is an established There is a tested and There is a comprehensive artificial production strategy evaluated artificial and fully evaluated artificial post in place that is expected to production strategy with production strategy to verify achieve the Ecosystem sufficient monitoring in place with certainty that the Outcome 60 level of and evidence is available to Ecosystem Outcome 100 performance. reasonably ensure with high level of performance. likelihood that the strategy is effective in achieving the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information on the relative scale of natural and hatchery production, and hatchery contributions to the run and escapement provide information on the effectiveness of the production strategy. The artificial production strategy includes limits on hatchery production to only 4 of numerous area rivers and hatchery operations to emulate wild population characteristics. Hatchery operations distribute releases over several weeks to avoid exceeding the capacity of the nearshore marine environment. Comprehensive evaluations of the artificial production strategy from an ecosystem perspective have not been specifically conducted. References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 135 of 137 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA and associated enhancement activities on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements of broadly understand the key post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The salmon life cycle encompasses a vast ecosystem including natal rivers and lakes, the nearshore ocean, and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. Key ecosystem elements include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity. Key elements of the salmon ecosystem are broadly understood based on extensive work by scientists associated with the management system. Extensive research has been conducted on freshwater and marine aquatic ecosystems. This information consists of Iturup-specific research and research conducted in other salmon-producing regions. b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA and Main impacts of the UoA and Main interactions between associated enhancement associated enhancement the UoA and associated post activities on these key activities on these key enhancement activities and ecosystem elements can be ecosystem elements can be these ecosystem elements inferred from existing inferred from existing can be inferred from existing information, and have not information and some have information, and have been been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses can have a significant impact on freshwater communities as well as those communities in the freshwater to terrestrial interface. The relationships between salmon and the population dynamics of their terrestrial predators has been well documented in other systems. It has been reported that these nutrients also form a base for rich development of zooplankton in coastal area, which serves a food for young salmon just after downstream migration. Many aspects of ecosystem dynamics have been investigated in detail. For instance, long term studies have been conducted of pink salmon life history and feeding in relation to productivity of the nearshore marine environment and productivity and species interactions on the high seas. Of particular concern to salmon fishery management throughout the North Pacific Region including Sakhalin Island are the effects of ocean environmental conditions on stock productivity. Short term and long term variability in these conditions is now understood to be strongly related to patterns of ocean productivity. Ocean productivity regimes have been observed shift periodically to more or less favorable conditions. The region is currently in a very productive ocean regime for many northern salmon stocks including Sakhalin pink salmon. These patterns and their effects are generally understood but future patterns are cannot be forecast. Thus salmon productivity and sustainability would be negatively affected by a shift to a less favorable regime. It remains unclear whether knowledge of fishery-ecosystem interactions is sufficient to recognize changes and to

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 136 of 138 SCS Global Services Report

revise management objectives and practices in a timely fashion. Thus while information on fishery-ecosystem functions and elements is sufficient to meet 80 scoring guideposts, it does not rise to the standard of the 100 scoring guideposts. c Understanding of component functions

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA and components (i.e., P1 target associated enhancement post species, primary, secondary activities on P1 target, and ETP species and primary, secondary and ETP Habitats) in the ecosystem species and Habitats are are known. identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No

Rationale

It is clear that salmon influence the food webs in the North Pacific although the effect varies widely between systems and is dependent on many factors like timing, scale and alternative nutrient sources, etc. In addition, like most large marine ecosystems, resolving interactions strengths among food web constituents is made difficult by limited data and confounding effects of environmental forcing. d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of post the UoA and associated the fishery and associated enhancement activities on enhancement activities on these components to allow the components and some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Scientists of the government research institutes have collected substantial information on pink salmon and their role in the ecosystem. Information on salmon ecosystems throughout the Pacific rim has also provided a good understanding of the salmon’s function in freshwater ecosystem, particularly for supporting aquatic and terrestrial food webs either directly by feeding predators and scavengers or indirectly by the delivery of marine derived nutrients. Active fishery management might also help stabilize returns by avoiding excessively large escapements which can depress future returns under some conditions. Enhancement with hatcheries can substantially increase salmon numbers in certain times and areas although hatchery contributions to chum salmon runs remain uncertain. Enhancement of Pacific salmon across the Pacific Rim since the 1970s has resulted in very large abundance in the North Pacific Ocean. There is some evidence that high salmon abundances in the ocean might adversely affect wild salmon through competition. e Monitoring

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 137 of 139 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to be collected to detect any support the development of post increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Extensive research has been conducted by the Russian Scientific Institutes on (1) Juvenile Anadromous Stocks in Ocean Ecosystems; (2) Anadromous Stocks in the Bering Sea Ecosystem (BASIS); and (3) Anadromous Stocks in the Western Subarctic Gyre and Gulf of Alaska Ecosystems (Temnykh et al. 2010. This work also involved substantial monitoring and research of related ecosystem components including food web composition, production and dynamics. Based on this work, the Russian management system has generally concluded that there is no capacity limitation based on oceanographic data which indicates that pink salmon utilize only 20% of the plankton in the ocean (Shuntov and Temnykh 2004; Shuntov et al. 2010). References

Shuntov and Temnykh 2004; Shuntov et al. 2010

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 138 of 140 SCS Global Services Report

7.4 Principle 3 7.4.1 Background Area of operation and relevant jurisdictions The fishery takes place in Russian internal and territorial waters only and hence falls under exclusive Russian jurisdiction. Federal fisheries governance The executive power in the Russian Federation is shared between the President and the Government, led by the Prime Minister. There are three main categories of federal bodies of governance: policy-making ministries (in Russian: ministerstva), implementing agencies (in Russian: agentstva) and services (in Russian: sluzhby), which often have a control function. The five most high-level ministries, among them the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, as well as a number of important agencies and services, are directly subordinate to the President. The remaining are under the purview of the Government (which, for all practical purposes, is appointed by the President as well). Some agencies and services under the Government (i.e. not directly under the President) are subordinate to a specific ministry while others report directly to the Prime Minister. When the Soviet Union fell apart, the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries was turned into a Russian State Committee for Fisheries (a category that no longer exists), which after an extensive reform of Russia’s federal system of governance in 2004 was turned into today’s Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA – in Russian: Rosrybolovstvo). The FFA has interchangeably been an “independent” agency directly subordinate to the Prime Minister, and an agency subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture – since 2012 it has been under the Ministry. In line with the overall guidance of the 2004 reform, the Ministry is responsible for the formulation of Russia’s fisheries policy, while the FFA oversees the daily management of fisheries, including the determination of specific fishing rules and the implementation of regulations set by the Ministry. Russia is a federative state consisting of 85 federal subjects (“regions”), some of which are ethnically defined, like republics and autonomous districts (in Russian: okruga) and some not, like counties (in Russian: oblasti) and territories (in Russian: krai). Between the federal and regional level, there are eight federal districts, which are primarily responsible for overseeing the implementation of federal legislation in the regions, and that regional laws and regulations are not in contradiction to federal legislation. The Far Eastern Federal District covers eight federal subjects in the easternmost part of the Russian Federation, among them Sakhalin Oblast (“county”), where the UoA fishery is located. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (in Russian: Minprirody) through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (in Russian: Rosprirodnadzor), which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. The FFA has 18 territorial administrations (in Russian: upravlenia), most of which cover several federal subjects. The territorial administrations are responsible for licensing, monitoring of quota uptake, and the administration of closed areas, amongst other things. The UoA fishery is subject to the control of the Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration (SKTA; in Russian: SKTU), which comprises only one federal subject, Sakhalin Oblast, and is located in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. The traditional geographical entities in

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 139 of 141 SCS Global Services Report

Soviet/Russian fisheries management are the “basins”. Currently there are eight basins; one of them is the Far Eastern Fisheries Basin, which includes the Chukchi Sea, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Sea west of Western Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. The basin level is no longer a central management level in Russia, but there are still advisory boards at basin level as well as general fishing rules that apply to the entire basin (see below). In addition to the territorial administrations, which are an integral part of the FFA, the federal agency has a number of subordinate bodies of governance. One group is the ribbons (Russian acronym for fisheries administration), formally “basin administrations for fisheries and protection of biological aquatic resources”. There is one main office (Glavrybvod, literally main fisheries administration) in Moscow and 29 regional offices, including one in Sakhalin Oblast, Sakhrybvod (located in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). The ribbons existed in Soviet times and had an important role in fisheries management as the Ministry of Fisheries’ main representations at the regional level, responsible, among other things, for licensing, quota control and enforcement in port and at sea. During the post-Soviet period, enforcement responsibilities have gradually been transferred to other bodies of governance (see the section on enforcement and compliance below), but the ribbons still exist and are now primarily involved in aquaculture, reproduction, and enhancement of fisheries. For instance, Sakhrybvod is involved in the in‐season provision of information on catch and escapement and controls hatchery permitting and management in Sakhalin Oblast. It also operates a number of hatcheries in the region, as well as an ichthyologic service and monitoring stations for escapement and juvenile outmigration on rivers that include both hatchery and non‐hatchery systems. Other groups of organizations subordinate to the FFA are scientific institutes (see below) and educational institutions, such as universities and colleges. There are six “technical universities” and nine subordinate colleges, among them Sakhalinsk Maritime College in Nevelsk, which is under the Far Eastern State Technical Fisheries University, located in Vladivostok. Yet another group of institutions subordinate to the FFA is the federal and regional offices of the Center for Systems for Monitoring of Fisheries and Communication (Fisheries Monitoring Center). There are the technical hubs for all kinds of reporting from vessels, including electronic logbooks, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). There are seven regional Monitoring Centers, including one in Sakhalin Oblast (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). The basic legal document underpinning fisheries management in the Russian Federation is the Federal Act on Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources (20 December 2004) (the Federal Fisheries Act). The Act has been revised several times, last in 2014. In 2018, revisions were made to reflect changes in regulations pertaining to anadromous species in inland waters and the territorial sea. The Government was given the authority to assign fishery sections to individual leaseholders for up to 20 years, and salmon fisheries management was entrusted to the regional executive authorities. This regulation replaced the previous system which was based on total allowable catch (TAC) allocations and centralized fishery management decisions by federal authorities. The objective was to create a more responsive and effective regional management system, at the same time as the incentives of fishing companies to under-report catches was supposed to be reduced since they were no longer limited by a quota system. Other important legislation at the federal level includes the Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment (10 January 2002), the Federal Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation (17 December 1998) and the Federal Act on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation (30 November 1995).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 140 of 142 SCS Global Services Report

