8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 USA Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected] President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

Marine Stewardship Council Assessments Alaska Certificate No: MRAG-30027

Surveillance Report March 24th, 2020

Conformity Assessment Body MRAG Americas, Inc. Assessment Team A. Stern-Pirlot, R. Beamesderfer, S. Marshall Fishery Client Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation P.O. Box 2223 Wrangell, AK 99929-2223 Assessment Type First Surveillance 1 Contents 1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Report Details ...... 4 2.1 Surveillance Information ...... 4 2.2 Background ...... 7 2.3 Version Details ...... 8 3 Results ...... 8 3.1 Surveillance Results Overview ...... 8 3.1.1 Summary of Conditions ...... 8 3.1.2 Catch Data ...... 11 3.1.3 Stocks of Concern ...... 12 3.1.4 Inseparable or Practically Inseparable Catches ...... 14 3.2 Conditions...... 18 3.2.1 Condition 1 ...... 18 3.2.2 Condition 2 ...... 21 3.2.3 Condition 3 ...... 26 3.2.4 Condition 4 ...... 27 3.2.5 Condition 5 ...... 29 3.2.6 Condition 6 ...... 30 3.2.7 Condition 7 ...... 31 3.2.8 Condition 8 ...... 33 3.2.9 Condition 9 (New) ...... 35 3.2.10 Condition 10 (new) ...... 36 3.3 Client Action Plan ...... 38 3.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators...... 38 3.4.1 Principle 2: ETP Species – New Information ...... 39 3.4.2 Principle 3: Decision-making Processes– New Information re: Enhancement 68 4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 78 4.1 Site Visits ...... 78 4.2 Stakeholder Participation ...... 80 5 Stakeholder Input ...... 81 5.1 Written Submissions ...... 81 5.1.1 Kachemak Bay Conservation Society...... 81 5.1.2 N. Hillstrand ...... 97 5.1.3 Birdlife International Marine Program ...... 150 5.2 Response to Stakeholder Comments ...... 157 5.2.1 Kachemak Bay Conservation Society & N. Hillstrand ...... 157 5.2.2 Avian Bycatch (Birdlife International Marine Program) ...... 159 6 References ...... 167 Appendix A – Proceedings of Avian Workshop ...... 173 Agenda ...... 173

2 Workshop Purpose – Dave Gaudet ...... 177 Background – Amanda Stern Pirlot ...... 177 Alaska Responsible Overview – Jeff Regnart ...... 177 Comparison of the MSC and Alaska RFM Management Standards – Ivan Mateo ...... 180 Birdlife International see ppt – Yann ...... 183 Alaska Salmon Gillnet Fisheries – Dave Gaudet...... 187 Murrelets: An overview of life history, habitats, foraging distribution, threats to Alaska populations – Kathy Kuletz ...... 196 Population Estimates & Trends for Murrelets in Alaska - Robb Kaler ...... 202 Fishery & Murrelet Interactions – Scott Marshall ...... 204

3 1 Executive Summary This report contains the findings of the 2019 surveillance in relation to the Alaska Salmon fishery. This is the first surveillance following the fourth full MSC assessment of this fishery. The audit was conducted on site in Anchorage Alaska on December 9-11, 2019. This fishery was first certified on 01 Oct 2000 and the most recent reassessment was completed in 2019. The fishery client was changed from the Pacific Seafood Processors Association to the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation effective October 3, 2019. The current certificate expires on 11 Nov 2023.

The client’s responses to the conditions of certification were set out in the Client Action Plan (CAP). Progress associated with the actions set forth in the CAP was examined as a part of this surveillance audit. For each condition, the report sets out progress to date. This progress has been evaluated by MRAG Americas Audit Team (set out below as “Progress on Condition”) against the commitments made in the CAP. The certification of the fishery is continued. In addition, two new conditions were identified: One under Principle 3 (condition 9) and one under Principle 2 (condition 10) at the first annual surveillance based on new information received at that audit.

2 Report Details 2.1 Surveillance Information 1 Fishery name Alaska Salmon Fishery Species: ( nerka), (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), (Oncorhynchus keta), (Oncorhynchus kisutch), (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Geographical areas: FAO18 and FAO 67, The Alaska Salmon Fishery operates within the EEZ of the USA, in the rivers and coastal waters of the US State of Alaska across 14 certified UoCs: Southeast, Yakutat, Copper/Bering Districts, Prince William Sound, Upper and lower Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Yukon River, Kuskokwim, Kotzebue, Norton Sound, Kodiak, Chignik, Peninsula and Aleutians Harvest method: Purse seine, drift gillnet, troll, set gillnet, beach seine, fish wheel, dip nets 2 Surveillance level and type Surveillance level 6, on-site surveillance audit 3 Surveillance number 1st Surveillance X 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance

4 Other (expedited etc) 4 Team leader Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot is an M.Sc graduate of the University of Bremen, Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT) in marine ecology and fisheries biology. Ms. Stern-Pirlot joined MRAG Americas in mid-June 2014 as MSC Certification Manager (now Director of the Fishery Certification Division) and is currently serving on several different assessment teams as team leader and team member. She has worked together with other scientists, conservationists, fisheries managers and producer groups on international fisheries sustainability issues for over 15 years. With the Institute for Marine Research (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, she led a work package on simple indicators for sustainable fishing within the EU-funded international cooperation project INCOFISH, followed by five years within the Standards Department at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in London, developing standards, policies and assessment methods informed by best practices in fisheries management around the globe. Most recently she has worked with the Alaska pollock industry as a resources analyst, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process, focusing on bycatch and ecosystem-based management issues, and managing the day-to-day operations of the offshore pollock cooperative. She has co-authored a dozen publications on fisheries sustainability in the developing world and the functioning of the MSC as an instrument for transforming fisheries to a sustainable basis. MRAG Americas confirms that Ms. Stern-Pirlot meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team leader as follows: • She has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • She has passed the MSC team leader training; • She has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2; • She has passed the MSC Traceability training module; • She meets ISO 19011 training requirements; • She has undertaken two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years, and • She has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders. MRAG Americas confirms that Ms. Stern-Pirlot has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. 5 Team members Ray 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. Ray has special expertise in using quantitative analysis, statistics, and computer modelling to solve difficult fisheries-related questions, and in synthesizing and translating scientific analyses. He has completed a wide variety of projects in fishery management, biological assessment, and conservation/recovery planning. He is the author of numerous

5 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 fishery assessment teams for salmon fisheries in Alaska and Russia. MRAG Americas confirms that Mr. Beamesderfer meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years; • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 and 3 assessor as described in FCP Annex PC table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Scott Marshall earned a B.S. in Fisheries from Oregon State University, and a M.S. in Fisheries Science from the University of Washington. He has held multiple positions in fisheries, including Project Leader at the Fisheries Research Institute (UW); Research Project Leader, Principal Fishery Scientist and SE Region Supervisor for the Division of Commercial Fisheries for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; staff biologist for Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and Fisheries Administrator in charge of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. He has served on Scientific and Statistical Committee of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and as Co-Chairman of the Transboundary Rivers Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission. MRAG Americas confirms that Mr. Marshall meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years; • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 2 assessor as described in FCP Annex PC table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

6 Audit/review time and location December 9-11, 2019. Anchorage Alaska

6 2.2 Background Changes to management systems: No significant changes to the management system are identified. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is subject to additional budget reductions as State revenues have continued to decline. Previous reductions have been addressed in part by not filling vacant positions. Additional budget reductions will likely be addressed by reducing or eliminating projects which will require more conservative management to ensure sustainability (S. Rabung, ADFG, personal communication), or through finding compensatory funding from other sources. Changes to relevant regulations: Regulations are subject to normal review by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BoF) in a rotating three-year cycle among management areas. Corresponding management plans are reviewed and may routinely be revised based on new information or developments, recent implementation experience and/or allocation decisions by the BoF. In 2018, the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) has announced the conclusion of negotiations between the United States and Canada on the Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty), resulting in a new 10-year harvest agreement. As a result of these negotiations, when abundance increases, harvests will increase proportionally. New accountability provisions advocated by the Alaska treaty team enact limits on the number of fish available for harvest relative to how many salmon return that year: this "Calendar Year Exploitation Rates" approach improves upon previous standards and will lead to more accountability for all parties. Salmon management authority by the State in exclusive economic zone marine waters between 3 and 200 miles has been subject to ongoing review by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council which is currently considering amendment of the existing federal salmon fisheries management plan (FMP). The Council is currently developing an amendment to add federal waters of Cook Inlet into the FMP management area and extend federal management authority to fishery activities in those federal waters. Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry: There have been no substantive changes to the organisations managing the fishery in the previous year. Routine personnel changes have occurred throughout the industry and management agencies, including replacement of retiring Executive Director at Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc (DIPAC), a new General Manger at Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (PSWAC) and a new Executive Director at Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA). Changes to scientific base of information – including stock assessments: Stock assessments are conducted annually and research in ongoing with the objective of improving management. Specific significant changes in the scientific base of information regarding this fishery have been discussed in detail in the Conditions table below. Updates on enhanced fishery’s position in relation to scope criteria: No changes in fishery enhancement relative to scope criteria. See conditions. Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non- certified fish): The fishery client was changed from the Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA) to the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF) effective October 3, 2019.

7 2.3 Version Details Document Version number MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01 MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.0 MSC Surveillance Reporting Template Version 2.0

3 Results 3.1 Surveillance Results Overview 3.1.1 Summary of Conditions Eight conditions were identified in the latest assessment (Table 1). This surveillance found that milestones for all conditions have been met. In addition, a ninth condition was identified under Principle 3 as well as a 10th condition under Principle 2 at the first annual surveillance based on new information received at that audit.

Table 1. Summary of Assessment Conditions

PI Performance Condition UoC Status original Indicator score 1 By the end of 2023, the SG 80 scoring 1.3.1 Southeast On Target 60 requirements must be met in full. This Enhancement will be achieved when it has been outcomes demonstrated that: a) (PI 1.3.1, SG80a): It is highly likely that the Chum salmon enhancement activities in SEAK do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Chum salmon stocks. 2 By the end of the ninth year of 1.3.1 Kodiak On Target 1.3.1: 60 certification, the SG 80 scoring Enhancement 1.3.3: 60 requirements for PI 1.3.1 and PI 1.3.3 outcomes must be met in full. With respect to the 1.3.3 current hatchery programs at Pillar Enhancement Creek and Kitoi Bay for Chinook, Coho, information Pink and Chum salmon, this will be achieved when it has been demonstrated that: a) (PI 1.3.1, SG80a) it is highly likely that the enhancement activities do not have

8 significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild stocks. b) (PI 1.3.3, SG80a) sufficient relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced Chinook, Coho, Pink and Chum salmon to the harvest and wild escapement of the stocks. c) (PI 1.3.3, SG80b) the assessment includes estimates of the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. 3 Demonstrate a high likelihood that the 1.3.1 Prince On Target 60 enhancement activities do not have Enhancement William significant negative impacts on the local outcomes Sound adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild stocks based on low hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness. 4 Demonstrate an objective basis for 1.3.2 Prince On Target 70 confidence that the enhancement Enhancement William strategy is effective for protecting wild management Sound stocks from significant detrimental impacts based on evidence that the strategy is achieving the outcome metrics used to define the minimum detrimental impacts. 5 Provide information on relative fitness 1.3.3 Prince On Target 70 of hatchery origin Pink and Chum Enhancement William Salmon sufficient to evaluate the information Sound impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. 6 Demonstrate a high likelihood that the 1.3.1 Lower Cook On Target 60 enhancement activities do not have Enhancement Inlet significant negative impacts on the local outcomes adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild stocks based on low hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness.

9 7 Demonstrate an objective basis for 1.3.2 Lower Cook On Target 70 confidence that the enhancement Enhancement Inlet strategy is effective for protecting wild management stocks from significant detrimental impacts based on evidence that the strategy is achieving the outcome metrics used to define the minimum detrimental impacts. 8 Provide information on relative fitness 1.3.3 Lower Cook On Target 70 of hatchery origin Pink and Chum Enhancement Inlet Salmon sufficient to evaluate the information impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. 9 Demonstrate that decision-making 3.2.2 All New in 1st 75 processes respond to serious and other Decision- surveillance important issues in a transparent, making timely and adaptive manner, and use processes the precautionary approach and are based on best available information as applied the Pink and Chum Salmon hatchery enhancement programs. 10 By the 4th annual audit, the client must 2.3.2 ETP SEAK, YAK, New in 1st 70 demonstrate that there is a process in species PWS, CB, surveillance place to ensure a regular review of the management LCI, UCI, potential effectiveness and practicality KOD, CHIG, of alternative measures to minimise AKPenn UoA and enhancement related mortality of ETP seabirds (particularly murrelet species), and they are implemented as appropriate.

10 3.1.2 Catch Data Recent catches by the Unit of Certification are summarized below.

1,200 Sockeye Chum Pink Coho Chinook

1,000

800

600

400 Harvest (million pounds) (million Harvest

200

0

Figure 1. Alaska statewide salmon harvest by species https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyfisherysalmon.salmon_grossea rnings_byspecies. Table 2. 2018 Alaska commercial salmon harvests, by fishing area and species in thousands of pounds (Brenner et al. 2019).

11

Table 3. Preliminary 2019 Alaska commercial salmon harvests, by fishing area and species in thousands of pounds http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/pdfs/commercial/2019_preliminary_salmon_su mmary_table.pdf. Fishing area Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total Southeast & Yakutat 2,106 4,980 11,232 77,769 67,261 163,349 Prince William Sound 338 13,656 4,039 167,753 32,230 218,017 Cook Inlet 51 10,556 911 6,375 1,235 19,128 Bristol Bay 347 225,108 456 22 9,003 234,937 Kodiak 69 10,806 2,842 104,896 3,866 118,614 Chignik 39 3,614 1,581 7,584 1,037 13,856 Alaska Peninsula 219 20,709 3,362 57,977 8,168 90,437 Kuskokwim 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yukon 38 0 342 34 3,215 3,629 Norton Sound 15 42 900 261 1,058 2,275 Kotzebue 197 143 0 0 4,005 4,005 Totals 3,223 289,474 25,666 422,671 131,078 872,122

3.1.3 Stocks of Concern Alaska’s sustainable salmon fishery policy (5 AAC 39.222) requires ADFG to report to the BoF any salmon stock that has chronically failed to meet its escapement goal. The policy defines three levels of concern (yield, management, and conservation) with yield being the lowest level of concern and conservation the highest level of concern. Chronic inability is defined as "the continuing or anticipated inability to meet expected yields over a 4 to 5-year period." This designation allows the BoF and ADF&G to develop specific management measures to prevent fishing activity from allowing rebuilding to sustainable levels. The action plans contain goals, measurable and implementable objectives, and provisions for fishery management actions needed to achieve rebuilding. Also included are performance measures appropriate for monitoring and gauging the effectiveness of the action plan, and as deemed appropriate a research plan. There are 18 stocks of concern (Munro, 2018). Fourteen stocks were identified as a management concern and 4 were identified as a yield concern (Table 4). Implementing a management framework for increasing escapements is a key element of the stocks of concern process. The following are examples of BoF plans to guide ADG&F in-season management under observed abundance: • Lynn Canal and Chilkat River King Salmon Fishery Management Plan 5 AAC 33.384 (ADFG 2019a); • McDonald Lake Sockeye Salmon (Gray et al. 2019); • Yukon River Chinook Management Plan 5 AAC 05.360 (ADFG 2019 b); • Chinook and Sockeye Salmon Stocks in Upper Cook Inlet (ABF 2011).

Table 4. Stocks of concern through the 2018 Board of Fish meeting cycle.

Region System Species Year Type of BoF Cycle

12 Listed Concern Last Reviewed Southeast Chilkat R. Chinook 2017 Management 2017-18 King Salmon R. Chinook 2017 Management 2017-18 Unuk R. Chinook 2017 Management 2017-18 McDonald Lk. Sockeye 2017 Management 2017-18 Central McNeil R. Chum 2016 Management 2016-17 Yenta R. Sockeye 2007 Yield 2016-17 Chuitna R. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Theodore R. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Lewis R. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Alexander Cr. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Goose Cr. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Sheep Cr. Chinook 2013 Management 2016-17 Westward Karluk R. Chinook 2010 Management 2016-17 Swanson Sockeye 2010 Management 2016-17 Lagoon AYK Yukon R. Chinook 2000 Yield 2015-16 Norton Sound Chinook 2003 Yield 2015-16 Subdistricts 5&6 Norton Sound Chum 2000 Yield 2015-16 Subdistricts 2&3 Note: Goose Creek Chinook Salmon was originally designated as a stock of yield concern and then modified to a stock of management concern in 2013.

13 3.1.4 Inseparable or Practically Inseparable Catches There are a number of non-local stocks (i.e. those that spawn outside of Alaska) and some non- target stocks (i.e. species of salmon that are not specifically targeted in a certain UoA but may occur from time to time in catches while targeting another species) that are assessed under the salmon-specific “inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI)” species requirements laid out in MSC FCR v2.0 Section SC6. Assessment of these stocks, when not part of Principle 1, is specifically handled under Principle 2, including justifications as to how the IPI eligibility and assessment requirements are met. Per the IPI requirements for salmon, some non-local stocks were assessed against P2 primary species requirements, while others were covered under ETP. Southeast and Yakutat UoAs - In the Southeast UoA, fisheries harvest some stocks of Pink, Chum, Sockeye, Chinook and Coho salmon that spawn in rivers of British Columbia, Canada (BC), Washington, Oregon or Idaho. These catches are governed under terms of the Treaty and in 2019, a new 10-year agreement for these fisheries was adopted. The Northern Boundary area fisheries include the Alaska District 104 purse seine and Alaska District 101 drift gillnet fisheries. Treaty agreements are “abundance based” where the allowable harvest is a percentage of the Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH). The AAH is the total return of applicable stocks minus the lesser of; 1) the actual escapement, or 2) the escapement goal. Catches over, or under, the AAH target catch each year are summed over the period of the agreement to allow for annual variation. In Alaska’s District 104 purse seine fishery, the allowable catch of Sockeye Salmon is 2.45% of the AAH returning to the Nass and Skeena rivers prior to Alaska’s Statistical Week 31, which signals the beginning of directed Pink salmon management. Since 2012, the actual catches have varied around the agreed limits (Table 5) (PSC-NBTC 2019) and the total catch since 1999 remains below allowable limits. Table 5. The Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH) of Sockeye Salmon returning to the Nass and Skeena rivers and the District 104 share of these fish in the purse seine fishery, 2012-2017.