At the international level, Russia is party to the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, and a member of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. The Commission promotes the conservation of anadromous fish in the Convention Area, which includes the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas north of 33 degrees latitude and beyond the 200- mile zones of the coastal states. The Commission requires member states to prohibit directed fishing for anadromous fish in the Convention Area; minimize to the maximum extent of the incidental taking of anadromous fish, and prohibit the retention of anadromous fish (taken as an incidental catch during fishing for non‐anadromous fish) on board of a fishing vessel. At the bilateral level, Russia and the US are joined in the Intergovernmental Consultative Committee (ICC) which aims to maintain a mutually beneficial and equitable fisheries relationship through cooperative scientific research and exchanges; reciprocal allocation of surplus fish resources in the respective EEZs; cooperation to address IUU fisheries on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea; and general consultations on fisheries issues of mutual concern. Regional fisheries governance The Sakhalin and Kuril Islands together constitute Sakhalin Oblast, one of Russia’s 85 federal subjects (“regions”). Just like the federal level of governance, regional authorities in Russia have their own executive, legislative and judicial powers. The executive power is led by a Governor’s office with a subordinate “regional administration” or “government” (either designation can be used), which in turn consists of a number of departments (where there is a regional administration) or ministries (where there is a government). Sakhalin Oblast has a government of 18 ministries and 10 agencies, including the Sakhalin Fisheries Agency (SFA), which is not to be confused with the Federal Fisheries Agency’s regional office, the Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration (SKTA; see above) – the former is subordinate to the (regional) Governor, the latter to the (federal) Minister of Agriculture. According to the changes made in the Federal Fisheries Act in 2008, regional authorities – here: SFA – are responsible for for the in-season management of anadromous species, although decisions must be approved by the federal office of the FFA, here: SKTA. The most important management body involved in the management of salmon in Sakhalin Oblast is the Commission on the Management of Harvesting of Anadromous Fish Stocks in Sakhalin Oblast (the Anadromous Fisheries Commission, AFC). The Commission is subordinate to SKTA and implements federal legislation at the regional level. In practice, its main tasks are to provide information on the fishery (such as catch and escapement data collected by the research institute SakhNIRO and Sakhrybvod); distribute expected yearly catches of salmon among users in Sakhalin Oblast, and identify areas of commercial fisheries, recreational fishing and the traditional fishery of the indigenous population in the region. Upon the request of companies, the ACF distributes annual quotas among users, approved by the FFA. The total quota covers the amount of salmon required for filling in the spawning areas and broodstock hatcheries, as well as the quantities needed for sport fishing and harvest by the indigenous population. Based on the reports about filling of the spawning grounds (prepared and submitted by SakhNIRO and Sakhrybvod), the AFC makes operational decisions on the time and duration of fishing by either closing fishing in spawning grounds in case of insufficient filling or by increasing the quotas in order to harvest excessive spawners from the mouths of rivers to avoid overflow of spawning grounds.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 141 of 143 SCS Global Services Report

ACF is chaired by the Sakhalin Oblast Governor and consists of representatives from the regional Government, industry and interested stakeholders. Federal authorities are also represented, i.e. fisheries management, environmental protection, and security authorities. Membership is proposed by the Governor and approved by the SKTA. The Commission meets several times a month, and protocols from their meetings are published on the websites of both SFA and SKTA. Recognized interest groups and on-going consultations The Russian (and previously Soviet) system for fisheries management has a long tradition of involving industry and other stakeholders in the management process. In recent years, the traditional arenas for interaction between authorities and stakeholders have been supplemented by new platforms for public engagement with management. The Federal Fisheries Act requires that any citizen, public organization or association (of legal entities) has the right to provide their input into the decision-making process within Russia’s system for fisheries management. A formal arena for interaction between government, industry and other stakeholders are the advisory boards, the so-called fishery councils, set up at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 in accordance with the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act that all federal bodies of governance (with a few exceptions) shall have a public council that will serve as an arena of interaction between the authorities and the general public. The Council consists of members from various federal bodies of governance, the fishing industry, research institutions and other interested stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations (WWF). Members are proposed by the public (in practice public organizations), and the FFA appoints up to 50 members for periods of two years. Basin-level fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, named “scientific-technical councils”. In line with the general regionalization that took place in Russia during the 1990s, similar bodies were set up at the level of federal subjects, named “regional fisheries councils”. Both were made mandatory in the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act. Rules of procedures for the “basin scientific-technical councils” in the Russian Federation were adopted in 2008. They state that the councils shall advise the authorities on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including the conduct of fisheries in the relevant basin; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The fishery councils consist of representatives of federal and regional authorities, the fishing industry, research institutions, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia, and the Far East. The basin level councils are headed by federal authorities, the councils at a federal subject level by regional authorities. The Far Eastern Basin Scientific-Technical Council consists of representatives from the FFA, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Veterinary Agency, the Antimonopoly Agency, scientific institutions, fishing companies and associations and representatives of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East and Far North. The Council is headed by a Deputy Director of the FFA, i.e. the federal management authority. As with other public councils at different management levels, the Far Eastern Scientific-Technical Council has an advisory role in all aspects of fisheries management. It has a particularly important role in coordinating stakeholder input to revisions of fisheries legislation and regulations. The Council actively encourages proposals from stakeholders and

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 142 of 144 SCS Global Services Report

acts as a coordinating body for further input into the management process. Meetings are held in Vladivostok at least twice a year. The meetings are open to the public.

Table 26. Advisory bodies at the three levels of governance in Sakhalin Oblast Level Advisory body Authority Russian Federation Public Fisheries Council Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) Fisheries basin Far Eastern Basin Scientific- Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) Technical Council Sakhalin-Kuril region Regional Fishery Council Sakhalin regional authorities (Sakhalin Oblast) (regional Governor/government)

At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public is given 15–30 days to provide their comments. Further, the FFA has a dedicated “Open Agency” initiative which is comprehensively detailed on their website. In addition to the use of the Public Fisheries Council and consultation bodies at a lower level, this includes the use of internet conferences with citizens, reference groups to discuss policy initiatives, and a general objective to increase public access to information. Management bodies also have functions on their websites by which citizens can get in touch with the authorities. E.g., at the website of the FFA, there is detailed information about how citizens can get in touch via telephone and directly from the website. There is even the possibility to book a personal appointment at the Agency. Objectives, management measures, and decision-making procedures Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. “Protection and rational use” was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. “Rational use” bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, insofar as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law, according to the 1993 Russian Constitution. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in various international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management. The Federal Fisheries Act outlines the overall principles, structure, and processes of Russian fisheries management, while the specific rules, such as catch, gear, seasonal and area regulations, are set in fishing rules for each fishery basin. Typically, there are rules regarding catch limits, by-catch, minimal fish and mesh size, closed areas and reporting requirements. General fishing rules for the Far Eastern Basin were

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 143 of 145 SCS Global Services Report

given in 2013 and are updated annually. According to the basin rules, fishers and fishing companies are required to keep catch log (with detailed information about catch volumes, species, catch areas, fishing operations, among other things), operate a vessel monitoring system (VMS), submit daily vessel reports as well as aggregated information to the fisheries authorities twice a month, among other things. TAC is set by the FFA, based on input from scientific institutions, the public advisory councils at different management levels as well as from industry and other stakeholders directly. Quota recommendations are sent to the Federal Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor, an agency under the Ministry of Natural Resources) for environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessments are performed by a commission consisting of independent scientists, mainly from the Russian Academy of Science. The results of the assessments are submitted to the relevant research institutions (see below), and thereafter recommendations are out for public hearing before they are adopted by the FFA and subdivided among the different basins and further down to the regional level. As mentioned above, the public advisory councils at different management levels play an important role in coordinating public input into the management process. TACs for salmon was abolished in 2008. Under the current system, fishing companies submit salmon catch applications to SKTU at the beginning of the year. Based on the number of fish intended to catch, each company purchases a permit (The fee is roughly xx roubles per kilo fish caught.) Companies can purchase subsequent permits once the prescribed catch has been taken under the previous permit. Each coastal trap is served by a crew of fishers whose leaders report to the company’s directors. Catch logs are kept specifying information about coordination of traps, daily catch, species composition and specification of whether by-catch is kept or returned to the sea. Daily catch reports on the catch volumes and species composition are generated every day for each fishing lot. Additional reports are generated and transmitted to SKTU and SFA for periods of 5, 10, 15, and 30 days, and then further summarized for reporting to the AFC. Numbers are at this stage considered to be preliminary – final reports are produced for every fishing ticket at the end of the season. The AFC opens and closes fishing periods and areas based on harvest and escapement relative to expectations and objectives. When the run of salmon is lower than forecasted, in order to provide escapement to the spawning areas, the entrances into the traps are blocked, and the central net is lifted and attached to the top rope. In cases of high abundance of pink salmon, there might be a risk of spawning grounds overflow, which leads to suffocation in rivers. In such cases, the AFC may (based on recommendations from the relevant research institutes; see below) decide to block the river’s mouth with weirs or trap nets. These are installed at the moment when the spawning ground fill rate reaches 60-70 %. Gidrostroy ichthyologists constantly patrol spawning grounds and in case of possible over escapement, Gidrostroy submits a request to close the weirs to Sakhrybvod staff on Iturup Island. After that, based on recommendations of ichthyologists of Sakhrybvod, AFC selects days when the fish are allowed to pass to the spawning grounds in order to fully fill them. A similar regulatory system of filling of spawning grounds exists on the rivers where the hatcheries are located. At the beginning of the run on such rivers, the fish is allowed to pass to the spawning grounds in upper streams of the river (reaching 25 % of the total escapement goal). The middle of the run fills the spawning grounds in the middle stream (50 % of the escapement goal) and at the end of the run, the downstream spawning grounds are filled (25 % of the escapement goals). The excess fish is removed at eggs collecting locations (which use it for hatcheries) or at river mouth weirs or traps.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 144 of 146 SCS Global Services Report

During the fishing season, the top management of Gidrostroy conducts weekly meetings discussing all incoming information and making operative decisions about all aspects of fishing and hatchery activities. Hatchery personnel monitor the hatchery rivers and submit data to SakhNIRO and Sakhrybvod every 3-4 days. If everything is in order, then no further actions are needed. If fish numbers are above or below objectives, then Sakhrybvod and AFC take local action.

Figure 18. Information flows and decision-making procedures in the UoA fishery.

Enforcement and compliance Enforcement of fisheries regulations in Russia is the joint responsibility of the FFA through its regional offices – in the UoA fisheries: SKTA – and the Coast Guard, which is under the Border Service of the Federal Security Service (FSB). The FFA is responsible for the control of quota uptake and takes care of paper control related to licenses, catch logs and VMS data, while the Coast Guard carries out physical inspections in port and at sea, including at transshipment. The Coast Guard’s authority is limited to marine waters; the FFA, through its regional offices and those of the rybvods (Figure 18), is responsible for the management of freshwater basins. Fish caught in waters under Russian jurisdiction must be landed in Russian ports. The Coast Guard conducts random inspections at sea, including from helicopters. Inspectors control the catch from last haul (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 145 of 147 SCS Global Services Report

deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the authorities. As mentioned above, the Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center, with its 7 territorial departments including one in Sakhalin, is the technical hub for all electronic reporting from the fishing companies and vessels, including electronic logbooks and other catch reports as well as VMS data. The FFA territorial departments and the Coast Guard cooperate tightly with the Fisheries Monitoring Centers, as well as with other countries and international fisheries organizations. VMS is required for all vessels with output at least 55 kW and tonnage at least 80 tons., for all vessels fishing in the Russian EEZ and for all Russian vessels fishing anywhere in the world. Operating with a defunct VMS system is considered a serious infringement of fishing rules, and if a vessel sails for more than 48 hours without a working VMS, its quota is withdrawn. Working on behalf of the FFA in Sakhalin Oblast, SKTA has an enforcement department with 18 fisheries inspection squads located in every local administrative area (rayon) in the Oblast. The total number of inspectors is around 100. They are occasionally assisted by the police, prosecutors, private security companies and even fishers in their enforcement activities. During the harvest of salmon, “anti-poaching brigades” from SKTA carry out daily and nightly rounds on the majority of spawning rivers in order to prevent poaching. Poaching on Iturup is not a significant problem compared to Sakhalin Island because of its remoteness and the limitations on access to it. (All incoming and outgoing visitors and inhabitants are monitored.) SKTA’s Iturup office is manned by around 8 patrol officers. Enforcement on the water is carried out using patrol boats and on land using enforcement officers that walk the rivers in-season using a pattern of patrols that encompass all times of day and night. Rivers in are guarded by Sakhrybvod in time of the salmon run, and it is easier for everybody to buy a license to fish and catch the fish in the designated area legally than take a risk poaching. Gidrostroy also employs a security division whose primary responsibility includes the prevention of illegal fishing in spawning streams and bear protection (Tiger Agency). The Veterinary Service (in Russian: Rosselkhoznadzor) is the only sluzhba ([controlling] service; see above) under the Ministry of Agriculture. For several years in the mid- and late 2000s, it was responsible for monitoring and enforcement across all fields of work under the Ministry, including fisheries, but now its remit is limited to more traditional veterinary services, such as supervision of animal health. Hence, it is responsible for sanitary inspections of landed fish. The Ministry of Agriculture and its subordinate bodies of governance cooperate with other governmental agencies in the enforcement of fisheries regulations. The Federal Customs Service inspects cargoes with fish caught under Russian jurisdiction and intended for export and hence plays an important role in maintaining traceability of fish products. The Federal Tax Service is involved in investigations of economic crime within the fishing industry. The Ministry of Natural Resources through its Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) assesses the environmental impact of fisheries and is responsible for the protection of habitats and protected, endangered or threatened species. Research The FFA has within its structure a federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO (the Russian Federal Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography) with 28 regional branches, the so-called NIROs (Russian abbreviation for the words “Scientific Research Fisheries Oceanography”, used in the names of all the

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 146 of 148 SCS Global Services Report

fisheries research institutes). In the Far Eastern Fishery Basin we find five regional institutes: MagadanNIRO (Magadan in Magadan Oblast), KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy in Kamchatka Krai), KhabarovskNIRO (Khabarovsk in Khabarovsk Krai), SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk in Sakhalin Oblast) and TINRO (Vladivostok in Primorskiy Krai, “T” stands for Tikhookeanskiy, which means the Pacific Ocean). SakhNIRO conducts research on marine and freshwater resources in the Sakhalin-Kuril region in order to monitor the status of commercial species, including salmon, and prepares annual forecasts and management advice. Each October SakhNIRO issues forecast for the expected catch of salmon for the next season. The forecast is developed based on the filling the spawning grounds, migration of juveniles from natural spawning to the sea and the release of juveniles from the hatcheries. These data are collected by both SakhNIRO and Sakhrybvod. Upon the request of fishing companies and Sakhrybvod, SakhNIRO also develops a technical and biological rationale for salmon hatcheries construction. Regional NIROs carry out studies of salmon in the river and early marine life periods, which includes the study of biology, population structure, escapement monitoring, the survival of eggs, downstream migration of fry, feeding of juveniles in estuarine period and the collection of statistics of salmon catch. TINRO is responsible for research on the marine life period of salmon, including the study of the state of the ocean and marine biota in the feeding areas and migration routes of salmon, total trawl counts of salmon juveniles during catadromous migration and count of salmon in the period of anadromous migration. At the end of the year, the results of these programs are discussed in the East Salmon Council at TINRO and published in the annual edition of The Bulletin of the Implementation of the “Concept of the Far East basin program for the complex study of Pacific Salmon”. Forecasting the run of salmon to the coasts of Sakhalin and Kuril Islands is based on multi‐year statistics of commercial catches, data on filling of spawning grounds, the survival of eggs in the spawning mounds, the total number of downstream migration of wild juveniles and number of juveniles released from hatcheries. The forecast is derived using simple linear regression and does not consider carrying capacity of the ocean. The accuracy of the forecast is +/‐20 % for Sakhalin-Kuril area but only +/‐100 % for individual regions on Sakhalin. SakhNIRO sends the annual forecast to TINRO, which summarizes the forecasts from all regional NIROs. Forecasts are discussed on the Far East Salmon Council (FESC), which was created within TINRO with the goal of coordinating the research and forecasting of salmon in the Far Eastern fishery basin. FESC decides on the final value of the forecast of predicted catch and sends the forecast to VNIRO. There the forecast passes through the expert review and gets adopted by the Scientific Council, after which VNIRO sends it to the FFA for approval. On the basis of this forecast, FFA approves the expected annual catch for Sakhalin and Kuril fishing areas. The pre‐season forecast is used primarily for planning purposes and possibly to establish quotas for some non‐commercial fisheries. During fishing season, FFA’s estimations of annual expected catch may be adjusted by AFC based on real‐ time data on the number of the salmon approaching the fishing areas. In order to assist in this adjustment, SakhNIRO monitors the dynamics of catches and biological indicators of salmon in the main areas of operation and the reproduction of the species. The monitoring results are used for developing operational guidelines on salmon fishing. Additionally, TINRO conducts annual counting of salmon fingerlings in the open sea using total trawling method and counting of feeding salmon in the winter areas on the high seas and in the ways of anadromous migrations. The results of these studies are also used for operational adjustments of the expected catch.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 147 of 149 SCS Global Services Report

At mentioned above, Russia is a party to the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, and a member of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). The Convention authorizes research fishing for anadromous fish on the high seas if consistent with the NPAFC science program. The parties conduct joint research programs including the exchange of information. Russian scientists participate in PICES and its FUTURE program (to Forecast and Understand Trends, Uncertainty, and Responses of North Pacific Marine Ecosystems). This allows scientists to work with the international community in adopting the latest methods related to ecosystem management and adaptation to climate change. They also work in NPAFC and its BASIS program (Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey). This way international colleagues peer-review the work of Russian scientists. Russian scientists are also involved with American colleagues at NOAA/NMFS, participating in Bering Sea fishery science and management.

Figure 19. Organization of federal and regional salmon fishery management structure of the Sakhalin-Kuril region (source: Wild Salmon Center, Portland, Oregon).

The quota setting procedure is preceded by a considerable amount of work on collecting and analysis of data from the regional fisheries research institutes SakhNIRO, KamchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO, and TINRO. After analyzing and processing the collected data on the status of aquatic biological resources the experts of the relevant research institutes and laboratories prepare quota recommendations which are subsequently discussed at various levels of governance and arenas for interaction between science, politics and the public.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 148 of 150 SCS Global Services Report

First, the scientific data and quota recommendations are reviewed at biological subpanel sessions at the individual research institutes, attended by scientists, representatives of federal and regional authorities, fishing companies and other stakeholders, including the media. Second, the material is reviewed by the leading forecasting experts in the region at the Far Eastern Forecasting Council. Third, a revised quota recommendation is forwarded to VNIRO for review, first at the institute’s Academic Council, attended by both VNIRO and external scientists, and then at its Fish Industry Council on Fisheries Forecast meeting, where also representatives from the management authorities participate. Fourth, the quota recommendations are discussed in the fora for public involvement at the basin and regional level, for the UoA fishery: the Far Eastern Basin Scientific-Technical Council (overseen by federal authorities/the FFA) and Sakhalin Regional Fisheries Council (overseen by regional authorities/the Governor). At both levels, public hearings are held where representatives from the respective bodies of governance and science present the quota recommendations and the science underpinning them and respond to queries from the public. As noted above, the public councils have a coordinating role in transferring public and stakeholder opinion into the management process. Fifth, the recommendations are subject to environmental impact assessments by the Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), performed largely by external experts from the Russian Academy of Science. Finally, the FFA makes decisions on TAC for the various species in the various basins and fishing zones, and then on the distribution of quota shares among users.

Figure 20. Inter-Organizational relationship of Russian TAC/PC setting process.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 149 of 151 SCS Global Services Report

7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a framework legal system and organised legal system and binding post for cooperation with other and effective cooperation procedures governing parties, where necessary, to with other parties, where cooperation with other deliver management necessary, to deliver parties which delivers outcomes consistent with management outcomes management outcomes MSC Principles 1 and 2 consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishery takes place in Russian internal and territorial waters only and hence falls under exclusive Russian jurisdiction. Within the Russian Government, fisheries policy falls under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture (Minselkhoz). The implementing body for fisheries management under the Ministry is the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) (Rosrybolovstvo), which is the successor of the former State Committee for Fisheries (abolished in 2004), and in turn the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries. The Ministry is responsible for the formulation of Russia’s fisheries policy, while the FFA oversees the daily management of fisheries, including the determination of specific fishing rules and the implementation of regulations set by the Ministry. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Minprirody) through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. The FFA has 18 territorial administrations (in Russian: upravlenia), most of which cover several of Russia’s 85 federal subjects (“regions”). The territorial administrations are responsible for licensing, monitoring of quota uptake, and the administration of closed areas, among other things. The UoA fishery is subject to the control of the Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration (SKTA; in Russian: SKTU), which comprises only one federal subject, Sakhalin Oblast. The traditional geographical entities in Soviet/Russian fisheries management are the “basins”. Currently, there are eight basins; one of them is the Far Eastern Fisheries Basin, which includes the Chukchi Sea, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Sea west of Western Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. In addition to the territorial administrations, which are an integral part of the FFA, the federal agency has a number of subordinate bodies of governance. One group is the rybvods (Russian acronym for fisheries administration), formally “basin administrations for fisheries and protection of biological aquatic resources”. There is one main office (Glavrybvod, literally main fisheries administration) in Moscow and 29 regional offices, including one in Sakhalin Oblast, Sakhrybvod (located in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). The rybvods existed in Soviet times and had an important role in fisheries management as the Ministry of Fisheries’ main representations at the regional level, responsible, among other things, for licensing, quota control and enforcement in port and at sea.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 150 of 152 SCS Global Services Report