Total Annual Actual District 104 Cumulative Year Allowable Pre-Week Share Overage/Underage Harvest 31 Catch 1999 - -88,078 2011 2012 1,637,173 40,111 9,598 -118,590 2013 339,015 8,036 4,228 -122,668 2014 2,724,535 66,751 74,005 -115,414 2015 1,915,042 46,919 21,433 -140,899 2016 1,040,259 25,486 65,039 -101,347 2017 322,783 7,908 6,916 -102,339

14

In Alaska’s District 101 drift gillnet fishery, the allowable catch is 13.8 percent of the AAH of Sockeye Salmon returning to the Nass River. Since 2012, the actual catches have generally been well below the agreed limits (Table 6(PSC-NBTC 2019). Sockeye Salmon caught in Alaska of B.C. origin are certified sustainable by MSC (Acoura Marine 2017). Table 6. The Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH) of Sockeye Salmon returning to the Nass River and the District 101 share of these fish in the District 101 gillnet fishery, 2012-2017. Year Total District 101 District 101 Cumulative Allowable Share Catch overage/underage Harvest 1999-2011 -161,083 2012 276,818 38,201 38,983 -160,300 2013 301,428 41,597 35,471 -166,426 2014 349,685 48,257 29,022 -185,661 2015 668,749 92,287 14,867 -263,081 2016 2452,420 33,454 14,388 -282,147 2017 168,653 23,274 12,445 -292,976

The Treaty does not establish harvest sharing arrangements for Pink, Chum or Coho salmon caught in Alaska that spawn in British Columbia; but the Pink and Chum Salmon are certified sustainable by MSC (Acoura Marine 2017). Previous studies have estimated that the exploitation rates of these fish are low (English et al. 2012). Coho Salmon escapements in 2017 in northern B.C have been varied, with the Area 3 being above average and Area 4 being below average. The Treaty includes very complex conservation and harvest sharing arrangements for Sockeye, Chinook and Coho salmon returning to the Transboundary Taku, Stikine and Alsek rivers that originate in Canada’s British Columbia and Yukon Territory and are harvested, in part, in the Southeast and Yakutat UoAs. In general, the treaty requires the Party’s to manage their fisheries to achieve escapement goals, share available surplus production in specific ways, and participate in joint enhancement programs. In 2017 there were extremely low returns of Chinook salmon throughout Southeast Alaska and Yakutat and this resulted in escapement goals in the Transboundary Alsek, Taku and Stikine rivers not being met despite extreme restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing. Sockeye salmon returns to the Taku River were strong and the escapement was above the goal range. The Sockeye salmon escapement to Tahltan Lake in the Stikine River was above goal, but the escapement to mainstem tributaries was slightly below goal. The escapement of Sockeye salmon goal to the Klukshu River weir was about half the goal.

15 The Treaty provides for an abundance-based conservation and harvest sharing arrangement for Chinook salmon caught in Southeast Alaska for all gear types (and includes troll caught fish in the Yakutat UoA). The PSC’s Joint Chinook Salmon Technical Committee made estimates of the contribution of various stock groups using coded micro-wire tag data and estimates of the average annual percent of the run, for each stock, that was harvested in the Southeast and Yakutat UoAs for these same years (PSC-JCTC 2017). The fraction of the annual run caught in Southeast and Yakutat for the major wild stocks are; 0.7% for the north and central coast stocks of B.C., 20.6% for the stocks of Upper Georgia Strait, 17.4% for the stocks from the west coast of Vancouver Island, 20.9% for the stocks from the Washington coast, 13.2% for the Oregon coastal stocks, 15.5% for the mid-Columbia River bright stocks, 13.7 % for the upper Columbia River fall bright stocks and 14.6% for the upper Columbia River summer stocks. Among the majority of stocks that are harvested in the Southeast and Yakutat UoAs that have escapement goals reviewed and accepted by the Joint Chinook Technical Committee only three have not met their escapement goals over the last two years (PSC-JTCC 2019). Of note is the large escapements to the Columbia River’s upriver bright and summer runs in recent years.

Table 7. Summary of Chinook Salmon escapement goals and escapements for non—Alaskan stocks that have goals which have been reviewed and accepted by the PSC Joint Chinook Salmon Technical Committee. (PSC-JTCC 2019). Escapements shown in bold were below goal. Escapement Region Stock Group Stock 2015 2016 2017 2018 Goal Fraser River Harrison 75,100– 101,516 41,327 29,799 46,094 British 98,500 Columbia Lower Georgia Strait Cowichan 6,500 5,984 7,787 10,590 14,353 Washington Coast Quillayute Fall 3,000 3,440 3,654 3,604 4,031 Washington Coast Queets Spr/Sum 700 532 704 825 484 Washington Coast Queets Fall 2,500 5,313 2,915 2,721 2,095 Washington Washington Coast Hoh Spr/Sum 900 1,080 1,241 1,778 793 Washington Coast Hoh Fall 1,200 1,795 2,831 1,405 1,638 Washington Coast Grays Harbor Fall 13,326 22,200 11,685 13,469 22,037 Mid Col. Summer Summer 12,143 88,691 79,253 56,265 38,816 Up river Bright Upriver Bright 40,000 385,774 189,358 120,582 55,349 Columbia Mid Col. Falls Deschutes Fall 4,532 17,074 11,628 4,943 4,158 River

Lewis Lewis 5,700 23,631 8,957 6,058 5,299 Oregon Coast Nehalem 6,989 12,678 10,074 6,473 6,420 Oregon Oregon Coast Siletz 2,944 6,397 8,479 7,364 6,420 Oregon Coast Siuslaw 12,925 35,087 30,135 10,957 9,297

Copper Bering River UoA - Pink and Chum salmon are non-target IPI species in the Copper/Bering Rivers UoA. There is no escapement data for these species in the UoA. In 2017 the catch of Pink salmon in the Copper River UoA was above the long-term average, and catches of Chum salmon was below the long-term average. As in previous years, very few Pink or Chum salmon were caught in the Bering River District (Vega et al. 2018).

16 Prince William Sound UoA - Chinook and Coho salmon are non-target IPI species in the Prince William Sound (PWS) UoA. Catches in 2017 for both species remained similar to the recent 10- year average catches (Vega et al. 2018). Lower Cook Inlet UoA - Chinook and Coho salmon are non-target IP species in the Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) UoA. Catches in 2017 have been similar to the long-term average catches (Hollowell et al. 2019). Norton Sound UoA - Sockeye salmon are classified as a non-target IPI species in the Norton Sound Uof A. The Sockeye salmon harvest, although a small portion of the overall harvest, was the second highest in history at nearly 3,000 fish (Menard et al. 2018). Chignik UoA - Coho salmon are classified as non-target IPI in the Chignik UoA. In 2017, the catches in three districts were similar or less than the long-term average. However, in the Perryville and Western Districts the catches were substantially greater than the long-term average catch. Because three or fewer fishers made deliveries in 2018, the harvest of Coho salmon in the Chignik District is confidential (Wilburn and Renick 2018). In order to determine the status of wild stocks in areas with significant hatchery contributions (Southeast for Chum, Coho, and Chinook salmon, LCI for Pink and Coho salmon and Kodiak for Pink and Chum salmon) we recommend reporting the catch of wild and hatchery fish separately by district and time as is done in PWS. Furthermore, we recommend separating out the escapements into hatchery and wild components for Chum salmon in Southeast Alaska, and for Pink and Chum salmon in PWS. When annual estimates of the hatchery fraction in a stock’s escapement, are not available, we recommend reporting the estimated number of wild and hatchery fish in each streams escapement by apply the average annual estimates of these fractions based on historic sampling data taking into consideration annual run strengths or other factors as appropriate.

17 3.2 Conditions 3.2.1 Condition 1 Performance 1.3.1 Enhancement outcomes. Enhancement activities do not negatively impact wild Indicator stocks . Score Southeast: 60 This condition was behind target as of the November 2017 surveillance audit, pending completion and peer review of a report on the comprehensive hatchery-wild interaction study for Southeast Alaska chum salmon. (see MRAG 2018). Results of the hatchery interactions study for 2015 were published in November 2016 in an annual project report (Knudsen et al. 2016). Sampling of four streams occurred in 2017 in four northern southeast streams to assess relative fitness of hatchery and wild spawners (SSSC 2017). Manuscripts summarizing results for the first phase of the project are in preparation and were expected to be available in 2018. These manuscripts were expected to provide a complete description of the 2013-2015 PWS ocean and stream research including estimates of stream-specific and aggregate hatchery proportions of Chum Salmon in Southeast Alaska streams. The assessment team received a draft of a publication in preparation for the journal of Marine and Coastal Fisheries and made available to the AHRP Science Panel in advance of publication entitled “Spatial and Temporal Distribution in the Returns of Hatchery- and Natural-origin Pink Salmon and Chum Salmon to Prince William Sound, Alaska during 2013-2015 (Knudsen et al in prep). This document includes a comprehensive summary of hatchery contribution and straying results in the study to Justification date. This includes hatchery contributions of both pink and chum salmon to the PWS return and to spawning escapements. Rigorous statistical methods are used to estimate hatchery and wild proportions. This information is consistent with the action plan and effectively brings the condition back on schedule with respect to hatchery straying in PWS. However, at the time of writing, a similar publication needed to fulfil the year for milestone for Southeast Alaska was still in preparation and a draft was not available to the team. This paper, entitled Spatial and temporal patterns in the returns of hatchery- and natural-origin Chum Salmon to spawning streams of Southeast Alaska during 2013-2015 is also in preparation for Marine and Coastal Fisheries and a draft is expected to be available to the AHRP and assessment team early in 2019. If this is of the same caliber as the PWS focused paper the team has already reviewed, we would expect this to result in the condition being back on target before this reassessment is completed. Carry over of Condition 1 from 2013 assessment as originally specified under exceptional circumstances allowances at the time. Regarding chum salmon, the field sampling is not scheduled to conclude until 2023, therefore a reasonable extension will be allowed for condition closure on this aspect. By the end of 2023, the SG 80 scoring requirements must be met in full. This will be achieved when it has been demonstrated that: a) (PI 1.3.1, SG80a): It is highly likely Condition that the Chum salmon enhancement activities in SEAK do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Chum salmon stocks.

18 Initiation of an independent peer review of the study plan was delayed by changes in the certificate holder between completion of this action plan and the second surveillance. In the interim, a comprehensive study plan was developed by a science panel composed of current and retired scientists from ADF&G, University of Alaska, aquaculture associations, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Major elements of the study design were implemented from 2013-2015 to determine hatchery proportion of straying and collect genetic data for a pedigree fitness study. This included sampling and analysis of Chum salmon otoliths in representative natural production areas throughout southeast Alaska. Additional data to determine fitness from the 1st and 2nd progenies is being collected through 2023. Given the scientific rigor of the study design provided by science team and advanced stage of study implementation, PSPA has concluded that a peer review of the study at this stage of implementation would be more effectively focused on study conclusions than on the planned study design. Toward that end, PSPA proposed the following revision in action milestones to address condition one (revised in 2016). Year 1 (2014): Monitor the development and implementation of a rigorous scientific Milestones hatchery/wild interaction study. Years 2-3 (2015-2016): Provide annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and genetic findings. Year 4 (2017): Provide an interim technical report summarizing results of investigations including straying and genetic findings for years 1-4. Review possible management actions for potential implementation as appropriate to ameliorate adverse effects if found. Years 5-9 (2018-2022): Provide annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and fitness findings. Year 10 (2023): Provide a summary of fitness data collection and any preliminary findings from data collection (scheduled for conclusion in summer of 2023). Year 11 (2024) Provide a final report, including a peer review report demonstrating that it is highly likely that Chum salmon enhancement activities in SEAK do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Chum salmon stocks. All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to the reassessment report. Client action See above under “milestones” plan A long-term study of hatchery-wild Pink and Chum Salmon interactions and relative fitness is ongoing. This project previously evaluated genetic stock structure of Pink Progress on and Chum Salmon (Cheng et at. 2016, 2019; Gilk-Baumer and Templin 2019) and the Condition incidence of hatchery origin pink and chum salmon in natural spawning areas of [Year 1] Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska (ADFG 2018, 2019c). This work is currently using parentage analysis to evaluate the relative fitness of wild and hatchery-origin

19 salmon spawning in the wild (Lescak et al. 2019a, 2019b). Detailed updates on project progress, results plans were also provided in a 2019 informational meeting of project contractors and the science panel composed of current and retired scientists from ADF&G, University of Alaska, aquaculture associations, and National Marine Fisheries Service, and organized by ADF&G to provide technical review and guidance for this study. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingHatcheriesResearch.findings_upd ates#meetings. Impacts of hatchery-origin fish on wild population fitness and productivity are related to both the contribution of hatchery fish to natural spawning and the relative fitness of the hatchery fish. Significant numbers of hatchery fish have been documented in some spawning areas (ADFG 2018). Information on relative fitness is only recently becoming available as it requires genetic assessments across multiple generations (Lescak et al. (2019a, 2019b). Significant fitness reductions have previously been documented in some hatchery populations of Chinook, Coho and Steelhead which spend one or more years in an artificial hatchery environment. However, many people have hypothesized much lower hatchery effects for Pink and Chum Salmon which are spend a much shorter period of time in the hatchery. The Alaska Hatchery Study is one of the first to examine the relative fitness of hatchery Pink and Chum Salmon spawning in the wild. Initial study results for Pink Salmon in two Prince William Sound suggest that reproductive success was significantly lower for hatchery-origin relative to natural origin fish. Results were consistent for several lineages. These are the first in a series of RRS analyses under the Alaska Hatchery Research Program (Lescak et al. 2019b). Future work in PWS will provide replicate analyses in four more streams, include samples from 2017–2019, investigate RRS in different mating combinations between natural- and hatchery-origin fish, and explore multi-generational effects. Important questions remain regarding the mechanisms driving the effect observed in this study (Lescak et al. 2019b). The action plan calls for annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and fitness findings needed to determine whether hatchery origin pink and chum salmon negatively affect wild salmon. Detailed reports have been provided as identified above. Therefore, this condition is open and on target. New information was also identified in the surveillance regarding straying of Chum Salmon from a hatchery release site in Crawfish Inlet, Southeast Alaska. According to the Northern Southeast Alaska Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) webite: The Crawfish Inlet chum program is a Medvejie Hatchery satellite program (remote release) permitted for 30 million eggs. The goal of the program is to produce 700,000 adult chum salmon for common property harvest. Crawfish was expected to be an excellent opportunity for the troll fishery based in Sitka which historically has been underserved by the hatchery programs relative to their desired harvest shares. Crawfish Inlet was identified as a suitable release site based on a comprehensive review of alternatives around 2011. The site was sufficiently segregated from natural chum spawning areas to provide for significant terminal fishing opportunities on returning fish in an area without natural chum salmon spawning streams, hence, little

20 risk of significant straying into natural populations. However, large numbers of Crawfish Inlet hatchery fish were subsequently observed to return via West Crawfish Inlet which is connected to Crawfish Inlet by a small channel. Several chum spawning streams are located in West Crawfish Inlet and significant numbers of hatchery chum salmon have been observed straying into these streams. One of these streams is also a wild index stream for stock assessment purposes. The local wild population is a summer run stock. The Medvejie hatchery stock is a fall run stock. There is therefore little interbreeding opportunity of the two runs. However, the hatchery fall run spawns on top of the wild natural summer run, digging up redds and likely reducing abundance. This is clearly a situation where hatchery production has negatively impacted a wild stock. The impact is not large relative to the large scale of wild production of chum salmon. However, it is inconsistent with the certification standard as well as Alaska Hatchery Policy. NSRAA and ADFG are jointing working to implement appropriate measures to remedy this straying situation. A primary strategy will be to maximize harvest of the hatchery fish so as to reduce the incidence of straying. A targeted hatchery cost recovery fishery is being implemented as well as common property net and troll fisheries. It is unclear whether migration and straying patterns observed to date are a typical condition or an artefact of recent drought conditions and a larger-than-average run size last year. Harvest patterns and hatchery contribution to the fisheries and spawning areas will continue to be monitored. NSRAA has advised the assessment team that additional measures, such as weirs on the spawning streams, will be considered where necessary to reduce hatchery strays to acceptable levels. This situation will be reassessed at the next annual MSC surveillance. The issue of responsiveness and precautionary management is addressed in new condition 9.

Status Open and on target

3.2.2 Condition 2 1.3.1 Enhancement outcomes. Enhancement activities do not negatively impact Performance wild stocks. Indicator 1.3.3 Enhancement information. Relevant information is collected and assessments are adequate to determine the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock(s). Score Kodiak: 1.3.1 – 60, 1.3.3 – 60 PI 1.3.1 – The SG 80 is not met. The previous assessment (IMM 2015) noted that Kodiak does not have a marking program for hatchery releases, an activity essentially universally required in PWS and SEAK, the other regions that have very high production levels of hatchery fish, particularly of chum and pink salmon. Sockeye meets this level of performance based on periodic evaluations of Justification interceptions in the fishery by use of scale pattern analysis (Nelson and Swanton 1996; Foster 2010). These scales are quite unique and allow visual separation of Spiridon stocks from other migrating salmon. Also, sockeye have a high degree of fidelity to their natal areas (or areas imprinted as fry), so the team believed it is highly likely that sockeye salmon stocks do not have negative impacts on wild stocks (IMM 2015).