During the post-Soviet period, enforcement responsibilities have gradually been transferred to other bodies of governance (see PI 3.2.3 below), and the rybvods are now primarily involved in aquaculture, reproduction, and enhancement of fisheries. For instance, Sakhrybvod is involved in the in‐season provision of information on catch and escapement and controls hatchery permitting and management in Sakhalin Oblast. It also operates a number of hatcheries in the region, as well as an ichthyologic service and monitoring stations for escapement and juvenile outmigration on rivers that include both hatchery and non‐hatchery systems. Other groups of organizations subordinate to the FFA are scientific institutes and educational institutions, such as universities and colleges. The FFA has within its structure a federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO (the Russian Federal Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography) with 28 regional branches, the so-called NIROs (Russian abbreviation for the words “Scientific Research Fisheries Oceanography”). In the Far Eastern Fishery Basin, we find five regional institutes: MagadanNIRO (Magadan in Magadan Oblast), KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy in Kamchatka Krai), KhabarovskNIRO (Khabarovsk in Khabarovsk Krai), SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk in Sakhalin Oblast) and TINRO (Vladivostok in Primorskiy Krai). There are six “technical universities” and nine subordinate colleges, among them Sakhalinsk Maritime College in Nevelsk, which is under the Far Eastern State Technical Fisheries University, located in Vladivostok. Yet another group of institutions subordinate to the FFA is the federal and regional offices of the Center for Systems for Monitoring of Fisheries and Communication (Fisheries Monitoring Center). There are the technical hubs for all kinds of reporting from vessels, including electronic logbooks, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). There are seven regional Monitoring Centers, including one in Sakhalin Oblast (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). The basic legal document underpinning fisheries management in the 2004 Russian Federation is the Federal Act on Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources (Federal Fisheries Act). The Act has been revised several times, last in 2014. Other important legislation at the federal level includes the 2002 Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment, the 1998 Federal Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation, and the 1995 Federal Act on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation. Hence, there is an effective national legal system in place to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. There is a system in place which delivers such outcomes. SG 100 is met. b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by post law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the arising within the system. of legal disputes which is resolution of legal disputes considered to be effective in that is appropriate to the dealing with most issues and context of the fishery and that is appropriate to the has been tested and proven context of the UoA. to be effective. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

There are effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanisms in place, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. However, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, not requiring judicial treatment. There are well-established systems of consultation with user groups in place for the fishery (see PI 3.1.2 below), transparent for actors within the fishing industry. Hence, the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. SG 60 is met. These mechanisms are transparent and considered to be effective in dealing with most

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 151 of 153 SCS Global Services Report

issues and are appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 80 is met. It has been tested and proven to be effective since all disputes between the two parties have indeed been resolved within the regime. SG 100 is met. c Respect for rights

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally post respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by the custom created explicitly or established by the custom of of people dependent on established by the custom of people dependent on fishing fishing for food or livelihood people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a in a manner consistent with for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the the objectives of MSC manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

In Russia, the rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. The Act states that “the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East” (ethnic groups with a “traditional” lifestyle consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It gives “fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East” extended rights compared to the other types of fisheries listed in the Act (e.g., “industrial fisheries”, “coastal fisheries” and “fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes”. [Add info on Sakhalin-Kuril specifically] Hence, the management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by the custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 is met. The system has a mechanism to observe such rights, so SG 80 is also met. Since it is founded in law, the mechanism formally commits to these rights, and SG 100 is met. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014) Об утверждении правил рыболовства для Дальневосточного рыбохозяйственного бассейна (с изменениями на 4 июня 2018 года) (редакция, действующая с 1 января 2019 года) (утратил силу с 17.06.2019 на основании приказа Минсельхоза России от 23.05.2019 N 267). (Fishing regulations for the Far Eastern Fisher Basin, Ministry of Agriculture, 2019) Распоряжение агентства по рыболовству Сахалинской области от 13.02.2019 № 3.29-26-р «О предоставлении в пользование водных биологических ресурсов для осуществления рыболовства в целях обеспечения ведения традиционного образа жизни и осуществления традиционной хозяйственной деятельности коренных малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации». (Regulations on traditional and subsistenc fisheries for the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East, Sakhalin Regional Fisheries Agency, 2019) Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://www.fish.gov.ru/), Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://sktufar.ru/), Glavrybvod/rybvody (http://www.fish.gov.ru/podvedomstvennye-organizatsii/rybvody), Sakhrybvod (http://www.sakhrybvod.ru/), Sakhalin Oblast administration (https://sakhalin.gov.ru/), the Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/), Sakhalin Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/filialy-i-otdely/sahalinskiy_filial/). (To be supplemented.)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 152 of 154 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 153 of 155 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management post process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles, and responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well understood defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility for all areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The functions, roles and responsibilities of the different organizations and individuals involved in the management of the fishery defined in national laws and regulations, as well as in longstanding practice; see SI 3.1.1 a) for an overview of the main bodies of governance at federal and regional levels engaged in the management of the fishery, and SI 3.1.2 b) for an overview of non-governmental organizations involved. Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, and according to interviews at the site visit for previous (re-)assessments, their functions, roles, and responsibilities are generally understood. SG 60 is met. The functions, roles, and responsibilities are explicitly defined in legislation and long- standing practice and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Interviews at the site visit will clarify whether all areas of responsibility and interaction are well understood. As per the ACDR stage, it cannot be concluded that SG 100 is met. b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation post processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, to knowledge. The knowledge. The inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The Russian (and previously Soviet) system for fisheries management has a long tradition of involving industry and other stakeholders in the management process. In recent years, the traditional arenas for interaction

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 154 of 156 SCS Global Services Report

between authorities and stakeholders has been supplemented by new platforms for public engagement with management. The Federal Fisheries Act requires that any citizen, public organization or association (of legal entities) has the right to provide their input into the decision-making process within Russia’s system for fisheries management. A formal arena for interaction between government, industry and other stakeholders are the advisory boards, the so-called fishery councils, set up at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 in accordance with the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act that all federal bodies of governance (with a few exceptions) shall have a public council that will serve as an arena of interaction between the authorities and the general public. The Council consists of members from various federal bodies of governance, the fishing industry, research institutions and other interested stakeholders, such as non- governmental organizations (WWF). Members are proposed by the public (in practice public organizations), and the FFA appoints up to 50 members for periods of two years. Basin-level fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, named “scientific-technical councils”. In line with the general regionalization that took place in Russia during the 1990s, similar bodies were set up at the level of federal subjects, named “regional fisheries councils”. Both were made mandatory in the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act. Rules of procedures for the “basin scientific-technical councils” in the Russian Federation were adopted in 2008. They state that the councils shall advise the authorities on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including the conduct of fisheries in the relevant basin; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The fishery councils consist of representatives of federal and regional authorities, the fishing industry, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia, and the Far East. The basin level councils are headed by federal authorities, the councils at the federal subject level by regional authorities. The Far Eastern Basin Scientific-Technical Council consists of representatives from the FFA, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Veterinary Agency, the Antimonopoly Agency, scientific institutions, fishing companies and associations and representatives of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East and Far North. The Council is headed by a Deputy Director of the FFA, i.e. the federal management authority. As with other public councils at different management levels, the Far Eastern Scientific-Technical Council has an advisory role in all aspects of fisheries management. It has a particularly important role in coordinating stakeholder input to revisions of fisheries legislation and regulations. The Council actively encourages proposals from stakeholders and acts as a coordinating body for further input into the management process. Meetings are held in Vladivostok at least twice a year. The meetings are open to the public. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public is given 15–30 days to provide their comments. Further, the FFA has a dedicated “Open Agency” initiative which is comprehensively detailed on their website. In addition to the use of the Public Fisheries Council and consultation bodies at a lower level, this includes the use of internet conferences with citizens, reference groups to discuss policy initiatives, and a general objective to increase public access to information. Management bodies also have functions on their websites by which citizens can get in touch with the authorities. E.g., at the website of the FFA, there is detailed information about how citizens can get in touch via telephone and directly from the website. There is even the possibility to book a personal appointment at the Agency. Hence, the management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 60 is met. The processes regularly seek and accept relevant information, and the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. SG 80 is met. Interviews at the site visit will give the assessment team a basis to determine whether stakeholders feel authorities explain how their input into the management process is used or not used. At the time of the ACDR, it cannot yet be concluded that SG 100 is met. c Participation

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 155 of 158 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The consultation process The consultation process provides an opportunity for provides opportunity and post all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes No

Rationale

As follows from SI 3.1.2 b) above, the consultation processes provide an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved at both federal and regional level. Meetings are publicly announced, and stakeholders receive formal invitations to take part. The various hearings available online also provide the opportunity for public involvement. Hence, the consultation process provides an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. SG 80 is met. However, there is not quite sufficient evidence that the authorities actively encourage all stakeholders, such as environmental NGOs, to be involved and facilitate their effective engagement although this can be confirmed at the site visit. SG 100 is not met at this point. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014) Об образовании Общественного совета при Федеральном агентстве по рыболовству, N 301, (Regulation on the establishment of a public council at the Federal Fisheries Agency, 2008). ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОРЯДКА ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ БАССЕЙНОВЫХ НАУЧНО- ПРОМЫСЛОВЫХ СОВЕТОВ (On the confirmation of arrangements for basin scientific and fishery councils), Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, 2008). Websites of the Public Fisheries Chamber (http://www.fish.gov.ru/otkrytoe-agentstvo/obshchestvennyj-sovet- pri-rosrybolovstve), the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://www.fish.gov.ru/), Sakhalin Oblast administration (https://sakhalin.gov.ru/). (To be supplemented) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 156 of 158 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives PI 3.1.3 The management policy for the SMU and associated enhancement activities has clear long- term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, post consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. “Protection and rational use” was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. “Rational use” bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, insofar as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law, according to the 1993 Russian Constitution. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in a number of international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management. Hence, long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach are in place. SG 60 is met. These objectives are clear and explicit within the management policy, so SG 80 is met. Since they are required by law, SG 100 is also met. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 157 of 159 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 158 of 160 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system(s) activities have clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term post achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery explicit within the fishery expressed by MSC’s Principles and associated and associated 1 and 2, are explicit within the enhancement management enhancement management fishery and associated system(s). system(s). enhancement management system(s). Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

Objectives broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 are explicit in the Russian salmon regulations, including to maintain the stocks at sustainable levels and protect other parts of the ecosystem. SG 60 is met. These include short-term objectives for spawning escapements intended to provide for maximum sustained yield and long-term objectives for fishery sustainability reflected in management regulations. Since objectives are both short- and long-term, and explicit within the management system, SG 80 is also met. While the management system has not established specific policies for protecting the wild population from detrimental hatchery effects, it does have specific hatchery objectives designed to avoid negative effects. These include “integrated hatcheries”, which means continued infusion of a high proportion of natural-origin fish in the broodstock, collection of broodstock from the beginning to the end of run timing, rearing on surface water in the hatcheries, which maintains natural developmental timing, etc. The company management policy was updated in 2016 with precautionary objectives for ensuring the sustainability of salmon production on Iturup Island fishing areas. This policy explicitly addressed the protection of wild stocks from significant negative effects of hatcheries. P1 objectives are well defined and measurable in the sense that performance against them can be measured through the enforcement bodies’ recording and inspection routines (see SI 3.2.3 a) below). However, P2 objectives, e.g. with respect to the ecosystem, vulnerable species such as taimen as well as hatchery effects on wild stocks, are less well defined and measurable, warranting a partial score at SG 100. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 159 of 161 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 160 of 162 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision- There are established making processes in place decision-making processes post that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific and fishery-specific and enhancement objectives. enhancement objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Established decision-making procedures at federal and regional levels have evolved over several decades and are now codified in the Federal Fisheries Act, general provisions for fisheries in the Far Eastern Fishery Basin and specific regulations for the salmon fishery. The Ministry of Agriculture decides on policy and regulatory schemes, while the FFA acts as an implementing body under the Ministry, with the main responsibility for secondary legislation and day-to-day regulation of the fishery (see SI 3.1.1 a) above). The FFA acts centrally, but to a large extent also through its regional departments (here: SKTA) and subordinate bodies of governance (such as the rybvods, here: Sakhrybvod). Much of the practical regulation of the salmon fishery is delegated to the Commission on the Management of Harvesting of Anadromous Fish Stocks in Sakhalin Oblast (the Anadromous Fisheries Commission, AFC), which is subordinate to the SKTA. The decision-making processes include the allocation of quotas based on scientific advice and corroborated in stakeholder bodies, public hearings, and environmental impact assessments. Consultation mechanisms are further described in SI 3.1.2 b) above, the enforcement system in SI 3.2.3 a) below. Hence, there are decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. This applies to the UoA fishery as it does to Russian fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. SG 60 is met. These processes are established – evolved over several decades and now codified in the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act and secondary legislation – so SG 80 is also met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues post identified in relevant important issues identified in identified in relevant research, monitoring, relevant research, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 161 of 163 SCS Global Services Report