21 No evaluation of straying of Chum or pink salmon has previously been undertaken in the Kodiak area. In addition, no sampling of the common property fisheries to determine the enhanced contribution is performed. Current estimates of the commercial harvest of hatchery-produced fish are based on catches in the vicinity of Kitoi Bay. For these species, it could not be concluded with high likelihood that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance or productivity and diversity of wild stocks. Therefore, the team has introduced a condition for continued certification that requires an analysis of the risks associated with Chinook, coho, pink and chum salmon straying and uncertainty in stock identification in mixed stock fisheries. With respect to Condition 5, it was noted that hatchery stocks of all species do not comprise a major part of the harvests in the Kodiak UoC to date, and so the primary concern was related to straying into other systems at the current levels of release. Chum salmon produced at Kitoi Bay Hatchery are now being thermally marked by making use of the difference in temperature between deep and shallow lake withdrawal water sources used for incubation. Marking of 100% of Chum salmon began in 2014. The first otolith-marked Chum will return in 2016 but the marked age class will comprise a small portion of the total return. Marking was required by ADFG as a condition of approval for a requested increase in Chum salmon production at Kitoi Bay from 28 to 36 million eggs in 2014 (ADF&G 2014). More than 100 million pink salmon fry are released each year, and none have been marked to date. Thermal otolith marking is not feasible with existing water systems because the difference in water temperature between incubation sources has diminished by the time the pink salmon embryos reach the critical marking stage. The egg mass in each incubator is too large for effective dry marking for pinks. The Kitoi Bay Hatchery was recently remodelled, and considerations were made for installing the equipment necessary for marking pink salmon. At this time there is no marking requirement by ADF&G for pink salmon at the Kitoi Bay Hatchery. A marking requirement could be implemented if the program sought to increase pink salmon production. However, the KRAA Board of Directors have not committed to marking of pink salmon at this time given costs relative to perceived value to management. Chinook and Coho salmon produced by Pillar Creek Hatchery are released for sport rather than commercial fisheries, whereas numerous Coho salmon released from Kitoi Bay (~1.4 million) are largely for commercial purposes. Experimental marking of a portion of the Coho production has been implemented at Pillar Creek Hatchery using the dry method. As of the fourth surveillance of the previous certification, a revised action plan called for KRAA to provide an update on plans for marking pink and Coho salmon at Kitoi Hatchery and results of any new research findings regarding the impact of Kodiak hatchery pink salmon on wild populations based on available data in the absence of marking. KRAA has continued to explore alternatives for thermal marking of pink salmon. Further testing is being conducted of a salt water check as a potential alternative to thermal marking. This method was identified following 1-hour salt water treatment of eggs for fungus control. Application of this treatment was extended to 12 hours as a marking experiment of approximately 18-19 million of the

22 current brood year production in the incubation stage. (10% of the scheduled 2018 release). The efficacy of this method will be assessed upon hatching. This effort was found by the surveillance team to satisfy progress toward completion of this condition. The action plan also reported that KRAA would sample the Kodiak fishery for Chum salmon and streams within a 50 km radius of Kitoi Hatchery as outlined in the client report for year 2. In 2017, KRAA conducted limited sampling of chum salmon in the fishery for otolith marks. However, no stream sampling was conducted. PI 1.3.3 – While a variety of studies have examined the impacts of enhancement activities on Chinook and Coho salmon wild stock status, productivity and diversity in other areas, the assessment team is not aware of similar evaluations of Pink and Chum salmon. Undesirable effects of hatchery rearing through inadvertent selection or domestication have been hypothesized to be less for Pink and Chum salmon due to the shorter period of hatchery rearing than for Chinook and Coho salmon. However, direct evidence is not available for testing this hypothesis. Completion of the ongoing hatchery fitness study will likely be necessary to satisfy the SG80 scoring guidepost for this indicator. Additional information may also be required on hatchery practices to address a potential concern regarding the potential for divergence of hatchery stocks in the absence of continuing incorporation of natural origin broodstock (recognizing this is not feasible in a production scale program for Pink or Chum salmon). Carry over of condition 5 from 2013 assessment as originally specified under exceptional circumstances allowances. By the end of the ninth year (2022) of certification, the SG 80 scoring requirements for PI 1.3.1 and PI 1.3.3 must be met in full. With respect to the current hatchery programs at Pillar Creek and Kitoi Bay for Chinook, Coho, Pink and Chum salmon, this will be achieved when it has been demonstrated that: a) (PI 1.3.1, SG80a) it is highly likely that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and Condition productivity or diversity of wild stocks. b) (PI 1.3.3, SG80a) sufficient relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced Chinook, Coho, Pink and Chum salmon to the harvest and wild escapement of the stocks. c) (PI 1.3.3, SG80b) the assessment includes estimates of the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. The 2018 assessment begins in year 5 of the following action plan. Up until now, progress against this plan for years 1-4 is contained within previous surveillance reports. The text in the gray box below indicates parts of the action plan that have already been completed with progress having been previously reported. Milestones To satisfy the intent of this condition, PSPA client will monitor and review study plans by KRAA and ADF&G to develop a Chum and pink salmon mark and recovery plan, including sampling of selected streams for rates of straying.

23 Year 1 (2014): Monitor and review plan for 100% marking of hatchery Pink and Chum salmon and for select sampling on spawning grounds and in fisheries. , PSPA client will provide a report. Year 2 (2015): For Chinook and Coho salmon, PSPA will conduct a risk assessment to evaluate whether or not releases might contribute to more than minimal proportions of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. PSPA and KRAA produced a report during the 2nd Surveillance Audit (2015). Year 3 (2016): KRAA will share with PSPA an estimate of the total cost to outfit Kitoi Hatchery with thermal marking equipment including annual operation costs to mark pink and Coho salmon. KRAA and PSPA will investigate data and research alternatives to assess the impact of hatchery pink salmon on wild stocks (in the absence of marking) per the language in the performance indicator and present these to the assessment team. [completed in year 3 (2016)] Year 4 (2017): KRAA will sample the Kodiak fishery for Chum salmon and will initiate stream sampling for Chum within a 50 km radius of Kitoi Hatchery on the same timeline as stream sampling for pink. Client will provide a report. KRAA will provide an update on plans for marking pink and Coho salmon at Kitoi Hatchery and results of any new research findings regarding the impact of Kodiak hatchery pink salmon on wild populations based on available data in the absence of marking. Year 5 (2018): KRAA will continue to sample the Kodiak fishery for Chum salmon and will initiate stream sampling for Chum within a 50 km radius of Kitoi Hatchery on the same timeline as stream sampling for pink. If appropriate, , PSPA client will ensure during years 5-9 (2018-2022) implementation of plan revisions devised in Year 4, or otherwise demonstrate that: a) It is highly likely that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild stocks. b) Sufficient relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced Coho, pink and Chum salmon to the harvest and wild escapement of the stocks. c) The assessment includes estimates of the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. d) There is a tested and evaluated artificial production strategy, if necessary, with sufficient monitoring in place and evidence is available to reasonably ensure with high likelihood that strategy is effective in achieving the SG 80 outcome. Should revisions as mentioned above need to be implemented, achievement of (a) – (d) above must be demonstrated by the end of year 9 (2022). Actions by KRAA are needed for the fulfillment of this condition. As such, they have Consultation been involved in the drafting of the client action plan and have agreed to their on condition responsibilities within it. Client action See above under “milestones” plan

24 The 2013 Assessment reviewed sockeye and coho salmon produced at both Pillar Creek and Kitoi hatcheries, Chinook salmon produced at Pillar Creek hatchery and pink and chum salmon produced at Kitoi hatchery. The Assessment concluded that sockeye salmon met the 80 SG but the others did not. The Assessment acknowledged that hatchery production of all species was minor compared to the wild production. The Assessment stated that it may be possible to conduct a “risk analysis” to assess the effects of Chinook and coho salmon. The Client provided such an analysis during the year 2 Surveillance Audit that addressed those concerns. The Client has succeeded in marking 100% of chum salmon and is experimenting with saltwater marking pink salmon with two years of approximately 20% marked. The Client is currently seeking funding to sample both the harvest and streams for marked pink and chum salmon. KRAA has been working in partnership with SSRAA and ADFG marking laboratory to develop effective marking methods for Pink Salmon. The KRAA facility has the capability of using saltwater for fungal treatment and evaluated the possibility of using saltwater for otolith marking purposes. In 2017, a saltwater marking experiment was conducted for Pink Salmon starting with a 100,000-eggs test group. No significant fish health or mortality effect was observed. Saltwater treatments subsequently were used to mark 10% of total production. Sampling indicated that otolith marks were comparable in quality to thermal marks. Otolith samples were collected from returning adults in 2019 marks were determined to be readable. Based on this success, KRAA has secured $450,000 in 2016 Pink Salmon disaster relief funds for research including marking and mark sampling. KRAA has completed a capital project including a new pump and housing so that saltwater could be used to mark 100% of the Kitoi pink salmon production in 2019. The otolith reading lab at Progress on KRAA is being expanded. The KRAA board is also supporting development of Condition software with SSRAA for digital reading of otoliths. KRAA is working with ADFG to [Year 1] develop a comprehensive mark sampling plan for pink salmon returns. Marking of the hatchery production of other species is ongoing. Coho production is being otolith marked using the dry marking method. The dry marking method is being used for Sockeye including all Kitoi and all of the late run at Pillar Creek. Equipment has been installed to mark early run sockeye at Pillar Creek but there has been no early run production in recent years due to broodstock or temperature limitations. The facility is looking at possibly of chilling water to support production of early run fish. Chum salmon production is being 100% thermally marked using deep and shallow water withdrawal from lake water source. Funds have not yet been identified to evaluate hatchery chum salmon on spawning grounds. Marking will provide some opportunity to estimate future hatchery contributions to the harvest in specific management areas. Cost for assessment of the entire management area would be very high.

Status Open and on target

25 3.2.3 Condition 3 Performance 1.3.1 Enhancement outcomes. Enhancement activities do not negatively Indicator impact wild stocks. Score Prince William Sound: 60 pHOS averaged <1% for 20% of Pink salmon populations and 30% of Chum salmon populations (Knudsen et al. 2015a, 2015b, 2016). This does not meet the adapted population-level guidance of <1% for 50% of population at the SG80 level. Therefore, the SG80 standard is not achieved in the absence of Justification more specific information on effects of hatchery straying on wild fitness of ocean-rearing salmon and the condition remains open. Carry over from 2015 scope extension to add PWS unit, with milestones to align with those under Condition 1 for SEAK according to exceptional circumstances allowances. Demonstrate a high likelihood that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance Condition and productivity or diversity of wild stocks based on low hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness. Each year the client will provide the assessment team with progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of pink and chum salmon enhancement activities on wild pink and chum Salmon populations. In accordance with the milestone timeline in condition 1 from SEAK the , client Milestones will provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report, demonstrating with a high likelihood, that pink and chum salmon enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of pink and chum salmon wild stocks based on impact on wild fitness. All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation on consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director condition of commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. The 2018 assessment begins in year 5 of the following action plan. Up until now, progress against this plan for years 1-4 is contained within previous surveillance reports. Below, actions begin with year 5. Years 2019 through 2022: Client will consult with the ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress and/or conclusions of the work of pedigree fitness study for PWS. Client will also Client action plan provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams if new analysis occurs within this timeframe. Year 2023: , Client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report demonstrating that it is highly likely that Pink and Chum Salmon enhancement activities in PWS do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Pink and Chum Salmon stocks.

26 The action plan calls for annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and fitness findings needed to determine whether hatchery Progress on origin pink and chum salmon negatively affect wild salmon. Detailed reports Condition [Year 1] have been provided as described for Condition 1. Therefore, this condition is open and on target.

Status Open and on Target

3.2.4 Condition 4 Performance 1.3.2 Enhancement management. Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are Indicator in place to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stock(s). Score Prince William Sound: 70 Monitoring of hatchery contributions to the fishery and escapements provide an objective basis that the hatchery strategy is at least partially effective. However, this information indicates that outcome metrics identified for hatchery contributions to wild populations is not consistent with the SG80 standard identified in PI 1.3.1. Justification Therefore, this SG is not met in the absence of additional information on the relative fitness of hatchery-origin fish spawning in natural production areas. Carry over from 2017 scope extension to add PWS unit, according to exceptional circumstances allowances. Demonstrate an objective basis for confidence that the enhancement strategy is effective for protecting wild stocks from significant detrimental impacts based on Condition evidence that the strategy is achieving the outcome metrics used to define the minimum detrimental impacts. Annually the client will provide the assessment team with progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement activities on wild salmon populations. In accordance with the milestone timeline in condition 1 from SEAK , PSPA client will Milestones provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report demonstrating with a high likelihood that pink and chum salmon enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of pink and chum salmon wild stocks based on impacts on wild fitness. All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. Years 2018 through 2022: client will consult with the ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress and/or Client action conclusions of the work of hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness for plan PWS. PSPA will also provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams if there is information available in addition to what has already been provided.

27 Year 2023: client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report demonstrating that it is highly likely that Pink and Chum Salmon enhancement activities in PWS do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Pink and Chum Salmon stocks. ADF&G has monitored for negative effects of hatchery programs by sampling for hatchery strays in wild stock escapements and conducting a pedigree fitness study. As noted in the scoring table for PWS 1.3.2, ADF&G is cosponsoring and managing the AHRP quantifying straying rates and evaluating impacts of hatchery strays in PWS and SEAK. If a reduction in fitness of wild stocks is seen, ADF&G (personnel communication J. Regnart, ADF&G (retired) has identified the following directed actions with which it may respond: • Reduction in production from hatcheries most likely contributing to the problem; • Elimination or relocation of remote release sites where higher stray rates may increase introgression; • Changes to management of brood stock or hatcheries, which may include introduction of additional sources of wild brookstock; • Specific management actions which seek to further avoid harvest of wild stocks while increasing harvest of hatchery fish. Appropriate remedies will depend on the nature and magnitude of any potential detrimental hatchery effects. Assessment of hatchery effects on wild fish are ongoing as described in condition 1. Appropriate remedies are expected to be considered based on findings of those studies. ADFG has also completed a review of the implementation of hatchery- related plans, permits and policies designed to provide protection for wild stocks which is potentially relevant to interpretation of hatchery research findings. This review evaluated the consistency of existing programs with current policies and the extent to which effective enhancement and fishery management strategies are in Progress on place to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stocks, with a focus on Condition Southeast Alaska Chinook Salmon and Prince William Sound pink salmon (Evenson [Year 1] et al. 2018). Existing policies and corresponding outcome metrics were identified and the subject stocks were evaluated relative to these outcome metrics. Milestones for this surveillance call for progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement activities on wild salmon populations. As current progress reports were delivered, this condition is determined to be open and on target.

Status Open and on target

28 3.2.5 Condition 5 Performance 1.3.3 Enhancement information. Relevant information is collected and assessments Indicator are adequate to determine the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock(s). Score Prince William Sound: 70 While a variety of studies have examined the impacts of enhancement activities on Chinook and Coho salmon wild stock status, productivity and diversity in other areas, the assessment team is not aware of similar evaluations of Pink and Chum salmon. Undesirable effects of hatchery rearing through inadvertent selection or domestication have been hypothesized to be less for Pink and Chum salmon due to the shorter period of hatchery rearing than for Chinook and Coho salmon. However, direct evidence is not available for testing this hypothesis. Completion of the ongoing hatchery fitness study will likely be necessary to satisfy the SG80 scoring guidepost for Justification this indicator. Additional information may also be required on hatchery practices to address a potential concern regarding the potential for divergence of hatchery stocks in the absence of continuing incorporation of natural origin broodstock (recognizing this is not feasible in a production scale program for Pink or Chum salmon). Carry over from 2015 scope extension to add PWS unit, with milestones to align with those under Condition 2 for SEAK according to exceptional circumstances allowances. Carry over from 2017 scope extension to add PWS unit, with milestones to align with those under Condition 1 for SEAK according to exceptional circumstances allowances. Provide information on relative fitness of hatchery origin Pink and Chum Salmon Condition sufficient to evaluate the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. The 2018 assessment begins in year 2 for the PWS unit (it came in via scope extension in 2017) of the following action plan. Each year the client will provide the assessment team with progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement Milestones activities on wild pink and chum Salmon populations. In the seventh year (2023), the client will provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report sufficient to evaluate the effect of pink and chum salmon enhancement activities on pink and chum salmon wild stock status, productivity and diversity. All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. Years 2 (2019) through 6 (2022): Client will consult with ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress pedigree fitness study. PSPA will also provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams if there is any information additional to what has Client action already been provided. plan Year 7 (2023): Client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report sufficient to evaluate the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity.

29 The action plan calls for annual reports on progress of the investigation, including Progress on straying and fitness findings needed to determine whether hatchery origin pink and Condition chum salmon negatively affect wild salmon. Detailed reports have been provided as [Year 1] described for Condition 1. Therefore, this condition is open and on target.

Status Open and on Target

3.2.6 Condition 6 Performance 1.3.1 Enhancement outcomes. Enhancement activities do not negatively impact Indicator wild stocks. Score Lower Cook Inlet: 60 Recent assessments of spawning escapement have identified an incidence of hatchery strays in many natural production areas including fish originating from Justification both LCI and PWS hatchery programs. Additional assessments are needed to determine the significance and implications of observed straying levels. Demonstrate a high likelihood that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and Condition productivity or diversity of wild stocks based on low hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness. Each year the client will provide the assessment team with current information on the incidence of hatchery strays of Pink Salmon in natural spawning escapements of Lower Cook Inlet. In accordance with the milestone timeline in condition 1 from SEAK the PSPA client Milestones will provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report, demonstrating with a high likelihood, that pink and chum salmon enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of pink and chum salmon wild stocks based on impact on wild fitness. All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. Years 2019 through 2022: Client will consult with the ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress and/or conclusions of the work of pedigree fitness study for PWS. PSPA will also provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams Client action if new analysis occurs within this timeframe. plan Year 2023: Client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report demonstrating that it is highly likely that Pink salmon enhancement activities in PWS do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Pink Salmon stocks. Progress on Current information on hatchery proportions of Pink Salmon in lower Cook Inlet Condition escapements is summarized in a written report (Otis et al. 2018) and a recent [Year 1] presentation to the Alaska Board of fisheries (Otis and Hollowell 2019). Sampling in

30 spawning streams was reported for 2014-2018. The initial project goals were to determine the percentage of strays of Tutka and Port Graham hatchery produced pink salmon in local streams. This information was intended for use by ADF&G staff in managing the Tutka and Port Graham hatcheries to minimize straying and impacts to wild pink salmon. Primarily this would be through the Cook Inlet Area Regional Planning Team which is the group is tasked with overseeing hatchery operations in the Lower Cook Inlet area and advising the ADF&G Commissioner regarding hatchery operations. This study continues to document widespread straying of both Lower Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound hatchery fish in LCI streams although wild fish continue to account for the majority of the spawning escapements. Escapement goals also continue to be consistently achieved. The incidence of Prince William Sound hatchery pink salmon in LCI collected samples was not expected when this study was conceived. Otis and Hollowell (2019) cautioned that interpretation of the current data set is limited given the number of years sampled and identified a continued need to sample based on a comprehensive study design. The action plan also calls for annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and fitness findings needed to determine whether hatchery origin pink and chum salmon negatively affect wild salmon. Detailed reports have been provided as described for Condition 1. As milestones for providing current information on the incidence of hatchery strays in natural spawning escapements of Lower Cook Inlet and, this condition is determined to be open and on target. However, given recent changes in lower Cook Inlet hatchery production, the incidence of Prince William Sound strays, and the potential lower relative reproductive success of hatchery Pink Salmon identified in the Alaska Hatchery Study, additional information will be needed in future years on the effects of program changes on hatchery straying.