The well-established decision-making procedures at the federal and regional level in Russia respond to issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery through the arenas for regular consultations between governmental agencies and the public. This happens first and foremost in the fishery councils at basin level, further through ad hoc consultation with the industry and other stakeholders (see PI 3.1.2 above). In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions, primarily between the FFA and VNIRO at the federal level and their subordinate bodies at the regional level. While this has to be corroborated at the site visit, both scientists and user-group representatives have in previous MSC assessments claimed that the relevant government agencies are open to any kind of input at any time. They feel that the authorities’ respond to serious and other important issues, that their response is transparent and timely, and that the ensuing policy options take adequate account of their advice. (However, this has to be corroborated at the site visit for the present assessment.) SGs 60 and 80 are met. It is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely “all” issues are responded to, which is required to achieve a 100 score on this SI. If no issues that are not responded to are identified at the site visit, SG 100 might be within reach. At the present time, a precautionary score of 80 is warranted. c Use of the precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes use the precautionary post approach and are based on the best available information. Met? Yes

Rationale

Decision-making processes at the national level in Russia are based on scientific recommendations from VNIRO and its regional branches; in the UoA fishery: SakhNIRO. The Federal Fisheries Act, which applies to the capture of all marine species, requires fisheries management to be based on the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3 above). There is currently a condition for Sic because it was not clear that there were precautionary measures implemented to protect lake spawning Chum at Lebidinoe Lake once there was some evidence that there was a unique population there. This scoring issue is considered met for Pink Salmon, but not for Chum. Progress on the condition will be evaluated at the 4th surveillance audit and is expected to be closed. More information is needed. SG 80 is tentatively considered met.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders post management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and any actions or lack of action management actions and associated with findings and describes how the relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 162 of 165 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information is available on the fishery’s performance and management action on the websites of the FFA and its regional offices, such as the STKA. SG 60 is met. Since explanations are provided for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, SG 80 is also met. However, it is not yet documented that reporting to all interested stakeholders takes place, so SG 100 is not met. e Approach to disputes

Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to post subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Russian system for fisheries management is not subject to continuing court challenges or indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. SG 60 is met. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. SG 80 is met. The management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes. This is done partly through the tight cooperation with user groups at the regulatory level (see PI 3.1.2 above), ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements, keeping them updated on changes in the regulations. They also have the authority to issue administrative penalties for minor infringements (serious enough to be met by a reaction above a written warning), thus referring only the more serious cases to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. Since the management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes and rapidly implements judicial decisions, SG 100 is met. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014) Об утверждении правил рыболовства для Дальневосточного рыбохозяйственного бассейна (с изменениями на 4 июня 2018 года) (редакция, действующая с 1 января 2019 года) (утратил силу с 17.06.2019 на основании приказа Минсельхоза России от 23.05.2019 N 267). (Fishing regulations for the Far Eastern Fisher Basin, Ministry of Agriculture, 2019) Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://www.fish.gov.ru/), Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://sktufar.ru/), Glavrybvod/rybvody (http://www.fish.gov.ru/podvedomstvennye-organizatsii/rybvody), Sakhrybvod (http://www.sakhrybvod.ru/), Sakhalin Oblast administration (https://sakhalin.gov.ru/), the Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/), Sakhalin Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/filialy-i-otdely/sahalinskiy_filial/). (To be supplemented.)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 163 of 165 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 164 of 166 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery and associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and Comprehensive monitoring, post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been control, and surveillance exist and are implemented in implemented in the fishery system has been the fishery and associated and associated enhancement implemented in the fishery enhancement activities and activities and has and associated enhancement there is a reasonable demonstrated an ability to activities and has expectation that they are enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Enforcement of fisheries regulations in Russia is the joint responsibility of the FFA through its regional offices – in the UoA fisheries: SKTA – and the Coast Guard, which is under the Border Service of the Federal Security Service (FSB). The FFA is responsible for the control of quota uptake and takes care of paper control related to licenses, catch logs and VMS data, while the Coast Guard carries out physical inspections in port and at sea, including at transshipment. The Coast Guard’s authority is limited to marine waters; the FFA, through its regional offices and those of the rybvods (see SI 3.1.1 a)), is responsible for the management of freshwater basins. Fish caught in waters under Russian jurisdiction must be landed in Russian ports. The Coast Guard conducts random inspections at sea, including from helicopters. Inspectors control the catch from last haul (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the authorities. The Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center, with its 7 territorial departments including one in Sakhalin, is the technical hub for all electronic reporting from the fishing companies and vessels, including electronic logbooks and other catch reports as well as VMS data. The FFA territorial departments and the Coast Guard cooperate tightly with the Fisheries Monitoring Centers, as well as with other countries and international fisheries organizations. VMS is required for all vessels with output at least 55 kW and tonnage at least 80 tons., for all vessels fishing in the Russian EEZ and for all Russian vessels fishing anywhere in the world. Operating with a defunct VMS system is considered a serious infringement of fishing rules, and if a vessel sails for more than 48 hours without a working VMS, its quota is withdrawn. Working on behalf of the FFA in Sakhalin Oblast, SKTA has an enforcement department with 18 fisheries inspection squads located in every local administrative area (rayon) in the Oblast. The total number of inspectors is around 100. They are occasionally assisted by the police, prosecutors, private security companies and even fishers in their enforcement activities. During the harvest of salmon, “anti-poaching brigades” from SKTA carry out daily and nightly rounds on the majority of spawning rivers in order to prevent poaching. Poaching on Iturup is not a significant problem compared to Sakhalin Island because of its remoteness and the limitations on access to it. (All incoming and outgoing visitors and inhabitants are monitored.) SKTA’s Iturup office is manned by around 8 patrol officers. Enforcement on the water is carried out using patrol boats and on land using enforcement officers that walk the rivers in-season using a pattern of patrols that encompass all times of day and night. Rivers in are guarded by Sakhrybvod in time of the salmon run, and it is easier for everybody to buy a license to fish and

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 165 of 167 SCS Global Services Report

catch the fish in designated area legally than take a risk poaching. Gidrostroy also employs a security division whose primary responsibility includes the prevention of illegal fishing in spawning streams and bear protection (Tiger Agency). The Veterinary Service (in Russian: Rosselkhoznadzor) is the only sluzhba ([controlling] service; see above) under the Ministry of Agriculture. For several years in the mid- and late 2000s, it was responsible for monitoring and enforcement across all fields of work under the Ministry, including fisheries, but now its remit is limited to more traditional veterinary services, such as supervision of animal health. Hence, it is responsible for sanitary inspections of landed fish. The Ministry of Agriculture and its subordinate bodies of governance cooperate with other governmental agencies in the enforcement of fisheries regulations. The Federal Customs Service inspects cargoes with fish caught under Russian jurisdiction and intended for export and hence plays an important role in maintaining traceability of fish products. The Federal Tax Service is involved in investigations of economic crime within the fishing industry. The Ministry of Natural Resources through its Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) assesses the environmental impact of fisheries and is responsible for the protection of habitats and protected endangered or threatened species. Hence, monitoring, control, and surveillance mechanisms exist and are implemented in the fishery, and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. SG 60 is met. These measures qualify as a system and have demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and rules; see SI 3.2.3 c) below on compliance. SG 80 is met. The system is comprehensive and has demonstrated an ability to enforce regulations; see SI 3.2.3 c) below on compliance. SG 100 is met. b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in Russian waters exist in within the system for fisheries management, as well as in the wider legal system. Both make wide use of administrative fines and refer serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights if a fishing company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year, among other things. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Infractions specifies the level of fines that can be issued administratively by enforcement bodies, e.g. up to RUR 5,000 for “citizens”, 50,000 for “executive officers” and 200,000 for companies. The Criminal Code requires that illegal fishing such as causing “large damage”, conducted in spawning areas or migration ways leading to such areas, or in marine protected areas be penalized by either fines up to RUR 300,000 or an amount corresponding to 1-2 years’ income for the violator, compulsory work of no less than 480 hours, corrective work for at least two years or arrest for at least 6 months. Hence, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied. SG 60 is met. Sanctions are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence; see SI 3.2.3 c) below on compliance. SG 80 is met. Since no official information on inspections and infringements is available at the ACDR stage, it cannot be concluded that sanctions demonstrably provide effective deterrence, so SG 100 is not met. c Compliance

Guide Fishers and hatchery Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post operators are generally demonstrate fishers and confidence that fishers and thought to comply with the hatchery operators comply hatchery operators comply management system for the with the management with the management

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 166 of 168 SCS Global Services Report

fishery and associated system under assessment, system under assessment, enhancement activities including, when required, including, providing under assessment, including, providing information of information of importance to when required, providing importance to the effective the effective management of information of importance to management of the fishery the fishery and associated the effective management of and associated enhancement enhancement activities. the fishery. activities. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The client has informed the assessment team that compliance in the fishery is high and that no serious infringements have been documented. They also report their relationship with enforcement bodies to be very good. Hence, fishers are generally thought to comply with the requirements of the management system, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. SG 60 is met. There is a long tradition of good compliance in the fishery so some evidence exists that fishers comply, and SG 80 is met. Ahead of the site visit it is hard to conclude, however, that there is a high degree of certainty that this is the case, so SG 100 is so far not met. d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Yes

Rationale

Based on information collected so far, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery.