Status Open and on target

3.2.7 Condition 7 Performance 1.3.2 Enhancement management. Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are Indicator in place to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stock(s). Score Lower Cook Inlet: 70 Monitoring of hatchery contributions to the fishery and escapements provide an objective basis that the hatchery strategy is at least partially effective. However, this information indicates that outcome metrics identified for hatchery contributions to wild populations is not consistent with the SG80 standard identified in PI 1.3.1. Monitoring of hatchery contributions to the fishery and escapements indicate that Justification significant numbers of hatchery fish are found in many natural spawning areas following recent expansion of largescale hatchery production of Pink Salmon in LCI as well as straying from PWS hatcheries. Therefore, this SG is not met in the absence of additional information on the relative fitness of hatchery-origin fish spawning in natural production areas. Demonstrate an objective basis for confidence that the enhancement strategy is Condition effective for protecting wild stocks from significant detrimental impacts based on

31 evidence that the strategy is achieving the outcome metrics used to define the minimum detrimental impacts. Annually each year, the client will provide the assessment team with progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement activities on wild Salmon populations. In accordance with the milestone timeline in condition 1 from SEAK , the client will Milestones provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report demonstrating with a high likelihood that pink salmon enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of pink salmon wild stocks based on impacts on wild All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADFG to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. Years 2019 through 2022: PSPA Client will consult with the ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress and/or conclusions of the work of hatchery contributions and/or impact on wild fitness for PWS. PSPA will also provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams if there is information available in addition to what has already been provided. Year 2023: The client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report demonstrating that it is highly likely that Pink Salmon enhancement activities in LCL do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity or diversity of wild Pink Salmon stocks. ADF&G has monitored for negative effects of hatchery programs by sampling for hatchery strays in wild stock escapements and conducting a pedigree fitness study. As noted in the scoring table for PWS 1.3.2, ADF&G is cosponsoring and managing the AHRP quantifying straying rates and evaluating impacts of Client action hatchery strays in PWS and SEAK. If a reduction in fitness of wild stocks is seen, plan ADF&G (personnel communication J. Regnart, ADF&G (retired)) has identified the following directed actions with which it may respond: • Reduction in production from hatcheries most likely contributing to the problem; • Elimination or relocation of remote release sites where higher stray rates may increase introgression; • Changes to management of brood stock or hatcheries, which may include introduction of additional sources of wild brook stock; • Specific management actions which seek to further avoid harvest of wild stocks while increasing harvest of hatchery fish. Appropriate remedies will depend on the nature and magnitude of any potential detrimental hatchery effects. Appropriate remedies will depend on the nature and magnitude of any potential detrimental hatchery effects.

32 Assessment of hatchery effects on wild fish are ongoing as described in condition 3. Appropriate remedies are expected to be considered based on findings of those studies. ADF&G has also completed a review of the implementation of hatchery- related plans, permits and policies designed to provide protection for wild stocks which is potentially relevant to interpretation of hatchery research findings. This review evaluated the consistency of existing programs with current policies and the extent to which effective enhancement and fishery management strategies are in Progress on place to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stocks, with a focus on Condition Southeast Alaska Chinook Salmon and Prince William Sound pink salmon (Evenson [Year 1] et al. 2018). Existing policies and corresponding outcome metrics were identified and the subject stocks were evaluated relative to these outcome metrics. Milestones for this surveillance call for progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement activities on wild salmon populations. As current progress reports were delivered, this condition is determined to be open and on target.

Status Open and on target

3.2.8 Condition 8 Performance 1.3.3 Enhancement information. Relevant information is collected and assessments Indicator are adequate to determine the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock(s). Score Lower Cook Inlet: 70 While a variety of studies have examined the impacts of enhancement activities on Chinook and Coho salmon wild stock status, productivity and diversity in other areas, the assessment team is not aware of similar evaluations of Pink and Chum salmon. Undesirable effects of hatchery rearing through inadvertent selection or domestication have been hypothesized to be less for Pink and Chum salmon due to the shorter period of hatchery rearing than for Chinook and Coho salmon. However, Justification direct evidence is not available for testing this hypothesis. Completion of the ongoing hatchery fitness study will likely be necessary to satisfy the SG80 scoring guidepost for this indicator. Additional information may also be required on hatchery practices to address a potential concern regarding the potential for divergence of hatchery stocks in the absence of continuing incorporation of natural origin broodstock (recognizing this is not feasible in a production scale program for Pink or Chum salmon). Provide information on relative fitness of hatchery-origin Pink Salmon sufficient to Condition evaluate the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. Each year the client will provide the assessment team with progress reports and/or conclusions of research relevant to demonstrating the impacts of enhancement activities on wild pink and chum Salmon populations. Milestones In 2023, the client will provide a comprehensive, peer reviewed report sufficient to evaluate the effect of pink and chum salmon enhancement activities on pink and chum salmon wild stock status, productivity and diversity.

33 All parties implicated in the achievement of this client action plan have been Consultation consulted and agree on their responsibilities. A letter from the interim director of on condition commercial fisheries at ADF&G to this effect is included as an appendix to this report. 2019 through 2022: The client will consult with ADF&G and/or the Science Panel annually and provide any documents/reports on the progress of the pedigree fitness study. The client will also provide any analysis that the Science Panel provides relative to hatchery proportions in streams if there is any information additional to Client action what has already been provided. plan 2023: The client will provide a detailed technical report including peer review of the final report sufficient to evaluate the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity. The action plan calls for annual reports on progress of the investigation, including straying and fitness findings needed to determine whether hatchery origin pink Progress on salmon negatively affect wild salmon. Detailed reports have been provided as Condition described for Condition 1. Assessments of the incidence of hatchery strays in Lower [Year 1] Cook Inlet streams have also been reported. Therefore, this condition is open and on target.

Status Open and on target

34 3.2.9 Condition 9 (New) PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes - 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. Performance Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in Indicator relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Score 75 While ADFG decision-making processes are generally responsive to serious issues identified through research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, it is not clear that they do so for all “serious and other important issues” as required by SG80 scoring issue B. New information presented by stakeholders regarding specific important issues (e.g. straying of chum salmon into West Crawfish spawning streams) have not been responded to at a level consistent with SG80. While ADFG and hatchery operators are responding to issues identified, it can be argued that they have not responded in a timely, adaptive and transparent way. In addition, scoring Justification issue C requires that decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on the best available information. It is not clear that a precautionary approach is being effectively applied to hatchery enhancement activities in all cases. The MSC assessment team reviewed new information provided at the first annual surveillance and a number of written stakeholder comments relating to hatchery enhancement activities. This information raised a number of concerns relative to the interpretation and application of a precautionary approach to hatchery enhancement. Accordingly, the SG80 standard was not clearly achieved for Scoring issue b and scoring issue c, and this PI was rescored accordingly. Demonstrate that decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner, and use the precautionary Condition approach and are based on best available information as applied the Pink and Chum Salmon hatchery enhancement programs. By the 2nd annual surveillance (around November 2020) demonstrate that a plan is in place to ensure the management system can respond to serious and other important issues and uses the precautionary approach in decision-making as issues arise through research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation.

rd Milestones By the 3 annual surveillance audit (around November 2021) demonstrate that this plan is being carried out. By the 4th annual surveillance audit (around November 2022) demonstrate that this plan has been and will continue to be effective at meeting the SG80 for scoring issues b and c. Consultation See client action plan appended to this report. on condition

35 Client action See client action plan appended to this report plan Progress on New condition in 1st surveillance Condition [Year 1] st Status New condition in 1 surveillance

3.2.10 Condition 10 (new) PI 2.3.2 SI d There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and Performanc practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA and enhancement related e Indicator mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate. Score 75 The Marine Mammal Protection act requires that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publish a list of Fisheries (LOF) each year. The annual LOF reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must classify each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements. Because the level of mortality is not high enough in any of the Alaska salmon fisheries to require a Take Reduction Program, there has not been a need to conduct an annual review of alternative measures to minimize ETP related mortality. There have measures put in place to eliminate contact of fishing gear with Steller Sea Lion by closing areas around rookeries and Justification these will likely continue. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires a review every five years on the status of a listed species and impacts. This review constitutes a “Regular Review” and as such the SG80 level is met, but not the SG 100 level, because the review is not biennial. In regards to non-ESA listed Kittlitz’s murrelet and marbled murrelet we are not aware of any internal review by ADFG or the BoF of “the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize U of A related mortality.” Whereas the stakeholder workshop held as part of the 1st annual audit site visit can be considered a review as defined in SG60, (going over the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures as well as getting a more comprehensive understanding of potential impact) in order to be a regular review, there would have had to be more than one review in a reasonable timeframe. The SG80 is not met for this scoring issue for murrelets, and a new condition is assigned.

36 By the 4th annual audit, the client must demonstrate that there is a process in place to ensure a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality Condition of alternative measures to minimise UoA and enhancement related mortality of ETP seabirds (particularly murrelet species), and they are implemented as appropriate. By the 2nd annual surveillance (around November 2020) demonstrate that a plan is in place to carry out regular reviews as described above. By the 3rd annual surveillance audit (around November 2021) demonstrate Milestones that this plan is being carried out. By the 4th annual surveillance audit (around November 2022) demonstrate that this plan has been and will continue to be effective at meeting the SG80 for scoring issue in relation to murrelet species. Consultatio See client action plan appended to this report. n on condition Client See client action plan appended to this report. action plan Progress on New condition in 1st surveillance Condition [Year 1] Status New condition in 1st surveillance

37 3.3 Client Action Plan No changes were made in the client action plan for the existing conditions. Two new conditions were added at the first annual surveillance and a client action plan was developed to address those conditions (see appendix to this report). 3.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators Table 8. Principle-level scores. Principle Unit Regulatory Area Gear types Species 1 2 3 Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 89.3 95.1 1 Southeast Purse seine, drift gillnet, troll 83.2 Pink, Chum 89.0 92.0 Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 90.0 95.1 2 Yakutat Set gillnet, troll 97.5 Pink 89.7 92.0 Purse seine, drift gillnet, set Sockeye, Pink, Chum 87.3 95.1 3 Prince William Sound 87.6 gillnet 87.0 92.0 Copper/Bering Sockeye, Chinook, Coho 89.3 95.1 4 Drift gillnet 96.2 Districts 89.0 92.0 Sockeye, Pink, Chum 87.3 95.1 5 Lower Cook Inlet Purse seine, set gillnet 87.6 87.0 92.0 Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 89.3 95.1 6 Upper Cook Inlet Drift gillnet, set gillnet 92.1 Pink, Chum 89.0 92.0 Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 90.3 95.1 7 Bristol Bay Drift gillnet, set gillnet 99.6 Pink, Chum 90.0 92.0 Beach seine, drift gillnet, set Chinook, Coho, Chum 95.1 8 Yukon River 92.1 90.3 gillnet, fish wheel, dip net 92.0 Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 95.1 9 Kuskokwim Drift gillnet, set gillnet 92.1 90.3 Pink, Chum 92.0 Chum 95.1 10 Kotzebue Set gillnet 95.8 90.3 92.0 Coho, Pink, Chum 95.1 11 Norton Sound Set gillnet 90.4 90.3 92.0 Purse seine, beach seine, set Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 90.3 95.1 12 Kodiak 81.0 gillnet Pink, Chum 90.0 92.0 Sockeye, Chinook, Pink, 90.3 95.1 13 Chignik Purse seine 99.6 Chum 89.0 92.0 Peninsula/Aleutian Purse seine, beach seine, drift Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, 90.3 95.1 14 99.6 Islands gillnet, set gillnet Pink, Chum 90.0 92.0

38 3.4.1 Principle 2: ETP Species – New Information Bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species is considered in the MSC assessment process under Principle 2. These include Kittlitz’s and Marbled Murrelets which are red listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as near threatened and endangered, respectively. Neither Kittlets or Marbled Murrelets in Alaska are formally designed as an endangered, threatened or sensitive species under the US Endangered Species Act or the State of Alaska. As the designation of ETP species in the MSC standard changed between the latest reassessment and previous assessments, the assessment team mistakenly did not assess these murrelets as ETP during the reassessment. In response to stakeholder comments on the reassessment, the assessment team acknowledged the need for more explicit treatment of Murrelet bycatch. This section examines information on these two species in greater detail. In addition, a workshop was held with interested parties to review and discuss the available information (see Appendix). The assessment team reviewed these results and revised scoring rationale based on the new information, and determined that the SG80 scoring guidepost for review of alternative measures (PI 2.3.2 SI e) was not met in relation ETP bird bycatch. Marbled Murrelet Background The Marbled Murrelet is listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the southern portion of its range to include the states of California, Oregon and Washington and is listed as Critically Endangered by Birdlife because of a rapid decline in some areas. The total population in Alaska has been estimated to be about 271,000 by Piatt et al. (2007). The population was estimated to have declined by 50 percent in Alaska between 1972-1992 (Piatt and Naslund 1995). In Alaska, they range from Southeast Alaska, along the Gulf of Alaska coastline out to the Aleutian Islands and into the northern reaches of Bristol Bay. At sea surveys indicate that in the spring they are concentrated in the Gulf of Alaska between Prince William Sound and Kodiak and in the fall in Bristol Bay. Winter data are scarce (Kuletz et al. 2019). Marbled Murrelets nest in old-growth and older-aged trees typically within about 20 miles of the sea. In the near barren areas of western Alaska and Kodiak, they nest on the ground. In the forested areas, they prefer areas with an abundance of moss. Radar and modelling studies have shown a significant correlation between numbers of birds entering watersheds and the areas of suitable forest habitat within those watersheds (Burger 2002, Burger et al. 2004, Raphael et al. 2011) Marbled Murrelets feed in near-shore habitats, lagoons and sometimes inland lakes Birdlife (2019) and in warm saline areas subject to mixing such as passes (Kuletz et al. 2019). In summer months they prefer small schooling fish such as sand lance, capelin, herring and juvenile pollock. In the winter, they shift diets to include invertebrates. They feed larger prey items to their chicks while the adults feed on smaller prey items. This behavior is thought to occur because it minimizes trips from the feeding grounds to the nest (Kuletz et al. 2019). Threats include: • Burger (2002) concluded that there is strong support for habitat loss due to logging as the primary driving mechanism for species’ decline in British Columbia, as this results in both a reduction and loss of cohesion of nesting habitat (Raphael et al. 2015).

39 • Marbled murrelets experience increased predation from jays and ravens at forest edges adjacent to recently cleared areas, compared with forest edges adjacent to regenerating or riparian areas (Malt and Lank 2008, 2009 and Burger 2002). • The collapse of some herring stocks, such as in Prince William Sound, likely had a negative effect on feeding bioenergetics (Kuletz 2005). • Short term events such as El Niño Southern Oscillation or atypical warming events that have been observed in the Gulf of Alaska in recent years, have reduced the availability of feed and likely caused seabird mortalities (Piatt et al. 2020) as well as deceases in some seabird populations and some salmon populations. • Predicted long-term shifts in climate threaten the suitability of habitat for marbled murrelet populations in Alaska (Piatt and Naslund 1995). • Oil spills pose a clear threat. The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound killed an estimated 8,400 marbled murrelets (Kuletz 1996). • Carter and Kuletz (1995) found that Murrelet numbers were negatively correlated with numbers of boats and low-flying aircrafts, suggesting a disruption to foraging and thus breeding success. • Marbled Murrelets may be entangled in salmon gillnets. Kittlitz's Murrelet Background The Kittlitz’s murrelet is listed as Near Threatened by BirdLife International and is listed in the Russia Red Data Book. In Alaska, it was a candidate under the Endangered Species Act, but a review (USFWS 2013) concluded that it did not warrant listing (DOI 2013). The total population was estimated at 30,900-56,800 individuals by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2010, but when factoring in the potential proportion of birds not counted in surveys, the total population may number between 48,000-82,000 individuals (BirdLife 2019). The Alaska population is estimated to contain between 70 - 95 percent of the global population (Birdlife 2019 and Kuletz et al. 2019). Population surveys conducted prior to 1998 indicate declines occurred in many areas across Alaska. Since 1998, the data show mixed trend results for several study areas, with no evidence of a steep overall decline (BirdLife 2019), although declines were reported for Prince William Sound (Kuletz et al. 2011a) and Lower Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay (Kuletz et al. 2011b). Van Vliet and McAllister (1994) estimated that 7-15% of the Prince William Sound population died as result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. The primary summer range of Kittlitz’s murrelet includes the waters adjacent to the mainland in the northern portion of Southeast Alaska, Glacier Bay north along the coastal waters of Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak, the south side of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians Islands. In the fall, many birds migrate north and may be found in the Chukchi Sea and Bering Sea. Winter distributions are poorly documented. During the spring birds are found offshore in the open leads of sea ice in the northern Bering Sea, and move south to inshore waters near inland breeding sites in early summer (DOI 2013, Kuletz et al. 2019). During the breeding season Kittlitz’s murrelets forage in turbid, silt-laden waters near tidewater glaciers and glacial river outflows (Day et al. 1999, DOI 2013). In the Kenai Fjords, they were found to forage in areas with high biomass of forage fish and euphausiids that occurred in the turbid glacial plume near tidewater glaciers. The near-surface availability of euphausiids near

40 glacial stream outflows likely influenced the at-sea distribution of Kittlitz’s murrelets, as euphausiids are known to be a significant component of adult murrelet diets in the Northern Gulf of Alaska ( (Arimitsu et al. 2012). . Common prey in these habitats include capelin and euphausiids. Kittlitz's murrelets nest in recently de-glaciated landscapes or even next to and on rocky outcrops within glaciers (Day et al. 1999 ,DOI 2013). Threats cited in Birdlife (2019) include: • Global warming leading to large scale changes in nesting and foraging. • On Kodiak Island, predation by the Red Fox was the major cause of nest failures over a 2008-2014 study period. • Birds breeding in the western Aleutians have been found to have low reproductive success, with losses during the incubation period primarily due to avian predators locating unattended eggs and chick mortality during the nestling period largely due to inclement weather. • Being entangled in gillnets. Bycatch Assessment – Alaska Department of Fish and Game Test Fisheries Bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals was the subject of a Condition of Certification during the first MSC certification in 2000. The condition required collection of bycatch data in test fisheries as a means to identify whether bycatch was a significant conservation issue. As reported by ADF&G and presented in the 2007 recertification report (Chaffee et al. 2007), no bycatch of birds or marine mammals was observed in ADF&G test fisheries in Southeast Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, North Alaskan Peninsula, Shumagin Islands, and Kodiak during 2002, 2003, and/or 2004. Since that time, additional monitoring of bird bycatch at drift and set gillnet sites has occurred in specific areas of Alaska. This monitoring showed that pelagic cormorants, red-faced cormorants, harlequin ducks, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, common murres, thick- billed murres, horned puffins, tufted puffins, sooty shearwaters, Kittlitz's murrelets, Arctic loon, white-winged scoters, red-throated loon, gulls, long-tailed duck and other species may be taken.. Estimated take of birds, based on these observed catch rates and hours of fishing effort in these test fisheries, for Kittlitz’s murrelet, was 0 in 2002 and 18.1 in 2005 (Kodiak), 0 in 2007 and 14 in 2008 (Yakutat), and 0 in LCI and UCI. Bycatch Assessment - Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program Extensive information on bycatch of birds is available from the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP) that was conducted for 10 years between 1990 and 2013 (Manley 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015; Wynne et al. 1991, 1992). This program estimated injury and mortality of marine mammals (MM) and seabirds in the Alaska commercial salmon gillnet fisheries operating in Southeast Alaska, Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Copper and Bering rivers, Kodiak and South Unimak (Table 9). The primary purpose of this study was to determine the rate of injury and mortality of marine mammals. Sampling goals generally set to have confidence of determining if the mortality of MM exceeded 10% of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) per NOAA criteria. Sampling rates varied from < 1% to 7% - most coverage was 4-5%. Bird data was integral part of program,

41 except in determining sampling rates. Bird data generally included species of birds encountered, number by species in proximity to nets, number by species entangled and fates, and in later years, GPS locations where nets fished and encounters occurred.