References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014) Об утверждении правил рыболовства для Дальневосточного рыбохозяйственного бассейна (с изменениями на 4 июня 2018 года) (редакция, действующая с 1 января 2019 года) (утратил силу с 17.06.2019 на основании приказа Минсельхоза России от 23.05.2019 N 267). (Fishing regulations for the Far Eastern Fisher Basin, Ministry of Agriculture, 2019) Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://www.fish.gov.ru/), Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://sktufar.ru/), Glavrybvod/rybvody (http://www.fish.gov.ru/podvedomstvennye-organizatsii/rybvody), Sakhrybvod (http://www.sakhrybvod.ru/), Sakhalin Oblast administration (https://sakhalin.gov.ru/), the Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/), Sakhalin Fisheries Monitoring Center (http://cfmc.ru/filialy-i-otdely/sahalinskiy_filial/). (To be supplemented.) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 167 of 169 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluations PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific and enhancement management system(s) against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific and associated enhancement program(s) management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide The fishery and associated The fishery and associated The fishery and associated post enhancement program(s) enhancement program(s) has enhancement program(s) have in place mechanisms to in place mechanisms to has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the evaluate key parts of the evaluate all parts of the management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but at varying levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery councils meetings, found at the federal, basin and regional levels (see SI 3.1.2 b) above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders. Information on run size, harvest by time and area, river openers and closures, and escapement is typically reported within the management system and may be reviewed by stakeholders upon request. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government and the Presidential Administration about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is a regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. In the establishment of TACs, the scientific advice from the regional research institutes is peer-reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. Hence, the fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system, so SG 80 is met. It is a principal challenge to claim that “all” parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a holistic evaluation of the system as such, which does not seem to be the case for the national management system in Russia. There is an opening for SG 100 to be met if it is documented before or at the site visit that such mechanisms are in place, but so far it is not. b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and post associated enhancement associated enhancement associated enhancement program(s) management program(s) management program(s) management system is subject to system is subject to the system is subject to regular occasional internal review. regular internal and internal and external review. occasional external review.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 168 of 171 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed through FFA’s continuous evaluation of the performance of regional management in the Far Eastern Fishery Basin, including the Sakhalin- Kuril salmon fishery, and other forms of review listed under SI 3.2.4 a) above. As regards external review, the MSC Fisheries Standard specifies that external here means “external to the fishery”, but not necessarily international. It is a matter of definition where the line goes between internal and external reviews, and to what extent external review of elements of the management system constitutes a review of the management as such. E.g. review of scientific information is normally not a review of the management system itself. At this stage, it cannot be confirmed as to whether the Iturup salmon fishery management regime as such is subject to sufficiently extensive review by various federal authorities. A tentative qualitative judgment has been made by the assessment team that the Iturup salmon fishery management regime as such is subject to sufficiently extensive review by various federal authorities that, while not qualifying for an SG 100 score under SI 3.2.4 a, it can be said to constitute a periodic review of the management system and not only scientific information. The score has been tentatively placed at SG 80 but more information will be gathered at the onsite. References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ, N 166-ФЗ, (Federal Fisheries Act, Federal Assembly [Parliament] of the Russian Federation, 2004, last revised 2014) Об утверждении правил рыболовства для Дальневосточного рыбохозяйственного бассейна (с изменениями на 4 июня 2018 года) (редакция, действующая с 1 января 2019 года) (утратил силу с 17.06.2019 на основании приказа Минсельхоза России от 23.05.2019 N 267). (Fishing regulations for the Far Eastern Fisher Basin, Ministry of Agriculture, 2019) Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://www.fish.gov.ru/), Sakhalin-Kuril Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (http://sktufar.ru/), Glavrybvod/rybvody (http://www.fish.gov.ru/podvedomstvennye-organizatsii/rybvody), Sakhrybvod (http://www.sakhrybvod.ru/), Sakhalin Oblast administration (https://sakhalin.gov.ru/, http://fish.sakhalin.gov.ru/?page_id=1666) (To be supplemented.)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 169 of 171 SCS Global Services Report

8 References Akinicheva, E. G., M. Y. Stekolschikova, and O. O. Palykina. 2011. Estimation of the number of hatchery salmon returning to Kurilskiy and Reidovy hatcheries. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/ENG_Report_on_Salmon_returns_to_Iturup_in_2011.pdf Akinicheva, E. G., L. K. Fedorova, and V. P. Pogodin. 2012. Partial identification of tagged pink salmon returning to Iturup Island in the years 2010-2011. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/ENG_Tagged_Pink_Salmon_Returns_to_Iturup_Island_20 10-2011_SLIDES_ENG.PDF Akinicheva, E. G. 2013. The identification of tagged salmon returning to the hatcheries Kurilskiy, Reidovoy and Olga Bay in 2012. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/ENG_SAKHNIRO-Information_Report-Stage_2-2013.pdf Akinicheva, E. G. 2014a. Data on the occurrence of marked chum salmon in Lebedinoe Lake during the spawning return of 2013. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/SAKHNIRO_2013-Chum_Results-Step_1_ENG.pdf Akinicheva, E. G. 2014b. Results of the identification of tagged chum salmon in returns to Kurilsky and Reidovy hatcheries in 2013. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. http://www.gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/SAKHNIRO_2013-Chum_Results-Step_2_ENG.pdf Antonov, A. A., and E. Akinicheva. 2009. Study of conditions for development of an optimal regime for otolith marking of hatchery production at the Kurilsk and Reydovo salmon hatcheries. Federal Fisheries Agency. SakhNIRO report to JSC Gidrostroy. Augerot, X., and D. N. Foley. 2005. Atlas of Pacific Salmon. University of California Press. Berkeley, California, USA. BLI. 2012. BirdLife International. Phoebastria albatrus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. . Downloaded on 27 March 2014. Borzov, S. I. 2007. Report by SakhalinRybVodFSE Center Servo-Kurilsk OIRMVBR for 2007. http://gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/Sakhalin_RybVod_2007_Annual_Report_for_Commercial_Fishe ries__E_.pdf Busack, C. A., and K. P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: fundamental concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15: 71-80. Chupakhin, V. M. 2009. Pink salmon sample collection program at the Kurilsk and Reydovo salmon hatcheries in 2009. Clarke, S. C., M. K. McAllister, and R. C. Kirkpatrick. 2009. Estimating legal and illegal catches of Russian sockeye salmon from trade and market data. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 66:532-545. Clarke, S., 2007. Trading tails: Russian salmon fisheries and the East Asian markets. TRAFFIC East Asia. http://www.traffic.org/fish Dronova, N. A., and V. A. Spiridonov. 2008. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated Pacific salmon fishing at Kamchatka. World Wildlife Foundation and Traffic International. www.traffic.org/species- reports/traffic_species_fish32.pdf Essington, T. E. 2009. Ecological indicators display reduced variation in North American catch share fisheries. PNAS Early Edition. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0907252107

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 170 of 172 SCS Global Services Report

Fadeev, N. S. 2005 Guide to biology and fisheries of fishes of the North Pacific Ocean. Vladivostok, TINRO- Center. 366 p. FFA (Federal Fisheries Agency). 2010. Approval of the Operational procedures for the Anadromous fish Harvest (Catch) Regulating Commission. Moscow, 4 March 2010. Ford, M. J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conservation Biology 16:815-825. Fukushima, M., H. Shimazaki, P. S. Rand, and M. Kaeriyama. 2011. Reconstructing Sakhalin taimen Parahucho perryi historical distribution and identifying causes for local extinctions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1-13. Gaichas, S. K., Francis, R. C. 2008. Network models for ecosystem-based fishery analysis: A review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1965-1982. Gende, S. M., R. T. Edwards, M. F Willson, and M. S. Wipfli 2002. Pacific Salmon in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems. BioScience 52:917-928. Glubokovsky M. K., and L. A. Zhivotovsky. 1986. Population structure of pink salmon: A system of fluctuating stocks. Biologiya Morya #2 [in Russian, with English summary]. Gritsenko O. F. 2002. Prokhodnye ryby ostrova Sakhalin (sistematika, ekologia, promysel) [Diadromous fishes of Sakhalin (systematics, ecology, fisheries)]. Moscow, VNIRO. Groot, C., and L. Maragolis 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada). UBC Press. Heard, W. T. 1991. Life history of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Pages 119 to 230 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Heptner, V. G., and, N. P. Naumov. Mammals of the Soviet Union Vol. II Part 1a, Sirenia and Carnivora (Sea cows; Wolves and Bears), Science Publishers, Inc. USA. 1998. ISBN 1-886106-81-9, pp. 713–33 Hobdday A., A. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A. Williams, M. Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller, T. Walker. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. http://gidrostroymsc.com/uploads/Bycatch_data_for_Certification_ENG.pdf Irvine, J. R., and 9 coauthors. 2009. Pacific salmon status and abundance trends. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Document 1199, rev. 1. IUCN. 2008. The IUCN Red List of Endangered Species: Hucho perryi. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/61333. Jaenicke, M. J., O. A. Mathisen, and V. I. Radchenko. 1998. Fluctuations in abundance of pink salmon (Oncorhyunchus gorbuscha) in the North Pacific Ocean. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:496-502. Kаеv, А. M. 1989. Methodology of forecast of Iturup Chum abundance. Rybnoe Khoziaystvo. No 3, pp. 35- 38 (in Russian). Kaev, A. M. 2002. Temporal structure of pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha migratory run to the Okhotsk Sea. Izv. TINRO 130: 904–920. (In Russian). Kaev, A. M. 2006. Passion on salmon fishing season. Rybnoe khoziaistvo 2: 46-49).

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 171 of 173 SCS Global Services Report

Kaev, A. M. 2007. Biological foundation for rational salmon fishing in Sakhalin-Kuril Region. Vopr. Rybolovstva 8: 713–733. (In Russian). Kaev, A. M. 2010 a. Results of salmon fishing season on Sakhalin Island under the new system of fishery management. Rybnoye Khoziaystvo 2: 42–46. (In Russian). Kaev, A. M. 2010 b. Significance of pink and chum salmon hatchery for their fishery in Sakhalin Region. Rybnoye Khoziaystvo 5: 57–61. (In Russian). Kaev, A. M. 2011. Wild and hatchery reproduction of pink and chum salmon and their catches in the Sakhalin-Kuril region, Russia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 94:207-218. Kaev A. M., and V. A. Rudnev. 2007. Dynamics of pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbusha (Salmonidae) stock in the southeastern area of the Sakhalin Island. Voprosy ikhtiologii 47 (2): 215-227). Kaev, A. M., A. A. Antonov, K. K. Yun, and V. Rudnev. 2004. Reproduction indices of the southern Sakhalin pink salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Document 758. Kaev, A. M., A. A. Antonov, V. M. Chupakhin, and V. A. Rudnev. 2007. Possible causes and effects of shifts in trends of abundance in pink salmon of southern Sakhalin and Iturup Islands. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 4:23-33. Kaev, A. M., and A. A. Antonov. 2005. Dynamics of the pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) stocks in Aniva Bay, Sakhalin Island. Izv. TINRO. 140: 45–60. (In Russian). Kaev A. M., and V. M. Chupakhin. 1982. On ecology of juvenile pink salmon during period of occurrence in coastal area of Iturup Island. In: Ekologia and uslovai vosproizvodstva ryb I bespozvonochnykh dalnevostochnykh morei I severo-zapadnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana. Izdanie TINRO, p. 63-72). Kaev A. M., V. M. Chupakhin, and M. Y. Kruchinin. 2006. Reproduction indices of the Iturup Island pink salmon (Kuril Islands). North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Document 977. Kaev, A. M., and G. V. Geraschenko. 2008. Reproduction indices of the north-eastern Sakhalin pink salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Document 1124. (http://www.npafc.org). Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. "Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996-2006" (July 2007). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4280 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=999979). Klovatch, N. V. 2003. Ecological consequences of large-scale propagation of chum salmon. M. VNIRO Publishing. 164 p. (In Russian). Klyashtorin, L. B., and F. N. Rukhov. 1998. Long-term climate change and pink salmon stock fluctuations. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:464-479. Kolomeytsev V. V. 2009. The effects of the hydrological conditions in the distribution of juvenile Pacific salmon in the Eastern Okhotsk Sea in early marine period of life. Research of water biological resources of Kamchatka and of the northwest part of Pacific Ocean: Selected Papers. Petropavlovsk- Kamchatski: KamchatNIRO. 14: 5-13. (In Russian with English summary). Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Environmental Biology of Fishes 19:9-31 Lynch, M., and M. O’Hely. 2001. Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conservation Genetics 2:363-378. Mahnken, C., G. Ruggerone, W. Waknitz, and T. Flagg. 1998. A historical perspective on salmonid production from Pacific Rim hatcheries. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:38‐53.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 172 of 174 SCS Global Services Report