42

Table 9. Summary of observed and estimated bird mortalities in the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program, by region and year. Lower Upper Estimated Mortalities by Species Observed Total Area Year bound Band Common Marbled Rhinoceros Kittlitz's Tufted Pelagic 0ther1 Mortalities Mortalities 95% CI 95% CI Murre Murrelet Auklet Murrelets Puffins Cormorants Southe 2012 12 165 58 326 165

ast 2013 90 1360 733 2096 1124 78 128 30 Yakutat 2007 19 305 129 481 64 176 65

2008 10 137 40 234 14 54 14 55 Prince 1990 37 1468 836 2100 1230 79 159

William 1991 53 993 334 2097 535 262 133 163 Sound Cook 1999 4 272 183 89

Inlet 2000 2 74 37 37

Kodiak 2002 34 527 311 743 185 56 110 14 162

2005 55 1091 709 1473 481 142 18 96 118 254

South 1990 16 337 158 516 169 21 24 123 Unima k 1Summary of the number and estimates of annual mortality for “other” species of seabirds by fishery and year from the AMMOP program: • Southeast: 2012 N/A; 2013 Cassin’s auklet 1 (15), red throated loon 1 (15) (Manley 2015). • Yakutat: 2007 pigeon guillemot 1 (16), white winged scoter 2 (32), red throated loon 1 (16); 2008 red throated loon 2 (28), artic loon 1 (14), long tailed duck 1 (14) (Manley 2009). • Prince William Sound: 1990 unidentified murre 3 (120), common loon 1 (39); 1991 red throated loon 3 (53), Unknown murre 1 (53), sooty shearwater 1 (15), unknown murrelets 1 (14), unknown alcid 1 (30), Unknown Murre 2 (54) (Wynne et al. 1991, 1992). • Cook Inlet: 1999 common loon 1(89); 2000 white winged scoter 1(37) (Manley 2006). • Kodiak: 2002 pigeon guillemot 5 (76), red faced cormorant 2 (28), harlequin duck 1 (15), Thick billed murre 1 (14), horded puffin 1 (14), sooty shearwater 1 (14); 2005 pigeon guillemot 6 (118), thick billed murre 1 (20), white winged scoter 1 (23), harlequin duck 1 (19) (Manley 2007). • Unimak: 1990 unknown murre 2 (49), sooty shearwater 1 (24), horned puffin 1 (25), unknown 1 (25) (Wynne et al. 1991).

43 Southeast Alaska - The 2012 -2013 observer program in Southeast Alaska covered three fishing districts; Prince of Wales districts 6 (A, B), Anita Bay District 7 (A) and the Stikine districts 8 (A, B). The choice to cover these districts rather than one of the other three districts (Lynn Canal, Stephan’s Passage or Tree Point) was made because these three districts were close together which simplified logistics. District 6A is located in a Important Marine Bird Area while Districts 8A and portions of District 8 B are located in an Important Coastal Bird Area (Smith et al. 2012).

Figure 2.2 from Manley (2015) showing the fishing districts where the AMMOP operated. In 2012, there was 2,007 boat days of fishing (a boat day is 24 hours of fishing) and 128 of these days were observed (6.3%). This amounted to 3,067 hours of observation. In 2013, there were 2,709 boat days of fishing and 180 of these days were covered by observers (6.6%) which amounted to 4,360 hours of observation. In 2012, 12 common murres were observed killed and all these birds were taken in District 6A. The estimated total take was 165, with a 95% confidence interval of 58 – 326. In 2013, 90 dead birds were observed, most of which (76) were common murres and taken in District 6 (A). The estimated total takes and confidence intervals are shown in the table below. Table 10. Estimated take in Southeast Alaskan districts 6, 7 and 8 gillnet fisheries in 2013. Observed Estimated Lower Upper Species Take Take Estimate estimate Common Murre 76 1124 711 1613 Marbled Murrelet 6 78 15 154 Rhinoceros Auklet 8 128 45 235 Cassin’s Auklet 1 15 1 47 Red throated Loon 1 15 1 47

44 Manly’s analysis of factors that may affect take of common murre showed that take tended to occur later in the fishing season, when temperatures were lower, and with moderate water clarity. The data also indicated that takes tended to occur from midnight to 6am when fishing more than one mile from shore in District 6. Manly also attempted to determine if fishing activity could explain why there was such a difference between years in the take of seabirds. He concluded that fishing patterns/intensity could not explain the difference and suggested that there may have been a difference in the number of birds in these areas between years. Yakutat - Manly (2009) covered the gillnet fisheries in the Yakutat UoA. Yakutat Bay proper has been identified as an important Bird Area by Audubon Alaska (Smith et al. 2012). The Yakutat fishery was divided into four regions: 1) the Alsek River area, 2) the Situk River area, 3) Yakutat Bay and the surrounding shorelines north to Icy Bay and south to the Alsek River except for the Situk River area, and 4) the area around the Kaliakh and Tsiu rivers. The observer coverage averaged 5.3 % in 2007 and 6.7 % in 2008. In 2007, of the 1,211 hauls observed, there were 19 dead or seriously injured birds of five different species. The estimated total mortality was 305 birds. In 2008, there were 1,119 sets observed, and 10 birds of six species were found dead or seriously injured. The most common bird in both years was the marbled murrelet. In 2007, all bird encounters occurred in the Yakutat Bay area and in 2008 eight of ten encounters occurred in this area. Even with the small sample sizes, Manley was able to analyze these data to help determine what factors influenced take. Within the area where most takes occurred, the average day for hauls with take was later in the fishing season than expected, and there were more hauls with takes than expected with sets hauled between midnight and 6 am. Prince William Sound - The work of Wynne et al. (1991) covered the drift and set gillnet fisheries in Prince William Sound, Copper and Bering river districts, and the South Unimak drift gillnet fishery. Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta have been identified as Important Bird Areas (IBA) by Audubon Alaska (Smith et al. 2012). The Eshamy, Unakwik and Coghill districts are within the relatively deep, calm, and protected waters and compose a very small portion of the waters within Prince William Sound. The Copper River and Bering River districts are south and east of the PWS proper and include the nearshore and offshore waters of the Copper River Delta. For the period beginning July 1st when the fishing effort ramped up, observers covered 3.9% of the estimated number of sets made by the fleet. During that period, observers monitored 5.2% of the driftnet sets made on the Copper River and Bering River districts. In total, the observers monitored 726 fishing vessel days and nearly 5,000 hours of actual fishing time. Observers also monitored 301.5 hours of setnet fishing in PWS. This represented 2.7% of the estimated maximum setnet hours occurring during five weeks when observes were operating. Of the 41 birds that were entangled, 37 died. The majority of birds (83.8%) that died in PWS driftnets were marbled murrelets. The 95% confidence interval for marine bird mortality was from 836 to 2,100. Most all the birds killed (29 of 37) were observed in the Copper River District and of those, half were observed in a single week. The second year of drift gillnet monitoring in the Prince William Sound area was reported by Wynne et al. (1992). In that year, observers monitored 5,875 net retrievals on 531 different fishing vessels which accounted for approximately 5% of the total fishing effort. Observers

45 recorded 53 marine bird deaths and this resulted in an estimated 993 bird deaths for the year (95% CI = 334 to 2,097). This estimated mortality included 435 common murres and 262 marbled murrelets, 133 Kittlitz’s murrelets and 163 other birds of several species between 16 May and 1 September 1991. As in 1990, virtually all bird encounters (48 of 53) were in the Copper River District. Cook Inlet - Manly (2006) reanalyzed and reported on earlier data collected by NOAA on the gillnet fisheries of Cook Inlet, which was studied in 1999 and 2000. The waters on the North side of the Kachemak Peninsula where the Lower Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery operates is an Important Coastal Marine Bird Area (Smith et al. 2012). Important Costal Bird Areas also exist on the east and north sides of Cook Inlet where set gillnets operate. The drift gillnet fleet operates in the open waters of central Cook Inlet and this is not a designated Important Bird Area. In the drift gillnet fishery, 844 hours of fishing was observed, but the fishery had extended openings and this resulted in a sampling rate of only 1.6%. Likewise, in the set gillnet fishery, while 780 hours of fishing time was observed, it accounted for only 1.1% of the total hours. In the second year, similar time spent observing operation resulted in 3.6% and 2.7% of the effort being accounted for in the drift and set gillnet fisheries respectively. The unpredictability of actual run sizes in a given year illustrates one, of several logistical considerations, when planning observer programs. In the Upper Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery, 182 common murres were estimated to have been killed in 1999 and 31 in 2000. In the Upper Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery, 89 loons was estimated to have been killed in 1999. In 2000, 37 marbled murrelets and 37 scoters were estimated to have been killed. There were no estimated bird mortalities in the Lower Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery in either year, but observer effort was low. One very interesting feature of Manly’s work is that locations were recorded and plotted, by species, for where birds were and were not observed within 10 meters of a net. Species’ maps are shown for gulls, black-legged kittiwakes, horned puffins, loons, shearwaters, terns, murrelets, and murres. For example, murrelets were observed in only 4 out of 2,194 sets and likewise murres were observed in 14 out of 2,194 sets. Lastly, unlike his work in Yakutat where Manly sought to understand factors that affected entanglement rates of birds, there were simply too few encounters in Cook Inlet to enable this analysis. The very low proportion of sampled sets (1-2%) in both years also were insufficient to gauge seabird bycatch (Manly 2006a). Kodiak - The Kodiak Island set gillnet fishery is divided into two operational districts; the Northwest District with about 100 permit holders, and in the Alitak Bay District with about 70 permit holders. The Alitak Bay District is a part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and also considered a Coastal Important Bird Area. The Northern District is both a Coastal and Marine Important Bird Area (Smith et al. 2012). In 2002, AMMOP observers sampled 6.0% of the effort which was equivalent to 309.4 permit days out of the total of 5,114.6 permit days of fishing. In 2005, the sample effort of 4.9% was the equivalent of 534.6 sampled permit days out of the total of 10,835.2 permit days of fishing. In 2002, a total of 34 bird mortalities were observed. The 34 mortalities included 10 species (common murre, harlequin duck, marbled murrelet,

46 pelagic cormorant, red faced cormorant, pigeon guillemot, thick-billed murre, tufted puffin, horned puffin and white-winged scoter. The most common bycatch species encountered (11/34) was the common murre. The estimated total mortality was 527 birds with a standard error of 110. A total of 55 dead birds were observed in 2005. While there were nine species recorded, almost half the birds (25/55) were common murres. Manly also provided very informative graphics illustrating where, and the entanglement rates of birds, superimposed on a map of Kodiak Island showing gillnet fishing zones and seabird breeding colonies. Because seabirds can, and often do, range significant distances from colonies the proximity of colonies to fishing locations does not necessarily imply a higher risk of encounters. Manly’s maps show that they proximity of colonies to fishing zones is not a good indication of where to expect encounters. • For common murres, there are four identified breeding colonies, four out of five of which are located on the southeast side of Kodiak Island and not in, or adjacent to gillnet fisheries. The fifth colony is located inside a fishing zone, but no common murres were taken in that zone.

• The one area where common murres were encountered is on the west side of Kodiak - the opposite side of where the breeding colonies can be found, although still within the foraging range.

• For tufted puffins (the second most frequently encountered species) most of the breeding colonies are on the east side of the Island, but the highest rate of bird take was on the west side, in two zones with few breeding colonies. No takes were observed in one zone with several colonies.

• Pigeon guillemot (the 3rd most frequently encountered species) was encountered mostly in an area along the NE coast, where neither common murres nor tufted puffins were encountered. Like the other species, most of the pigeon guillemot breeding colonies are on the southeast coast of Kodiak. Manly analyzed several variables to determine what factor(s) might influence the probability of encountering a bird. Besides the obvious effect of location, the time in the season and the use of a pinger appeared to have a strong influence. The data show that the probability of a bird take is much lower in the middle of summer than it is in early or late summer, and is increased appreciably if a pinger is used to deter mammals from approaching the net. South Unimak - The fishery takes place in the open, offshore waters near False Pass. The eastern portion of the fishery around False Pass, on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula is an important Marine Bird Area. There were 154 permit holders in this driftnet fishery and they use relatively small boats (30 to 45 ft). In 1990, South Unimak observers boarded 59 of the 154 vessels (38.3%) that fished and observed 373 sets which represents 4.1 % of the estimated number of sets made by the fleet. Observers monitored 87 fishing-days and 876 hours of actual fishing time during seven weeks of effort. In South Unimak 16 of 19 entangled birds died and about half were common murres. The estimated total mortality was 337 (95% CI = 158 to 516).

47

Figure 6.2 from Manley (2006) showing the rates at which birds were taken in the four study regions. The locations where setnet permits may be fished are also indicated, as are the locations and sizes of colonies.

48

Figure 6.2 from Manley (2006) (continued).

49 Discussion - Some Lessons Learned from the AMMOP

• Encounters of seabirds with gillnets can be highly variable in the same area between years possibly due to interannual changes in run size and bird distribution.

• Encounters are not clearly related to whether nor not the fishery occurs in an Important Bird Areas or next to known breeding colonies.

• Encounters appear to be highly clumped and this leads to highly variable estimates. For example, Wynne et al. (1991) reported that one Copper River set was responsible for 6 of the 28 marbled murrelet deaths and both of the Kittlitz’s murrelet deaths. Further, they noted that observations by Wynne in 1988 and 1989 of 387 sets in the Copper River fishery resulted in no entanglements of birds and this led to highly variable estimates.

While it is possible to field observer programs, they are inherently costly and logistical issues not only complicate implementation, but also lead to additional cost to achieve the target coverage rate. For example, Wynne et al. (1991) reported that 33 observers were needed to cover about 4% of the sets made in PWS and South Unimak and 5% of the sets in the Copper/Bering river districts. They also noted several significant logistical issues, including: 1) Observers were frequently denied boarding on fishing vessels due to vessel size. The primary reasons for boarding denials were lack of living and bunk space, lack of privacy, safety or insurance concerns. 2) The combination of small vessel size and inclement weather led to cancellation of 31% of potential observer days due to safety concerns. 3) The dependence on tenders to shuttle observers to and from the fishing grounds often results in them being stranded due to unpredictable fishing vessel delivery schedules. 4) Variability in annual run strength within and between river systems results in in some uncertainty in the distribution of fishing vessels each year.

Observer programs are costly, particularly in the large districts common to Alaska and lack of infrastructure in most of Alaska. For example, NOAA Fisheries spent about $2.0 million on the 2012- 2013 program in Southeast (NOAA, Juneau, personal communication).

Fishery Impact Assessment

Marbled Murrelets – This species was encountered in the gillnet fisheries of Southeast, Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak and South Unimak.

In the 1990 Prince William Sound area, of the 41 birds that were entangled, 37 died. The majority of birds (83.8%) were marbled murrelets and this translated to an estimated annual mortality of 1230. Most all the birds killed (29 of 37) were observed in the Copper River District and of those, half were observed in a single week (Wynne et al. 1991). In the 1991 program the estimated total annual mortality of marbled murrelets was 300. While most birds taken in 1990 were marbled murrelets, in 1991 most were Common Murre. Once again virtually all birds were taken in the Copper River District (Wynne et al. 1992). These data show a high variability between years for catch by species and that there are substantial differences between areas.

In the 1990 South Unimak fishery, a single marbled murrelet was observed and this translated to an estimated annual take of 21 birds (Wynne et al. 1991).

50 The 1999 and 2000 study in Cook Inlet observed a single marbled murrelet killed (in 2000) and this translated to an estimated annual mortality of 37 birds in that year (Manly 2006). Manly also reported that of the 2,104 sets observed, murrelets were observed within 10 meters of the nets only 4 times.

The 2002 and 2005 study on Kodiak Island estimated that 56 marbled Murrelets were killed in the first year and 142 in the second year., marbled murrelet take in Kupreanof Straits, North Cape, Uganik Bay and Uganik Passage (Manly 2007). In 2002 the southern fishing district near Alitak was not monitored due to the region experiencing a fishing closure due to poor salmon runs that season.

In the 2007 and 2008 study of Yakutat the estimated marbled murrelet annual mortality was 176 in the first year and 54 in the second year. All but 2 of the 29 mortalities were observed in the Yakutat Bay District (Manly 2009).

In the 2012 and 2013 study of Districts 6, 7 and 8 in the Southeast area, no marbled murrelets were observed in the first year and in the second year the estimated annual mortality was 78 (Manly 2015). No monitoring occurred in the three other drift gillnet districts (1, 11 and 15) .

The only UoA not covered by these studies that overlaps the summer range of marbled murrelets is Bristol Bay, which accounts for 54 percent of the total gillnet permits in Alaska. The oceanography of Bristol Bay fishing districts is characterized by large tidal variation that translates to strong currents and highly turbid water. The districts are also relatively small and coupled with the large number of boats (1,749 in 2018) results in a chaotic atmosphere with lots of vessel disturbance. Because of these conditions, K. Kuletz (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) suggests the risk of incidental take of murrelets in Bristol Bay fisheries is low , although take of other species (such as loons) has been reported late in the season in some locations (personal communication 2019).

These studies document that in most years, the summer range of marbled murrelets overlaps with where they are incidentally caught. However, the average annual estimated mortality of marbled murrelets was 1,039 across all fisheries and years sampled by the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (Table 2). Earlier estimates that consider all fisheries and types of gillnet gear (set net and drift), not all of which were sampled during AMMOP, have estimated that the Southeast fishery might take about 1000 murrelets per year, and the total across the state could be 3000 murrelets (Carter et al. 1995, Piatt and Naslund 1995, Piatt et al. 2007; p. 83-88). However, these estimates were derived from studies and professional observations from the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the murrelet population was larger, and thus likely had higher encounter rates between murrelets and gillnet fisheries.

Applying just the point estimates of bycatch from the AMMOP studies of 1,039 birds per year to the total Alaska marbled murrelet population provides a minimum mortality rate because not all fisheries are represented. The total population of marbled murrelets in Alaska was estimated to be about 271,000 in 2007 (Piatt et al. 2007). Abundance in the area of the AMMOP was estimated at approximately 230,000. A simple comparison of the estimated mortality and abundance yields a mortality rate calculation of 0.5%. While confidence in any such mortality estimate is low, fishery bycatch mortality would clearly have to be much larger for these fisheries to hinder a rebound to historic population numbers given favorable environmental conditions.

Kittlitz’s Murrelet - Mortality of Kittlitz’s murrelet by entanglement in salmon gillnets was documented during the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP) that was conducted for 10 years between 1990 and 2013. A summary of the mortality by region and year (Table 2) (Error! Reference

51 source not found.) shows that in Yakutat an estimated 18 were taken in one year of sampling , 18 were taken in one year of sampling in Kodiak. In the Copper River District of Prince William Sound, an estimated 133 were taken in one year and 79 in another year. a No Kittlitz’s murrelets were taken in the other fisheirs sampled in the AMMOP.

Blejwas and Wright (2012) undertook a qualitative risk assessment of gillnets impacting Kittlitz’s murrelets by evaluating the spatial and temporal overlap of the birds and gill nets. The areas they studied were some of the same areas covered by the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (Prince William Sound, Copper River, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Cook Inlet and Yakutat). They used permit-days in a statistical area as an index of fishing effort and bird survey data to plot locations relative to fishing effort to identify areas with the highest potential for overlap. Their findings included:

• Temporal overlap was high (in all areas except Yakutat) because effort peaked in late June or July when Kittlitz’s murrelets abundance also peaked.

• While any overlap in fishing effort with distribution may result in take, the areas of overlap were typically not the areas of the highest fishing effort.

• They identified two distinct areas of greatest risk - Alitak Bay in Kodiak and the Manby Shore in Yakutat.

• They found several areas of low risk because of spatial segregation, including:

o the river and stream systems of Yakutat, and most of Yakutat Bay;

o the heads of glacial fjords and the interior of Prince William Sound;

o most of Cook Inlet south of Anchor Point (except the southern shoreline of Kachemak Bay).

• In Alitak Bay of Kodiak, they found fishing effort was high, but Kittlitz’s murrelets abundance was low.

• On Manby Shore in Yakutat Bay, they found that fishing effort was low but Kittlitz’s murrelets abundance was high.

• They noted that the AMMOP program did not document bycatch in areas where both bird abundance and fishing effort was low, these areas included:

o the upper arms and western bays of Kodiak during August;

o the Southern District of Cook Inlet;

o Unakwik Inlet in Prince William Sound;

o the mouths of the remaining major drainages in Yakutat. • There was insufficient survey data to assess the risks for the western bays of Kodiak in June and July and for the Copper River.

Blejwas and Wright (2012) discussed assumptions of their analyses and pointed out the following:

52 • In the three areas where gillnet locations were recorded, they found little variation in the distribution of fishing effort from month to month, but higher variation year to year which depended upon annual run strength of the salmon runs.

• They found greater variability in the distribution of Kittlitz’s murrelets, over time and differences between areas. Specifically:

o In Prince William Sound proper (excluding the Copper-Bering River Districts), aggregations at the head of fjords and bays and in the Coghill and Unakwik Districts.

o In Cook Inlet, the survey data in late July and early August identified several consistent aggregations.

o The limited temporal variation in the survey data for Yakutat Bay precluded a detailed analysis, but in nearby Icy Bay a seasonal shift from the outer Bay to the head of the bay in August was documented, and if that shift also occurred in Yakutat Bay it would tend to further reduce overlap between the fleet and birds.

o There was insufficient survey data during the peak season in Kodiak to determine if any shift in distribution existed.

During our review there were significant criticisms of some aspects of Blejwas and Wright (2012) work. Including:

Surveys for murrelets were conducted in daytime, but Kittlitz’s murrelets usually leave the upper fjords in evening (visual counts), and return after dawn. During twilight/crepuscular hours, radio-tagged birds were found to fly to outer points within PWS (ie, from Harriman fjord to south Esther Is) and were diving during those ‘dark’ periods just after sunset and before dawn; this is when they’d be most susceptible to gillnets, and locations were different from where you find them during the day.

While the approach taken by Blejwas and Wright (2012) has limitations and has been criticized particularly when survey data did not completely overlap with the timing of the fisheries, this limitation should not detract from the strengths of the analysis and findings of the AMMOP that tend to help explain the results.

The average annual estimated mortality of Kittlitz’s murrelets was 122 across all fisheries and years sampled by the AMMOP (Table 2). The total population of Kittlitz’s murrelets in Alaska was estimated to be about 33,600 in 2013 (95 percent CI=25,620–41,546; DOI 2013). A simple comparison of the estimated mortality and abundance yields a mortality rate calculation of 0.4%. This estimate of course does not address possible localized impacts. Since distribution of Kittlitz’s murrelet is so clumped and restricted (unlike marbled murrelet), one can also look at take within regions. The estimated take based on observed takes and fishing effort was 14 birds/year in Yakutat in 2008 (none in 2007), 18 birds/year in Kodiak in 2005 (none in 2002), and 79 birds/year in 1990 and 133 birds in 1991 in the Copper River fishery. Population estimates available for AMMOP study areas indicate about 1,000 birds in the Yakutat area in 2000 (Stephensen and Andres, 2001) and about 4,572 and 2,041 birds in Prince William Sound in 1990 and 1991, respectively (though the most recent estimate was 653 birds in 2018; Kaler, USFWS, unpublished data), with wide confidence intervals for these estimates. Thus, a rough approximation of take relative to local populations, based on two-year averages for AMMOP sites where estimates were available, varied from zero in Cook Inlet to 0.7% in Yakutat and 3.0% in Prince William Sound/Copper

53 River. This is obviously an underestimate relative to the population in the AMMOP fishery areas.. Based on the available quantitative data we concluded that the salmon gillnet fisheries that overlap the range of the Kittlitz’s murrelet in Alaska are likely not unlikely a hindrance to an increase in the population should favorable environmental conditions prevail.

Research on Minimizing Mortality of Diving Seabirds

Research on potential gear modification to reduce seabird by-catch was conducted in 1995 and 1996 for the gillnet fishery in Washington state that operates in the clear waters of the Salish Sea and targets Fraser River and Puget Sound salmon stocks. The goal as this research was to identify possible gear modifications that might reduce the incidental catch of various species of seabirds while not dramatically reducing the effectiveness of salmon harvest Melvin et al. (1997). The standard gear used has 5 to 6-inch mesh and typically measures about 200 meshes deep (about 60 feet). They tested two gear modifications: one incorporated 10-inch opaque mesh in the upper 20 meshes and the other incorporated this material into the upper 50 meshes of monofilament nets of otherwise standard gear. They compared these modifications to a standard net. The experimental nets reduced seabird bycatch by 43% in the 20-mesh deep gear and by 93% in the 50-mesh deep gear. Fishing efficiency was reduced by 7.6 % in the 20-mesh net and by 35.8% in the 50-mesh gear.

The kind of gear modifications used in Puget Sound likely would likely not be applicable in many of the Alaska gillnet fisheries for two reasons. First, unlike Puget Sound, significant portions of the districts where gill netting is allowed occurs in areas that are highly glacial or turbid (e.g. Southeast Districts 8, 11, 15, Yakutat Bay, Copper River District, Coghill District, and Upper Cook Inlet). Perhaps more importantly, the nets used in Alaska are typically much shallower. In Southeast the nets depth is limited to 60 meshes, in Prince William Sound to 45 - 60 meshes, in Cook Inlet to 45 meshes. Kodiak is the exception the set gillnets can be 125 meshes deep. In the South Peninsula the nets can be from 70 – 90 meshes deep. In the Kodiak and South Peninsula areas, where the water is clear using opaque mesh in the upper portion of the nets may be useful in reducing seabird bycatch but the effect on catches is unclear.

54 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome (revised) with additions in underline

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 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 post international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is a effects of the UoA and combined effects of the high degree of certainty associated MSC UoAs and that the combined associated enhancement effects of the MSC UoAs enhancement activities activities on the and associated on the population/stock are enhancement activities population/stock are known and highly likely are within these limits. known and likely to be to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant Justific There are no limits set for any ETP species, as such this clause is not ation relevant B Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Direct effects of the There is a high degree post the UoA including UoA including of confidence that enhancement activities enhancement activities there are no significant are likely to not hinder are highly likely to not detrimental direct recovery of ETP hinder recovery of ETP effects of the UoA species. species. including enhancement activities on ETP species. Met? Yes for All UoA’s Yes for all UoA’s No for all UoA’s Justific In addition to our emphasis on species listed under the Endangered Species ation Act, we also consider marine mammals and migratory birds because they covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Migratory Birds Act (MBA). However, the Marbled Murrelet is listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Southern portion of its range and

55 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN. The Kittlitz’s Murrelet is listed as Near Threated by IUCN and is not listed in the U.S. By-catch of birds and marine mammals was the subject of a Condition of Certification during the first MSC certification in 2000. The condition required collection of by-catch data in test fisheries as a means to identify whether by-catch was a significant conservation issue. As reported by ADF&G and presented in the 2007 recertification report (Chaffee et al. 2007), no by-catch of birds or marine mammals was observed in ADF&G test fisheries in Southeast Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, North Alaskan Peninsula, Shumagin Islands, and Kodiak during 2002, 2003, and/or 2004. Since that time, additional monitoring of bird by-catch has occurred in specific areas of Alaska. This monitoring showed that species including pelagic cormorants, red-faced cormorants, harlequin ducks, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, common murres, thick- billed murres, horned puffins, tufted puffins, sooty shearwaters, Kittlitz's murrelets, Arctic loon, white-winged scoters, red- throated loon, gulls, long-tailed duck and other species may be taken in relatively small numbers across the fishery. It is noted that the “expanded” take of Kittlitz's murrelets, an ESA candidate species, was 0 in 2002 and 18.1 in 2005 (Kodiak), 0 in 2007 and 14 in 2008 (Yakutat), and 0 in LCI and UCI. Blejwas & Wright (2012) examined spatial and temporal overlap of Kittlitz's murrelets with gillnets in PWS, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and Yakutat and concluded that most Kittlitz's murrelets were found in areas where there was no fishing. In areas of overlap, they concluded “the total number of birds exposed to gillnets in any of the overlap areas is small”. None of these species are listed under the U.S. ESA. Data from the AMMOP program shows that Kittlitz’s murrelets are taken in small numbers in Yakutat Bay and Prince William Sound. Marbled Murrelets are taken the Southeast, Yakutat, Prince William Sound. Kittlitz’s murrelets are also taken in Cook Inlet, Kodiak and South Unimak but the numbers are low in comparison to the estimated population size. The level of annual mortality likely experienced in the gillnet fisheries is relatively insignificant to the total population and would not hinder a rebound of the population to historic numbers given favorable environmental and habitat conditions. NMFS classifies commercial salmon fisheries with respect to by-catch of marine mammals. Under the 2017 letter of determination (Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017) no Alaska salmon gear-area combination is listed as a Category I fishery (i.e., frequent incidental

56 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species mortality or serious injury of marine mammals). A number are classified as Category II (i.e., occasional incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals). Other gear-area combinations are classified as Category III (i.e., remote likelihood of/no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals) or last simply not categorized. NMFS has estimated total annual by-catch of marine mammals in some fisheries and determined that the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) taken in Alaska salmon fisheries is relatively low (typically <5% of the PBR). Based on the impacts of the individual Alaska salmon fisheries, NMFS has not found a need to imposed any constraints such as would be required in a Take Reduction Program, nor the need to impose observer coverage. There are eleven species listed under the ESA that may be found in waters off Alaska. ESA listed bird Species include the Steller eider, Spectacled eider, and Short tailed Albatross. The Steller’s eider is found only in Southwest Alaska (Yukon, Kuskokwim, Alaska Peninsula and Bristol Bay UoA’s. Spectacled eiders are found central Bering Sea south of St. Lawrence Island, where they remain in large flocks until March or April. When molting they can be found in Norton Sound UoA. They are not found in any other UoA. The Short-tailed albatross is found throughout the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. They are typically found in offshore waters but may be found in waters where the fisheries of the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak, Copper – Bering and Southeastern (troll) and Yakutat (troll) fisheries operate. The available data does not show significant numbers of encounters or associated mortality of these ESA listed bird species in the UoA’s where found. As such the USFWS does not require any Alaska salmon fishery to have an incidental take permit, nor do the recovery plans require or recommend any action in the salmon fisheries where these birds are found. Seven marine mammal species are ESA listed and some may be encountered in one or more Alaskan salmon fishery UoA’s. The eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of sea otters can be found in the Alaska Peninsula UoA. Observer data indicates that there is a very low encounter rate and very low subsequent mortality rate because the otters either free themselves or the fishermen disentangle them. There is some evidence of human caused mortality by shooting. The Western DPS of Steller sea Lyons can be found in the Alaska Peninsula, Chignik, Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet, Kodiak and PWS UoA’s. NOAA categorizes the Kodiak set net, Alaska Peninsula set net and Cook Inlet set net fisheries as having occasional encounters and causing occasional mortality, but NOAA has not placed any restrictions,

57 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species permits or take limits on the salmon fisheries in these UoA’s. Encounters with marine debris is an issue for Steller sea Lions. The most common encounters with fishing gear are for flashers and bait used by recreational and commercial troll fisheries. However, commercial trolling is not permitted within the range of the Western DPS. Another primary form of encounter is with packing bands and large rubber bands typically found on bait boxes used by longline and crab fisheries. Last, there is an occasional encounter with lost net gear but the fishery (e.g. trawl, seine, gillnet) from where the nets originated was not specified. There are six species of whales that may be found off the coast of Alaska, bowhead whales, fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales, N. Pacific Right whales and Beluga whales. . Because bearded seals are closely associated with sea ice, particularly pack ice, their seasonal distribution and movements are linked to seasonal changes in ice conditions. To remain associated with their preferred ice habitat, bearded seals generally move north in late spring and summer as the ice melts and retreats and then south in the fall as sea ice forms. As such they are not likely found in any UoA during the summer fishing season. Bowhead whales can be found off Alaska in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. They spend the winter near the southern limit of the pack ice and move north as the sea ice breaks up and recedes during spring as such, they ae not likely in any UoA during the summer fishing season. Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans, primarily in temperate to polar latitudes. They are less common in the tropics. They occur year-round in a wide range of locations, but the density of individuals in any one area changes seasonally. Most migrate from the Arctic and Antarctic feeding areas in the summer to tropical breeding and calving areas in the winter. The location of winter breeding grounds is not known. Fin whales travel in the open seas, away from the coast, so they are difficult to track. As such they are not likely to be found in any UoA where salmon fishing occurs. Sei whales have a wide distribution and live in subtropical, temperate, and subpolar waters around the world. They prefer temperate waters in the mid-latitudes, and can be found in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. During the summer, they are commonly found in the Gulf of Maine, and on and Stellwagen Bank off the U.S. coast in the western North Atlantic. The movement patterns of sei whales are not well known, but they are typically observed in deeper waters far from the coastline and as such it is unlikely that sei whales are found in any salmon

58 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species Alaskan UoA. Sperm whales inhabit all of the world’s oceans and spend most of their time in deep waters, where they forage at great depths for food. Because of their off-shore distribution, they are unlikely to enter any Alaskan UoA where fishing occurs. Worldwide, belugas may number in the hundreds of thousands; however, some stocks are small, numbering in the low hundreds. The endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale population has declined by nearly 80 percent since 1979, from about 1,300 whales to an estimated 279 whales in 2018. The rapid decline and dire status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population makes it a priority for NOAA Fisheries. Because there are so few, if any encounters with these whales and the bearded seal, NOAA does not consider the Alaska Salmon fisheries as encountering these species and does not require any incidental take permits nor set any restrictions on Alaska salmon fishing operations. There are four ESU’s of ESA listed Chinook Salmon that are harvested in the troll fishery of the Yakutat and Southeast UoA’s and in the gillnet and seine fisheries of Southeast Alaska. As discussed earlier, the catch of fish from these ESU’s are small, and the harvest rates are low and have been decreasing since the Pacific Salmon Treaty was signed in 1985. NOAA Fisheries has certified that the catches in these fisheries are not hindering recovery. In summary, an ESA listed species may be encountered in the following UoA’s; Norton Sound, Bristol Bay, Alaska Peninsula, Chignik, Kodiak, Lower and Upper Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, Copper Bering, Yakutat and Southeast. There is sufficient information to conclude that direct effects for all UoA’s where ESA species may be found are highly likely to not hinder recovery. There is no data to conclude that enhancement activities have any measurable negative effect on ETP species. However, these data are insufficient to conclude that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects. As such the SG 80 level but not the SG 100 level is attainted for all UoA’s. In the remaining UoA’s there is sufficient information to conclude that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA including enhancement activities on these ETP species. C Indirect Guide Indirect effects have There is a high degree post been considered for of confidence that the UoA including there are no significant enhancement activities detrimental indirect

59 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species and are thought to be effects of the UoA highly likely to not including enhancement create unacceptable activities on ETP impacts. species. Met? Yes for all UoAs No for all UoA’s Justific Of the remaining UoA’s five bird species (the Steller eider, spectacled eider, short ation tailed albatross, Marbled Murrelet and Kittlitz’s Murrelet ) may be found in one or more UoA (see above), as well as two marine mammals, the eastern DPS of sea otter and western DPS of Steller sea Lions (also see locations above). There are no enhancement activities within the Yakutat, Bristol Bay, Norton Sound, Chignik and Alaska Peninsula UoA’s. Purse seines and set nets may drag on the bottom when in use but any impacts are likely temporary and the IMM (2013) was not aware of any evidence or suggestions that this would, in any case, cause detrimental indirect effects on ETP species. ESA listed birds, sea otter or Steller sea Lions may temporarily avoid some areas where fishing occurs but such temporary avoidance is unlikely to produce significant detrimental indirect effects. Ghost fishing of lost salmon gear is rare because purse seines and gill nets are seldom lost because all commercial fishing gear must be attended when operating. The occasional loss of salmon troll gear, predominately lead weights, is also rare but would have little to no impact on ESA listed species in Southeast and Yakutat because the weights would simply lie on the substrate at significant depth. Escapement goals are set at levels consistent with supporting upstream communities and species dependent on healthy salmon runs, and harvest is managed, and curtailed if needed, to ensure escapement to the greatest degree possible. Because management is set to achieve a maximum sustained yield, there should be no adverse impacts on oceanic predators of salmon. We conclude that it is highly likely that all UoA’s where ESA listed species may be found do not create unacceptable impacts on ETP species and therefore meet the SG 80 level of performance. We cannot conclude however that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant indirect effects by the UoA’s, as such the SG 100 level is not met. Blejwas, K. M., and S. K. Wright. 2012. By-catch of Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) in commercial salmon gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska: A qualitative risk assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, References Wildlife Research Report ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2012-8, Juneau. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/research_pdfs/wrr_ 2012_8.pdf