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/5561_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf MRAG, Americas. 2016. VA-Delta Kamchatka Salmon Fisherie. Public Certification Report, September 2016. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/va-delta-kamchatka-salmon-fisheries/@@assessments MSC (Marine Stewardship Council). 2009. Iturup Island (Russia) pink salmon and Chum Salmon Fisheries fished by J.S.C. Gidrostroy. Public Certification Report, 11 August 2009. (http://www.msc.org/track- a-fishery/certified/pacific/iturup-island-pink-and-chum-salmon/assessment-downloads- 1/10.09.2009-iturup-salmon-pcr.pdf) Myers, K. W., R. V. Walker, N. D. Davis, J. L. Armstrong, and M. Kaeriyama. 2009. High seas distribution, biology, and ecology of Arctic–Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon: direct information from high seas tagging experiments, 1954–2006. Pages 201–239 in C. C. Krueger and C. E. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific Salmon: ecology and management of western Alaska’s populations. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland. Myers, K. W., R. V. Walker, N. D. Davis, J. L. Armstrong, and M. Kaeriyama. 2009. High seas distribution, biology, and ecology of Arctic–Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon: direct information from high seas tagging experiments, 1954–2006. Pages 201–239 in C. C. Krueger and C. E. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific Salmon: ecology and management of western Alaska’s populations. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland. Naydenko, S. V. 2009. The role of Pacific salmon in the trophic structure of the upper epipelagic layer of the western Bering Sea during summer–autumn 2002–2006. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 5: 231– 241. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., USA. Peterman, R. M. 1991. Density-dependent marine processes in North Pacific salmonids: Lessons for experimental design of large-scale manipulations of fish stocks. ICES Marine Science Symposium 192:69-77. Peterman, R. M. 1991. Density‐dependent marine processes in North Pacific salmonids: Lessons for experimental design of large‐scale manipulations of fish stocks. ICES Marine Science Symposium 192:69‐77. Pogodin, V. 2012. Information on Lebedinoe Lake chum salmon population. Gidrostroy, Yuxhno- Sakhakinsk. Radchenko, V. I. 1998. Historical trends of fisheries and stock condition of Pacific salmon in Russia. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:28-37. Rand, P. S. 2006. Hucho perryi: IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) 2010 red list of threatened species, version 2010.3. (http://iucnredlist.org). Rand, P. S., B. A. Berejikian, T. N. Pearsons, and D. L. G. Noakes. 2012. Ecological interactions between wild and hatchery salmonids: an introduction to the special issue. Environmental Biology of Fishes 94:1-6. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 173 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Romanchuk, E. D. 2000. Interaction of mixed populations of hatchery and wild pink salmon in Sakhalin- Kuril Basin. In: “Problems on interaction of wild and hatchery salmon populations”. Khabarovsk. KhoTINRO Publishing. P. 96–102. (In Russian). Ruggerone, G. T., and J. L. Nielsen 2004. Evidence for competitive dominance of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) over other salmonids in the North Pacific Ocean. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14:371-390. Ruggerone, G. T., E. Farley, J. Nielsen, and P. Hagen 2005. Seasonal marine growth of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in relation to competition with Asian pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) and the 1977 ocean regime shift. Fish. Bull. 103:355‐370. Ruggerone, G. T., M. Zimmermann, K. W. Myers, D. E., Rogers 2003. Competition between Asian pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Alaskan sockeye salmon (O. nerka) in the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 12(3):209-213. Ruggerone, G. T., R. M. Peterman, B. Dorner, and K. W. Myers. 2010. Magnitude and trends in abundance of hatchery and wild pink, chum, and sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 2:306-328. Ruggerone, G. T., and B. M. Connors. 2015. Productivity and life history of sockeye salmon in relation to competition with pink and sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. In Press: 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0134. Rukhlov, F.N. 1968. River phase of Sakhalin pink salmon. SakhNIRO Report. Rukhlov, F. N. 1972. Characteristics of pink and autumn chum salmon redds. SakhNIRO Report. Rukhlov F. N. 2007. Khroniki sakhalinskogo rybolovstva. Iuzhnosakhalinsk. Sakhalinskii nauchno- issledovatelskii institute rybnogo khoziaistva I okeanographii). Rukhlov, F. N., Lyubaeva, O.S. 1980. Results of young pink salmon tagging at Sakhalin hatcheries in 1976. Vopr. Ichthiologii 20: 134–143. (In Russian). SCS (Scientific Certification Systems). 2011. Iturup Island pink and chum salmon fishery. 1st MSC surveillance report. Marine Stewardship Council. London, UK. http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/iturup-island-pink-and-chum-salmon/assessment- downloads-1/27.01.2011_Iturup_2010_Surveillance.pdf SCS (Scientific Certification Systems). 2012. Iturup Island pink and chum salmon fishery. 2nd MSC surveillance report. Marine Stewardship Council. London, UK. http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/iturup-island-pink-and-chum-salmon/assessment- downloads-1/20120413_SR.pdf SCS (Scientific Certification Systems). 2013a. Iturup Island pink and chum salmon fishery. 3rd MSC surveillance report. Marine Stewardship Council. London, UK. http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/iturup-island-pink-and-chum-salmon/assessment- downloads-1/20130416_SR_SAL62.pdf SCS (Scientific Certification Systems). 2013a. Iturup Island pink and chum salmon fishery. 4th MSC surveillance report. Marine Stewardship Council. London, UK. http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/iturup-island-pink-and-chum-salmon/assessment- downloads-1/20131108_SR_SAL62.pdf

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 174 of 176 SCS Global Services Report

Semenchenko, A. Yu., and S. F. Zolotukin. 2010. Sakhalin taimen Parahucho perryi reproduction efficiency on Sakhalin Island Rivers, and a strategy of its’ protection. Shuntov V. P., Temnykh O. S., Naydenko S. V., Zavolokin A. V., Dolganova N. T., Volkov A. F., Volvenko I. V. 2010d. To the substantiation of carrying capacity of Far-Eastern Seas and Subarctic Pacific for pacific salmon pasturing. Report 4. Effect of density dependant interactions on pacific salmon food supply and role of the salmon in consumption of nekton’s forage base. Izv. TINRO. 161: in press (In Russian with English summary) Shuntov, V. P., and Temnykh, O. S. 2004. Is the North Pacific carrying capacity over in connection with salmon high abundance: myths and reality. Izv. TINRO 138: 19–36. (In Russian). Shuntov, V. P., editor. 2005. Kontseptsia dalnevostochnoi basseinovoi programmy izuchenia tikhookeanskikh lososei, Vladivostok. Smirnov B. P., Leman V. N., Shulgina E. V. 2006. Hatchery production of Pacific salmon in Russia: current status, problems and prospective. Sovremennye problemy lososevykh rybovodnykh zavodov Dalnego Vostoka [Current problem of Pacific salmon hatcheries of the Far East]. Materialy nauchno- prakticheskogo seminara, 30 noabri-1 dekabria 2006 g. Petropavlosvk-Kamchatsky 2006. p. 16-26.). Smirnov, B. P., and T. G. Tochilina. 2011. Estimation of the damage to “bycatch” species of fishes, found in the catches of pink and chum salmon near Iturup island. VNiro. Smirnov, B. P., Leman, V. N., Shulgin, E. V. 2006. Hatchery culture of Pacific salmon in Russia: modern state, problems and prospects. In: “Materials of International Scientific-Practical Seminar (30 November – 1 December 2006). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy. P. 16–26. (In Russian). Smirnov, B.P. and E.V. Bubunets. 2008. The aquacultural and biological feasibility of construction of a salmon hatchery in Olya Bay (Iturup Island). Federal Fisheries Agency. Smirnov, B.P. and E.V. Bubunets. 2009. The aquacultural and biological feasibility of construction of a salmon hatchery in the region of Kitovyy Bay (Iturup Island). Federal Fisheries Agency. Tabunkov, V., J. Kuchepatov, and B. Caouette. 2009. An evaluation of long-term leases in Russian salmon fisheries. Report of the Wild Salmon Center. Portland, OR. Temnykh O. S., A. V. Zavolokin, and M. V. Koval. 2010. Russian Research under the NPAFC Science Plan 2006-2010: A Review and Future Issues. Pacific Research Fisheries Center (TINRO-Center), Vladivostok, Russia. NPAFC Doc. 1238. 23 pp. (Available at www.npafc.org). Urawa, S., S. Sato, P.A. Crane, B. Agler, R. Josephson, and T. Azumaya. 2009. Stock-specific ocean distribution and migration of chum salmon in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 5: 131-146. Volovik, S. P. 1967. Accounting methods and some peculiarities in behavior of pink salmon fry migrants in Sakhalin rivers. Izv. TINRO, 61: 104−117. (In Russian). Zaporozhets G.V. History of development of salmon hatcheries. In: Sovremennye problemy lososevykh rybovodnykh zavodov Dalnego Vostoka [Current problem of Pacific salmon hatcheries of the Far East]. Materialy nauchno-prakticheskogo seminara, 30 noabri-1 dekabria 2006 g, Petropavlosvk- Kamchatsky 2006, p. 11-15). Zhivotovsky L. A., G. A. Rubtsova, M. B. Shitova, T. V. Malinina, N. F. Rakitskaya, V. D. Prokhorovskaya, and K. I. Afanasiev. 2010a. Genetic principles of ecological certification on Pacific salmon. In: Shuntov VP

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 175 of 177 SCS Global Services Report

(ed.) “The Program for Studies in Pacific Salmon.” TINRO-CENTER, Vladivostok. Bull. 4: 117-125. [in Russian]. Zhivotovsky, L.A., L.K. Fedorova, G.A. Rubtsova, M.V. Shitova, T.A. Rakitskaya, V.D. Prokhorovskaya, B.P. Smirnov, A.M. Kaev, V.M. Chupakhin, V.G. Samarsky, V.P. Pogodin, S.I. Borzov, and K.I. Afanasiev. 2011. Rapid expansion of an enhanced stock of chum salmon and its impacts on wild population components. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Published online (DOI 10.1007/s10641-011-9873-4). Zolotukin, S. F., A. U. Semenchenko, and V. A. Belyaev. 2000. Taimen and lenok of the Far East. Khabarovsk. 128 p.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 176 of 178 SCS Global Services Report

9 Appendices 9.1 Assessment information 9.1.1 Previous assessments

Table 27. Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification

Condition 1: 1.3.2 On Target Since the reassessment, three new hatcheries were Chum only - The fishery completed. Yankito is a segregated program located on the must demonstrate that sea coast like Kitovvy and Olya. However, Lebedinoe Lake there is a strategy in place was constructed on a natural spawning stream. This to protect wild Chum development does not require a change in score for this PI stocks from significant (See Appendix 1), but assessment of the new program at detrimental impacts of Lebedinoe will be necessary to identify appropriate enhancement. The measures to address effects of enhancement activities on strategy must be based on wild stock status. outcome metrics that are In 2017, the new Mineralnaya Hatchery began releasing based on evidence and Chum Salmon in a tributary to the Reydovaya River. This expected to cause the system already has significant production of hatchery fish minimum impact on wild from the Redova Hatchery. The proximity of the new Chum stocks (e.g., related hatchery to significant natural production areas is unclear. to verifying and achieving Releases of juvenile chum salmon from Lebedinoe and acceptable proportions of Mineralnaya hatcheries were not otolith marked such that hatchery-origin fish in the future stray rates into natural production areas could be natural spawning assessed. Therefore, it is unclear whether construction of escapement) by the these hatcheries is consistent with a strategy to protect wild second annual audit and Chum stocks from detrimental effects of enhancement. annually thereafter. This development did not require a change in score for this PI but the need for further assessments of hatchery contributions to natural production are identified under Conditions 2 and 6 in light of new hatchery production.

Condition 2: 1.3.3 On Target The effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status, Chum only - The fishery productivity and diversity are taken into account. Otolith must provide evidence by sampling information is generally sufficient to assess the the 2nd surveillance audit hatchery contributions to wild populations but information and annually thereafter* is not yet sufficient to assess the effects of hatchery fish on that sufficient information wild stock productivity and diversity where some straying is available on the occurs. contribution of enhanced Since the reassessment, three new hatcheries were fish to the harvest and completed. Yankito is a segregated program located on the escapement of the wild sea coast like Kitovvy and Olya. Lebedinoe and Mineralnaya stock of Chum Salmon (an hatcheries were constructed on natural spawning streams in estimate of relative systems where both hatchery and natural production contribution of wild to occurs. This development does require additional hatchery fish). The fishery assessment to identify appropriate management activities must also include any

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 177 of 179 SCS Global Services Report

identified impacts of to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stock enhancement activities on status. wild Chum stock status, productivity and diversity in the Annual Otolith Sampling Report. Condition 3: 3.1.3 Closed in 1st In the reassessment, the objectives consistent with MSC By the first surveillance surveillance Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are audit, clear long-term (2017) not always required by management policy. Laws and objectives that guide regulations are explicit with respect to protecting spawning decision-making, escapement, unclear on the environmental/ecosystem end. consistent with MSC Where ecosystem changes were observed, a response Principles and Criteria and would be expected but haven’t seen such a decline, the precautionary although unclear if it is actually being monitored. No approach, are explicit objectives for wild stock management or precautionary within the management approach to hatcheries were noted. There is no explicit policy as defined by J.S.C. policy or a mechanism to protect wild stocks from additional Gidrostroy. hatchery development.

Condition was closed: The company management policy was updated in 2016 with precautionary objectives for ensuring the sustainability of salmon production on Iturup Island fishing areas. This policy explicitly addressed protection of wild stocks from significant negative effects of hatcheries. The policy was signed by Yuri Svetlikov, General Director of Gidrostroy. Therefore Condition 3, identified for this PI in the re- assessment was closed in 2016 and this PI was rescored from 60 to 80. Condition 4: 3.2.1 Closed in 1st These include short term objectives for spawning By the first surveillance surveillance escapements intended to provide for maximum sustained audit, short and long-term (2017) yield and long term objectives for fishery sustainability objectives, which are reflected in management regulations. With respect to consistent with achieving enhancement, while the management system has not the outcomes expressed established specific policies for protecting wild population by MSC’s Principles 1 and from detrimental hatchery effects, it has established specific 2, are explicit within the hatchery objectives designed to avoid negative effects. fishery’s management These include “Integrated hatcheries”, which means system and enhancement continued infusion of a high proportion of natural-origin fish activities. in the broodstock, collection of broodstock from the beginning to the end of run timing, rearing on surface water

in the hatcheries, which maintains natural developmental timing, etc. Short and long term objectives do not always provide clear measurable standards with respect to ecosystem, sensitive species such as taimen, and hatchery effects on wild stocks. Condition was closed: The company management policy was updated in 2016 with precautionary objectives for ensuring the sustainability of salmon production on Iturup Island fishing areas. This policy explicitly addressed protection of

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 178 of 180 SCS Global Services Report

wild stocks from significant negative effects of hatcheries. The policy was signed by Yuri Svetlikov, General Director of Gidrostroy. Therefore Condition 4, identified for this PI in the re-assessment was closed in 2016 and this PI was rescored from 60 to 80. Condition 5: 3.2.2 On Target Although it is clear that the Precautionary Approach is The fishery must adhered to for many aspects of the fishery, it was not clear demonstrate by the that there were precautionary measures implemented to second surveillance audit protect lake spawning Chum at Lebedinoe Lake once there that the precautionary was some evidence that there was a unique population approach is being applied there. This scoring issue is considered met for Pink Salmon, to all aspects of the fishery but not for Chum. including protection of lake spawning Chum in Lebedinoe Lake while investigations are still underway. Condition 6: 1.3.1 On Target This was a new condition identified in response to Demonstrate that it is construction of a new Chum Salmon hatchery in 2015 on a highly likely that the tributary to Lebedinoe Lake. This new information resulted enhancement activities of in rescoring of this indicator from 80 to 70. Lebedinoe and Based on the new Lebedinoe Hatchery, which was Mineralnaya Hatcheries constructed on a natural spawning stream for a distinct lake- do not have significant spawning Chum population, the likelihood of no significant impacts on the local impact was downgraded and additional information will be adaptation, reproductive required to address the corresponding condition. A similar performance and concern does not exist for the new Yankito Hatchery, which productivity of wild stocks was constructed on the sea shore, distant from natural based on reasonable spawning streams. estimates of likely In 2017, the new Mineralnaya Hatchery began releasing proportions of hatchery- Chum Salmon in a tributary to the Reydovaya River. This origin fish in the natural system already has significant production of hatchery fish spawning escapement from the Redova Hatchery. The proximity of the new (e.g., it is highly likely that hatchery to significant natural production areas is unclear. hatchery-origin spawners The client decided upon a new marking and sampling occur in a small proportion strategy in the course of the Year 1 surveillance (See of the natural spawning Progress on Conditions 1 and 2 above from the Year 1 populations/locations and surveillance audit), which decreases marking at current that they represent a small hatcheries, begins marking at Lebedinoe Hatchery, and proportion of the total increases sampling effort in spawning grounds. natural spawning Implementation of the marking and sampling plan is escapement). essential to providing information necessary to confirm that the new Lebedinoe Hatchery, and as of 2017 the new Mineralnaya Hatchery, are “highly likely to not have significant impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks.” However, due to the lag in return time for Chum Salmon, sufficient information to meet the SG80 may not be available within this certificate cycle.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 179 of 181 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 7: 2.1.3 On Target Non-targeting of sockeye and char is effectively considered Purse-seine—Provide a partial strategy for management. Harvest of these species annual information on in the fishery is very low and is not likely to negatively impact harvest of retained their stock status based on information from the stationary species adequate to trap fishery and the partial season information from the support a partial strategy purse seine fleet. Initial indications are that sockeye harvest to their management and in the purse seine fishery may be negligible due to the late- detect any increase in risk season use of this gear after sockeye have entered level. freshwater. Harvest rates on char remain to be seen but may be similarly reduced. However, the purse seine fleet is new and therefore does not have a substantial basis of information, and, the purse seine fleet may see a marked increase in fishing activity in future years that is not captured in a single, partial-season’s worth of data. Therefore, information on the purse seine fleet is not yet adequate to support a partial strategy. The catch from the fishery is monitored with regularity, however, as noted in SIc the purse seine fleet has not been in operation long enough to have sufficient data to fully assess changes in risk. The monitoring systems in place are expected to provide for sufficient ongoing data collection as the purse seine gear continues operation in the coming years. However, because there are no historic records of the ongoing data collection additional years of data are needed, to be monitored by the assessment team for the next several years to support the ability to a conclusion that sufficient data ‘continue to be collected’ to detect any increase in risk level. Condition 8: 2.2.3 On Target Bycatch in the fishery is very low and is not likely to Purse seine only: Provide negatively impact stock status based on information from information on bycatch in the stationary trap fishery and the partial season the purse seine fishing information from the purse seine fleet. This is also effort sufficient to support supported by findings of MSC assessments of purse seine a partial strategy, if salmon fisheries in Alaska. necessary, to manage and At present, effort and harvest in purse seine gear represents detect any increase in risk a very small percentage of the total fishery. Information on for any main bycatch the fish community in Iturup, the very low incidence of species that might occur. bycatch in stationary traps fished in the same area as purse seines, and the very low incidence of bycatch observed in other salmon fisheries using purse seines, is adequate to support sustainable management of bycatch species. However, the purse seine fleet is new and therefore does not have a substantial basis of information in the event of a marked increase in fishing activity in future years. Therefore, information on the purse seine fleet is not yet adequate to support a partial strategy, if needed, at such time as effort and harvest increase substantially from current low levels. Likewise, information on the purse seine fleet is not yet sufficient to detect any increase in risk at such time as effort and harvest increase substantially from current low levels.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 180 of 182 SCS Global Services Report

Table 28 Status of conditions awarded in the 2015 re-assessment of the fishery reported in the 3rd year surveillance report (SCS, 2018).

Status Condition Performance indicator number (PI) PI PI 2016 2017 2018 original revised score score 1.3.2 Enhancement Open & a 1 management Behind target Behind target 70 -- on target 1.3.3 Enhancement Open & Open & a 2 information Behind target 65 -- on target on target 3.1.3 Long term 3 Closed in 1st surveillance 60 80 objectives 3.2.1 Fishery specific 4 Closed in 1st surveillance 60 80 objectives 3.2.2 Decision making Open & Open & 5 process Behind target 70 -- on target on target 1.3.1 Enhancement Open & a a 6 outcome New Behind target 80 70 on target

2.1.3 Retained Species Purse seine Open & 7 information -- -- 70 only on target

2.2.3 Bycatch Species Purse seine Open & 8 information -- -- 70 only on target

9.1.2 Small-scale fisheries Not applicable for this fishery.

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 181 of 183 SCS Global Services Report

9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report 9.2.1 Site visits 9.2.2 Stakeholder Participation: 9.2.3 Evaluation techniques 9.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report 9.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report To be completed at Public Certification Report 9.5 Conditions To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report 9.6 Client Action Plan To be added from Public Comment Draft Report 9.7 Surveillance To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

SCS Version 2-1 (June 2019) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.1 Page 182 of 183