60 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species Chaffee, C., Ruggerone, G., Beamesderfer, R. & L.W. Botsford. (2007). The commercial Alaska salmon fisheries managed by the ADF&G; A 5-year re- assessment based on the Marine Stewardship Council program. Scientific Certification Systems, Inc., Emeryville, California. 350 pp. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/alaska-salmon/@@assessments IMM (Intertek Moody Marine). 2013. Alaska Salmon Fishery Final Determination Report. October 2013. Marine Stewardship Council. London UK. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/alaska-salmon/@@assessments OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2.3.1.A 2.3.1.B 2.3.1.C Score Southeast N/R 80 80 80 Yakutat N/R 80 80 80 P W S N/R 80 80 80 Copper-Bering N/R 80 80 80 L Cook Inlet N/R 80 80 80 U. Cook Inlet N/R 80 80 80 Bristol Bay N/R 80 80 80 Kuskokwim N/R 80 80 80 Yukon N/R 80 80 80 Norton Sound N/R 80 80 80 Kotzebue N/R 80 80 80 Kodiak N/R 80 80 80 Chignik N/R 80 80 80 80 Ak. Peninsula N/R 80 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

61 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy (revised)

The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality UoA and enhancement strategy in place for of ETP species due to activities’ impact on managing the UoA and the UoA including ETP species, including enhancement enhancement measures to minimise activities’ impact on activities, and are mortality, which is ETP species, including expected to be highly designed to be highly measures to minimise likely to achieve likely to achieve mortality, which is national and national and designed to achieve international international above national and requirements for the requirements for the international protection of ETP protection of ETP requirements for the species. species. protection of ETP species. Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant Justific There are no requirement (e.g. a Take Reduction Plan) set for ETP species in any ation Alaska salmon fishery, as such this clause is not relevant. B Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected place that is expected comprehensive to ensure the UoA to ensure the UoA strategy in place for including enhancement including enhancement managing ETP species, activities do not hinder activities do not hinder to ensure the UoA the recovery of ETP the recovery of ETP including enhancement species. species. activities do not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes for all UoAs Yes for all UoAs No for all UoAs

62 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Justific There are three basic elements to Alaska’s strategy to ensure that the salmon ation fisheries do not hinder recovery of ETP species. First, the Sustainable Fisheries Act requires the BoF to consider ecological issues when establishing regulations, such as the incidental take of ESA listed species. Second, by design, the gill net fisheries in particular, which are of primary concern to Marbled murrelets and Kittlitz’s murrelets, are confined in time and space to where salmon congregate on their migration. This results in a very limited window for fishing to occur in relation to the available habitat for these birds. Last is that regulations prohibit the take of ESA and other non-target species. This approach constitutes is an indirect strategy which limits incidental take. In regard to Steller Sea Lions, fishing is prohibited near rookeries and haul-out areas. NOAA’s marine mammal observer program has an outreach component that educates fishermen with regard to marine mammals and birds, although the outreach program does not engage every fishery each year. This strategy is consistent with the observed low level of ETP by-catch relative to overall population size, and is expected to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder recovery of ETP species (even though the murrelets which are listed in the Pacific Northwest, are not listed in Alaska). The fishery meets the SG 80 level of performance. The operational strategy that the Alaska salmon fishery maintains cannot be considered to be comprehensive because of the lack of an ongoing observer program. This prevents the fishery from meeting the monitoring requirement of a comprehensive strategy, we therefore conclude that the SG 100 level of performance is not met. . C Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensiv work, based on that the e strategy is mainly plausible argument measures/strategy will based on information (e.g., general work, based on directly about the experience, theory or information directly fishery and/or species comparison with about the fishery involved, and a similar and/or the species quantitative analysis fisheries/species). involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

63 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Met? Yes for all UoAs Yes for all UoAs No for all UoAs Justific The available data regarding encounters and mortality from the AMMOP and test ation fisheries for Steller sea Lions provides an objective basis for confidence that encounters and mortality with the Western DPS of Steller sea Lions is low. Data on self-reporting of encounters with marine mammals also indicates very low incidence. Fishing is prohibited around rookeries and haul-outs for the Western DPS Steller sea Lions and this greatly reduces the chance for encounters. The primary interaction of Steller sea Lions and salmon gear is with troll gear, and this gear is prohibited within the range of the listed western DPS and as such sea Lions with such troll gear as flashers is not observed in this DPS. These data sets provide an objective basis for confidence that for Western DPS Steller sea Lions in the Alaska Peninsula, Chignik, Bristol Bay Kodiak Cook Inlet and PWS UoAs is working. Observer data indicates very low mortality rate of the eastern DPS of Sea otters (found in the Alaska Peninsula UoA) because the primary encounter is with gill nets and otters either free themselves of the gillnet or fishermen disentangle them. Also, there is a very low incidence of self-reporting of encounters with eastern DPS sea otters. These data provide an objective basis that the prohibition of taking sea otters is working. Test fish data in Southeast Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, North Alaskan Peninsula, Shumagin Islands, and Kodiak during 2002, 2003, and/or 2004 show no encounters with spectacled eiders, Steller eiders or albatross. Likewise, observer data collected in Kodiak, Yakutat, PWS, LCI, UCI, and Southeast UoA’s also show no encounters with spectacled eiders, Steller eiders or albatross. Data from the AMMOP program shows that Kittlitz’s murrelets are taken in small numbers in Yakutat Bay, Kodiak, and Prince William Sound. Marbled murrelets are taken in the Southeast, Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak and South Unimak. The number taken is low in comparison to the estimated total population size.

These data sets provide an objective basis for determining that the minimal strategies employed (primarily prohibiting take in designated near shore fishing waters) is working. Because not all fisheries in every UoA have been sampled, and the data sets are limited to a few years, we concluded that all the remaining UoAs meet the SG 80 of performance but not the SG 100 level. D Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensiv

64 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. being implemented e strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes for all UoAs No for all UoAs Justific Quantitative information on the by-catch of ETP species is available from the ation fisheries, but not all area-gear combinations have been sampled, and the data are limited to one or two years.. A more comprehensive level of sampling would be required for the fishery to meet the SG100 level of performance. E Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial post potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of practicality of minimise UoA-related alternative measures to alternative measures to mortality of ETP minimise UoA and minimise UoA and species. enhancement related enhancement related mortality of ETP species mortality ETP species, and they are and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes for all UoA’s Yes for UOAs north of No for all UoA’s Bristol Bay No for LCI, UCI, PWS, Copper-Bering, SEAK, Kodiak, Chignik and Alaska Peninsula UOAs relative to murrelets. Justific The Marine Mammal Protection act requires that the NMFS publish a LOF ation each year. The annual LOF reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must classify each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of mortality and serious injury of marine

65 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements. Because the level of mortality is not high enough in any of the Alaska salmon fisheries to require a RP, there has not been a need to conduct an annual review of alternative measures to minimize ETP related mortality. There have measures put in place to eliminate contact of fishing gear with Steller Sea Lion by closing areas around rookeries and these will likely continue. The Endangered Species Act requires a review every five years on the status of a listed species and impacts. This review constitutes a “Regular Review” and as such the SG 80 level is met but not the SG 100 level because the review is not biennial. In regards to non-ESA listed Kittlitz’s murrelet and Marbled murrelet we are not aware of any internal review by ADFG or the BoF of “the potential effectiveness and practically of alternative measures to minimize U of A related mortality.” Whereas the multistakeholder workshop held as part of the 1st annual audit site visit can be considered a review as defined in SG60, (going over the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures as well as getting a more comprehensive understanding of potential impact) in order to be a regular review, there would have had to be more than one such review in a reasonable timeframe. The SG80 is not met for this scoring issue for murrelets, and a new condition is assigned. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA 2.3.2.A 2.3.2.B 2.3.2.C 2.3.2.D 2.3.2.E Score Southeast N/R 80 80 80 60 75 Yakutat N/R 80 80 80 60 75 P W S N/R 80 80 80 60 75 Copper-Bering N/R 80 80 80 60 75 L Cook Inlet N/R 80 80 80 60 75 U. Cook Inlet N/R 80 80 80 60 75 Bristol Bay N/R 80 80 80 60 80 Kuskokwim N/R 80 80 80 80 80 Yukon N/R 80 80 80 80 80 Norton Sound N/R 80 80 80 80 80 Kotzebue N/R 80 80 80 80 80

66 The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • PI 2.3.2 meet national and international requirements • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Kodiak N/R 80 80 80 60 75 Chignik N/R 80 80 80 60 75

Ak. Peninsula N/R 80 80 80 60 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 10

67 3.4.2 Principle 3: Decision-making Processes– New Information re: Enhancement Additional information on the incidence of stray hatchery fish in Lower Cook Inlet streams was obtained at the surveillance. Significant numbers of hatchery-origin Pink Salmon strays from Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet hatcheries have recently been documented in streams throughout lower Cook Inlet (Otis and Hollowell 2019). This issue was first identified in 2014 and similar straying has been observed is subsequent years. New information was also identified regarding straying of Chum Salmon from a hatchery release site in Crawfish Inlet, Southeast Alaska. Crawfish Inlet was identified as a suitable release site based on a comprehensive review of alternatives around 2011. The site was sufficiently segregated from natural chum spawning areas to provide for significant terminal fishing opportunities on returning fish in an area without natural chum salmon spawning streams, hence, little risk of significant straying into natural populations. However, large numbers of Crawfish Inlet hatchery fish were subsequently observed to return via West Crawfish Inlet which is connected to Crawfish Inlet by a small channel. Several chum spawning streams are located in West Crawfish Inlet and significant numbers of hatchery chum salmon have been observed straying into these streams. One of these streams is also a wild index stream for stock assessment purposes. The local wild population is a summer run stock. The Medvejie hatchery stock used in Crawford Inlet is a fall run stock, however there is potential superimposition of wild run redds by the fall-timed hatchery fish. New information was provided at the surveillance for the pioneering, long-term study of hatchery-wild Pink and Chum Salmon interactions which is ongoing. This project is evaluating 1) genetic stock structure of Pink and Chum Salmon (Cheng et at. 2016, 2019; Gilk-Baumer and Templin 2019); 2) the incidence of hatchery origin pink and chum salmon in natural spawning areas of Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska (ADFG 2018, 2019c); and 3) relative reproductive success (RRS) of wild and hatchery-origin Pink Salmon spawning in the wild (Lescak et al. 2019a, 2019b). Detailed updates on project progress, results and plans were also published in a 2019 informational meeting of project contractors and the science panel composed of current and retired scientists from ADF&G, University of Alaska, aquaculture associations, and National Marine Fisheries Service, and organized by ADF&G to provide technical review and guidance for this study. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingHatcheriesResearch.findings_updates#mee tings. Genetic differences have been now been identified among substocks of Pink salmon in Prince William Sound (Cheng et at. 2016, 2019) and Chum Salmon in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska (Gilk-Baumer and Templin 2019). Genetic variation within Pink Salmon populations in Prince William Sound is very small but significant differences have been documented between east side and west side streams and early and late collections. Kodiak pinks are significantly different from Prince William Sound Pinks and significant genetic differences were identified between wild and some hatchery stocks. Significant differences mean that pink salmon are not from a single homogenous population (Cheng et al. 2016). Studies have now documented the distribution and magnitude of straying by hatchery origin Pink and Chum Salmon into natural spawning areas of Prince William Sound and Southeast

68 Alaska (ADFG 2018, 2019c). Substantial numbers of stray hatchery fish have been observed for both species (ADFG 2018, Otis and Hollowell 2019). The incidence of strays varies considerably from stream to stream depending on proximity to the hatcheries and routes of fish return. Information on relative fitness has only recently becoming available as it requires genetic parentage analysis across multiple generations (Lescak et al. (2019a, 2019b). Significant fitness reductions have previously been documented in some hatchery populations of Chinook, Coho and Steelhead which spend one or more years in an artificial hatchery environment. However, many people have hypothesized much lower hatchery effects for Pink and Chum Salmon which spend a much shorter period of time in the hatchery. The Alaska Hatchery Study is one of the first to examine the relative fitness of hatchery Pink and Chum Salmon spawning in the wild. Initial study results for Pink Salmon in two Prince William Sound streams suggest that reproductive success was significantly lower for hatchery-origin relative to natural origin fish. Results were consistent for several lineages. These are the first in a series of Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) analyses under the Alaska Hatchery Research Program (Lescak et al. 2019b). Future work in PWS will provide replicate analyses in four more streams, include samples from 2017–2019, investigate RRS in different mating combinations between natural- and hatchery-origin fish, and explore multi-generational effects. Important questions remain regarding the mechanisms driving the effect observed in this study (Lescak et al. 2019b). This new information on hatcheries was considered, where applicable, in progress assessments for enhancement-related conditions (see Section 3.2). In addition, this new information caused the surveillance team to review the scores and scoring rationale for Performance Indicator 3.2.2 related to decision-making processes. This review led to revision of the rationale and score for PI 3.2.2 as follows. Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 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 There are established post decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific and the fishery-specific and enhancement enhancement objectives. objectives. Met? Yes Yes

69 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justific ADF&G and the BOF provide well-established decision-making processes ation that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific and enhancement objectives. The BoF establishes polices and fishery implementation direction in the form of management plans for specific areas and stocks. ADF&G implements fisheries according to management plans based on inseason information to optimize harvests and achieve escapement goals. Regional Planning Teams provide for an established decision-making processes with regard to enhancement activities. There are regulations governing actions of RPT’s requiring actions to prevent negative impacts of hatchery operation on wild stocks. Therefore, the SG80 is met for this scoring issue. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to serious issues serious and other all issues identified in identified in relevant important issues relevant research, research, monitoring, identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation evaluation and research, monitoring, and consultation, in a consultation, in a evaluation and transparent, timely and transparent, timely and consultation, in a adaptive manner and adaptive manner and transparent, timely and take account of the take some account of adaptive manner and wider implications of the wider implications take account of the decisions. of decisions. wider implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No No Justific Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues. ation For instance, action Plans are developed in a timely manner when a Stock of Concern is identified by ADF&G and the BOF. The management system may also respond to important issues before stocks become a stock of concern. Management plans are revised by the BoF to address issues identified during regular BOF meetings in a public process. In addition, hatchery permits are awarded or declined (including requests for expansion) on the basis of commitment and adherence to hatchery management policies as described in earlier PIs. While ADFG decision- making processes are generally responsive to serious issues identified

70 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. through research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, it is not clear that they do so for all “serious and other important issues” as required by SG80 scoring issue B. New information presented by stakeholders regarding specific important issues (e.g. straying of chum salmon into West Crawfish spawning streams) have not been responded to at a level consistent with SG80. While ADFG and hatchery operators are responding to issues identified, it can be argued that they have not responded in a timely, adaptive and transparent way. For example, the ecological issues with the remote release site at Crawfish Inlet have been known for at least three years, and while the issue has been monitored and there has been dialogue between ADFG and the NSRAA, no precautionary action has occurred to date. In addition, recent issues pertaining to interregional straying of hatchery fish from PWS to LCI have not yet received a management response or been explicitly incorporated into ongoing hatchery impact studies. The SG80 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes No Justific Decision-making processes use best available information and typically ation balance the socio-economic needs with the precautionary approach to maintain sustainable fisheries. Evidence for this is shown from consistent achievement of established escapement goals on the whole, and where this is not the case, management has responded by closing fisheries where appropriate and designating Stocks of Concern which require specific management and monitoring action. The precautionary approach is mandated by specific provisions in the Sustainable Salmon Fishery Policy adopted by the BoF. The scientific basis for fishery management is continually being refined based on an extensive research program. Thus, the SG80 is met.Thus, this standard is met with respect to the fishery management decision making processes. It is not clear that a precautionary approach is being effectively applied to hatchery enhancement activities in all cases. The MSC assessment team reviewed new information provided at the first annual surveillance and a number of written stakeholder comments relating to hatchery

71 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. enhancement activities. This information raised a number of concerns relative to the interpretation and application of a precautionary approach to hatchery enhancement. Accordingly, the SG80 standard was not clearly achieved and this PI was rescored accordingly. The MSC standard defines the precautionary approach to mean that decision-making processes use caution when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate (FS 2.01 SA4.8.2). A precautionary approach is specifically directed in Alaska fishery management under a Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries (SSFP) adopted by regulation in the Alaska Administrative Code [5 AAC 39.222]. For the purposes of this assessment, the fishery was evaluated relative to the State of Alaska Policy which is consistent with the MSC definition. The SSFP defines the precautionary policy as follows: (A) a precautionary approach, involving the application of prudent foresight that takes into account the uncertainties in salmon fisheries and habitat management, the biological, social, cultural, and economic risks, and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge, should be applied to the regulation and control of harvest and other human-induced sources of salmon mortality; a precautionary approach requires (i) consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of potentially irreversible changes; (ii) prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid undesirable outcomes or correct them promptly; (iii) initiation of any necessary corrective measure without delay and prompt achievement of the measure's purpose, on a time scale not exceeding five years, which is approximately the generation time of most salmon species; (iv) that where the impact of resource use is uncertain, but likely presents a measurable risk to sustained yield, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; (v) appropriate placement of the burden of proof, of adherence to the requirements of this subparagraph, on those plans or ongoing activities that pose a risk or hazard to salmon habitat or production; The Alaska Genetic Policy states that “gene flow from hatchery fish straying and intermingling with wild stocks may have significant detrimental effects

72 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. on wild stocks. First priority will be given to the protection of wild stocks from possible harmful interactions with introduced stocks.” Hatchery straying can significantly reduce the productivity of a wild population in situations where hatchery and wild stocks are genetically different and hatchery fish are less fit (e.g., Reisenbichler & McIntyre 1977, Lynch & O’Hely 2001, Ford 2002, Chilcote 2003, Nickelson 2003, Brannon et al. 2004, Ford et al. 2006, Kostow 2009, Chilcote et al. 2011). Detrimental effects of hatchery straying on fitness and productivity of wild fish are related to the genetic stock structure of the wild stock, the contribution of hatchery fish to natural spawning and the relative fitness of the hatchery fish. A pioneering long-term hatchery research project is underway in Alaska to assess each of these subjects. While this work is ongoing, results to date indicate that the potential for significant negative impacts of hatchery straying cannot be readily discounted. Significant genetic differences have been identified between groups on populations of Pink and Chum Salmon in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska – thus, large levels of straying among widely distributed populations is not a natural condition. Substantial numbers of hatchery fish have been observed spawning in some wild populations which creates an opportunity for negative interactions. Finally, preliminary results appear to indicate that relative reproductive success of hatchery-origin Pink Salmon ay be substantially less than that of wild fish. Thus, stray hatchery fish pose a potential risk to the genetic characteristics of local populations. Evenson et al. (2018) recently reviewed implementation of hatchery plans, permits and policies and concluded that current implementation for SEAK Chinook salmon and PWS pink salmon are largely consistent with a precautionary approach. Evenson et al. (2018) found no elements of any of the policies that were particularly concerning for the SEAK Chinook salmon or PWS Pink Salmon enhancement programs, though several policies were identified as needing improvement and the report provided several recommendations for improvement particularly with respect to genetic policy definitions and guidance. More work remains to be done to ultimate resolve questions of hatchery impact or risk to wild Pink and Chum Salmon stocks – effects remain uncertain and may ultimately prove to be negligible. But in the face of uncertainty, the precautionary policy specifically calls for a conservative approach in the face of uncertainty. Where risks are uncertain, a precautionary policy would place the burden of proof, not on proving an

73 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. impact before precautionary conservative measures are implemented, but rather on implementing conservative measures until absence of significant impact can be demonstrated. In at least several cases of potentially significant hatchery impact, it is not clear that existing policies, plans and processes have effectively controlled hatchery risks or that conservative measures have been implemented in a manner consistent with this precautionary principle: In Lower Cook Inlet, substantial numbers of stray Prince William Sound hatchery Pink Salmon were first documented in 2014 and subsequent observations have confirmed that this is a chronic situation. The potential impact of hatchery strays increases with the distance from the source populations and LCI is in an entirely different management unit than PWS where these hatchery fish originate. The SSFP precautionary definition calls for initiation of any necessary corrective measure without delay and prompt achievement of the measure's purpose. We are not aware of corrective actions to address straying of Prince William Sound Pink Salmon into LCI. In the case Crawford Inlet, unforeseen migration patterns have resulted in substantial numbers of stray fall run chum salmon spawning on top of the wild natural summer run in West Crawford Inlet streams. This is clearly a situation where hatchery production has negatively impacted a wild stock. ADF&G is attempting to manage this problem by increasing targeted harvest of hatchery fish in order to reduce straying. However, it appears that the original assumptions of segregation of the remote release site from natural spawning areas was not met. The situation remains under study while other more precautionary measures such as placing weirs on the wild streams or reducing or relocating hatchery releases have not been implemented to date. The SSFP calls for prior identification of undesirable outcomes but no criteria have yet been established by ADF&G to determine “acceptable” levels of hatchery strays. A 1994 Phase III Regional Comprehensive Plan for Prince William Sound and Copper River recommended that straying of hatchery fish must remain below 2% of the wild stock escapement over the long term. However, Evenson et al. (2018) reported that this recommendation was not well supported by research and the Regional Planning Team recognized that more data were needed to improve understanding of interbreeding of hatchery and wild salmon. In the face of

74 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. uncertainty, a precautionary approach would appear to argue for an interim standard based on the best available current science. Spawning escapements continue to be assessed relative to goals without consideration for the contribution of hatchery fish to those escapements. Hatchery releases and enhancement reached a record 1.8 billion in 2018 (Stopha 2019). Total releases have increased by 10% since Alaska’s comprehensive hatchery research study was initiated in 2011 relative to the previous 10-year average. Hatchery operators report that there are no current plans to increase hatchery production in the near term beyond permitted levels but additional increases could be considered as part of the normal hatchery permitting process.

Annual Total Release of Salmon from Alaska Hatcheries 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 Millions of fry 400 200 0

In summary, Alaska’s Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries defines precautionary management to include conservative management of artificial propagation in the face of uncertainty. Alaska is conducting a comprehensive hatchery study to reduce uncertainty in hatchery impacts. In the interim, Alaska has implemented a complex of policies, plans, processes and reviews designed to reduce hatchery-related risks to wild production. However, several recent examples suggest that current practices have not been universally effective in eliminating impacts and risks. Corrective measures have been slow to be implemented in several cases pending more definitive conclusions from the hatchery study. However, precautionary decision-making places weight of burden of proof in favor of prioritizing conservation of the productive capacity of the resource even in the face of uncertainty. In addition, initial hatchery study

75 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. findings appear to suggest that risks may be greater than has been previously hypothesized. Therefore, we cannot conclude that decision- making processes are effectively precautionary with regard to hatchery enhancement. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all post fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides action is generally available on request, comprehensive available on request to and explanations are information on fishery stakeholders. provided for any performance and actions or lack of action management actions associated with and describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings emerging from and relevant research, monitoring, recommendations evaluation and review emerging from activity. research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justific Explanations for actions are typically provided in management reports, ation Board of Fishery reports, advisory meetings, or other public meeting for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. ADF&G prepares annual management reports, escapement goal reviews, and hatchery production trends, and these reports typically respond to emerging issues. Other reports provide all recent information and data relative to hatchery impacts such as reporting levels of inter- regional straying. ADF&G has also completed program reviews for current hatchery programs and documented findings in a series of regular and publicly available reports. Stakeholders have raised concerns that, e.g. enhancement annual production reports do not include all recent and relevant research findings. Upon investigation, however, the team confirmed that information emerging from monitoring and research

76 The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to PI 3.2.2 achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. findings is indeed published, albeit in separate report series. Therefore, the SG100 is met. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management The management post management authority system or fishery is system or fishery acts or fishery may be attempting to comply proactively to avoid subject to continuing in a timely fashion with legal disputes or rapidly court challenges, it is judicial decisions implements judicial not indicating a arising from any legal decisions arising from disrespect or defiance challenges. legal challenges. of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes Justific The management system acts to avoid legal disputes and rapidly ation implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges where appropriate. The proactive avoidance of legal disputes is evidenced primarily through the transparent and inclusive fisheries management process within the BoF and others. Early and frequent public engagement and responsiveness can be regarded as proactive avoidance of legal action due to unresolved disputes. Fishery allocation and jurisdictional issues are periodically challenged in the court system and adjudicated, hence the SG100 s met for this scoring issue.

References See Section 3.6 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 9570 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

77 4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques The surveillance audit process as defined in the MSC Fishery Certification Process v2.1 was followed in this audit. Information supplied by the clients and management agencies was reviewed by the assessment team ahead of the on-site meeting, and discussions with the clients and management agencies centered on the content within the provided documentation. In cases where relevant documentation was not provided in advance of the meeting, it was requested by the assessment team and subsequently supplied during or shortly after the meeting. Thirty days prior to the surveillance audit, all stakeholders from the full assessment and previous surveillance audits were informed of the meeting and the opportunity to provide information to the auditors in advance of, or during, the meeting. The notification of the surveillance audit was also published on the MSC website on 6 Nov 2019. 4.1 Site Visits The surveillance audit was held in Anchorage, Alaska in December 9-11, 2019. The surveillance team consisted of Amanda Stern-Pirlot (team leader) accompanied by Ray Beamesderfer and Scott Marshall, both of whom were members of the assessment team. Meetings were conducted in conference spaces at the Aleutian Pribilof Community Development Association (APICDA) office and in the Hilton Hotel (HH). All members of the assessment team attended all meetings. The MSC surveillance audit meetings were conducted concurrently with a certification reassessment for the Responsible Fisheries Management (RFM) program of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. Non-public meetings in the surveillance were jointly attended by the MSC and RFM teams. The meeting itinerary and participants can be found in Table 11 and Table 12. All issues were addressed as laid out in Section 7.23.12 of the MSC Certification Requirements, including the principal changes occurring to the fishery since the previous surveillance and the outcomes as outlined in the Client Action Plan (CAP) against the conditions set. The assessors drew from referenced material (emails, notices, research submissions, published and draft documents and personal communications) to support the findings in the report. Table 11. Itinerary of surveillance meetings in Anchorage Alaska, 2019. Date Location Subject Introductions & Opening meeting (Team & Client representatives) Fishery status & changes (ADFG representatives) Hatchery-wild interactions & fitness studies (ADFG representatives) 12/9 Mon APICDA River Temperature Monitoring (Cook Inlet Keepers) Marine Ecosystem Conditions (NOAA Alaska Science Center) Hatchery Operations (Private Nonprofit Hatchery Operators) Stakeholder meetings Stock Status / Stocks of Concern (ADFG representatives) Southeast Alaska Hatchery Management (ADFG representatives) 12/10 Tue APICDA Chinook Research (ADFG representatives) Closing meeting (Team & Client representatives) 12/11 Wed HH Seabird Workshop

78

Table 12. List of participants in surveillance meetings. (additional participants in avian bycatch symposium are identified in Appendix A.) Name Affiliation Role Participation Amanda Stern-Pirlot MRAG Americas MSC assessment Ray Beamesderfer MRAG team MSC assessment All Scott Marshall MRAG team & SAI Global team MSC & RFM assessments Kate Dewar Marine Stewardship Council Representative Dr. Brain Allee SAI Global team RFM assessment Dr. Marc Liverman SAI Global team RFM assessment All (except MSC Ivan Mateo SAI Global RFM assessment public comment) Dave Gaudet Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation Assessment facilitator Jeff Regnart Responsible Fisheries Management Representative Julie Decker Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation Client representative Closing meeting Sam Rabung Alaska Department of Fish & Game Commercial Fishery Division Director Fishery status & Bill Templin Alaska Department of Fish & Game Chief Scientist Hatchery Studies Kyle Shedd Alaska Department of Fish & Game Geneticist Sue Mauger Cook Inlet Keeper Executive Director River temperatures Elizabeth Siddon NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Scientist Marine Ecosystem Stephani Zador NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Scientist Conditions Tina Fairbanks Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Associations Executive Director David Landis Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association General Manager Hatchery Mike Wells Valdez Fisheries Development Association Executive Director Operations Tommy Sheridan Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation General Manager/CEO Dean Day Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association Executive Director Penelope Haas Kachemak Bay Conservation Society Stakeholder Nancy Hillstrand Interested Party Stakeholder Hal Geiger Interested Party Stakeholder Public Comments Leon Shaul Interested Party Stakeholder Kirsten Dixon Interested Party Stakeholder Andrew Munro Alaska Department of Fish & Game Biologist Stock Status Lowell Fair Alaska Department of Fish & Game Southeast Regional Supervisor Hatchery Mgmt Phil Richards Alaska Department of Fish & Game Biologist Chinook Research

79 4.2 Stakeholder Participation Written public comments were received from Penelope Haas (Kachemak Bay Conservation Society), Nancy Hillstrand (Interested Party), and Yann Rouxel and Rory Crawford (Birdlife International Marine Program). The assessment team met with Penelope Haas, Nancy Hillstrand, Hal Geiger, Leon Shaul and Kirsten Dixon to discuss their comments. Yann Rouxel participated in the Seabird Workshop.

80 5 Stakeholder Input 5.1 Written Submissions 5.1.1 Kachemak Bay Conservation Society

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96 5.1.2 N. Hillstrand

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149 5.1.3 Birdlife International Marine Program

150

151

152

153

154

155

156 5.2 Response to Stakeholder Comments 5.2.1 Kachemak Bay Conservation Society & N. Hillstrand Hatchery-related Principle 1 Issues The current certification includes eight conditions which specifically address hatchery-related Principle I issues. Assessments of progress relative to these conditions are described in Section 3.2 of this report. No scoring revisions were made under P1 in response to stakeholder comments (although a score change and new condition was added under Principle 3 as described below). Hatchery-related Principle 2 Issues Statement: “Last year significant but unknown numbers of wild salmon died from warm water in Bristol Bay and in the Yukon/Kuskokwim. Warming water, reduced snow-pack and drought are all increasing at alarming rates across Alaska. ADFG is not monitoring these changes or their impacts to salmon. In-stream temperature monitoring is needed at all systems where 37 escapement is assessed, at a minimum. Additionally, data is needed on the impact of reduced snowpack on salmon productivity and fitness.”

Response: We agree that it would worthwhile to collect temperature data in spawning streams, and recommend that Kachemak Bay Conservation Society work with the ADFG, hatchery operators and other stakeholders to deploy additional instruments.

Statement: “Not all hatcheries are well located for the flushing required to minimize impacts to benthos and water, for example the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery in Kachemak Bay.”

Response: Tutka Bay does have a narrow opening into Kachemak Bay that may limit flushing. The hatchery rears Pink Salmon in pens for up to 2 months before release. Sockeye Salmon are also imprinted in the bay prior to release. Under newly instigated monitoring and reporting requirements by The Alaska Department of Environmental Quality, data should become available to determine to what extent, if any, the rearing of these fish results in an unacceptable biological oxygen load or significant increase in nitrogen that results in undesirable water quality.

Statement: “Alaska DEC reported in personal communication in November 2018 and again in November 2019 that nearly all of Alaska’s salmon hatcheries have little to no record of reporting on effluent and receiving water-body qualities for their entire history of operation. According to DEC, permits had low reporting requirements and in general, those requirements that did exist, were not adhered to. There are little to no assurances that hatcheries are well sited to flush uneaten food, feces, and carcasses after egg-take. The nitrogen content of these discharges are a threat to the ecological diversity at the site of hatchery that is not sufficiently flushed. MSC must require that DEC present them the information they have on effluent discharge, water quality of receiving bodies of water at hatchery site and carcass dump; MSC must require DEC and ADF&G to present them with all historic and current information they have on impacts to benthos and habitat at hatchery sites to establish a basis for impact-assessment.

157 Response: Because the MSC does not permit an assessment team to require an agency to produce documents, all we can do is request such information. We are aware that the Alaska Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has poor record of enforcing its discharge permits and that, as a result, the extant of historic information is poor. However, recent action by the ADEQ to require and enforce water quality monitoring by hatcheries should provide significantly more information on the actual discharge and receiving water bodies characteristics. We also spoke to ADFG about the failure of the association to “mop – up” returning adults in excess of brood stock needs which is a requirement of the permit. We anticipate that they will more closely monitor this phase of the hatchery program in the future. Statement: There has been no research in the impacts of straying and competition in the near- shore and pelagic environments by ADF&G, though there is significant research elsewhere to suggest significant negative impacts. As the CAB stated in their response to Kachemak Bay Conservation Society’s comments in this vein: “This is not to say…that there is not a need for research into these ecological forces in the near shore marine environment and we would encourage such research…While the Department would most likely be supportive of conducting such research internally, they simply have not been funded to work in this area…”MSC must 40 set the condition and the fishery must seek the funding. MSC must have this data if they are to assure the public that habitats and ecosystems are not being damaged.

Response: We can recommend, but cannot require, ADFG to seek funds for research. Otherwise we stand by our previous response to this issue. Hatchery-related Principle 3 Issues Based on new information and public comments, the surveillance team reviewed performance indicators under Principle 3 and subsequently revised scoring for Performance Indicator 3.2.2 with respect to decision-making processes. The score for guidepost (c) regarding use of precautionary approach was reduced and a new condition was added.

158 5.2.2 Avian Bycatch (Birdlife International Marine Program) Under PI 2.3.1 in our reassessment of the Alaska Salmon Fishery in 2018, we addressed whether or not the bycatch of seabirds “meet national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species”. Because no ESA listed bird species have national or international incidental take limits, Scoring Issue A was not considered relevant. We rated Scoring Element B as being met and stated the following regarding the bycatch of seabirds: In addition to our emphasis on species listed under the Endangered Species Act, we also consider marine mammals and migratory birds because they covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Migratory Birds Act (MBA). Bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals was the subject of a Condition of Certification during the first MSC certification in 2000. The condition required collection of bycatch data in test fisheries as a means to identify whether bycatch was a significant conservation issue. As reported by ADF&G and presented in the 2007 recertification report (Chaffee et al. 2007) stated that, no bycatch of birds or marine mammals was observed in ADF&G test fisheries in Southeast Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, North Alaskan Peninsula, Shumagin Islands, and Kodiak during 2002, 2003, and/or 2004. Since that time, additional monitoring of bird bycatch has occurred in specific areas of Alaska. This monitoring showed that pelagic cormorants, red-faced cormorants, harlequin ducks, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, common murres, thick- billed murres, horned puffins, tufted puffins, sooty shearwaters, Kittlitz's murrelets, Arctic loon, white-winged scoters, red-throated loon, gulls, long-tailed duck and other species may be taken in relatively small numbers across the fisheries. It is noted that the “expanded” take of Kittlitz's murrelets, an ESA candidate species, was 0 in 2002 and 18.1 in 2005 (Kodiak), 0 in 2007 and 14 in 2008 (Yakutat), and 0 in LCI and UCI. Blejwas & Wright (2012) examined spatial and temporal overlap of Kittlitz's murrelets with gillnets in PWS, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and Yakutat and concluded that most Kittlitz's murrelets were found in areas where there was no fishing. In areas of overlap, they concluded “the total number of birds exposed to gillnets in any of the overlap areas is small”. None of these species are listed under the ESA. There are three bird species listed under the ESA that may be found in waters off Alaska; the Steller eider, spectacled eider, and short tailed Albatross. The Steller’s eider is found only in Southwest Alaska (Yukon, Kuskokwim, Alaska Peninsula and Bristol Bay UoA’s. Spectacled eiders are found central Bering Sea south of St. Lawrence Island, where they remain in large flocks until March or April. When molting they can be found in Norton Sound UoA. They are not found in any other UofA. The short-tailed albatross is found throughout the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska typically in the offshore waters but may also be found in waters where the fisheries of the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak, Copper – Bering and Southeastern (troll) and Yakutat (troll) fisheries operate. The available data does not show significant numbers of encounters or associated mortality of these ESA listed bird species in the UoA’s where found. As such the USFWS does not require any Alaska salmon fishery to have an incidental take permit, nor do the recovery plans require or recommend any action in the salmon fisheries where these birds are found.

159 In our reassessment of the Alaska Salmon fishery in 2018, we concluded that the available information was sufficient to score the PI as conforming, but recognized that there was room for improving the information base regarding the bycatch of seabirds. In response to that concern, we issued a recommendation to the client under 2.3.3 (Information) as follows: For the marine gillnet fisheries of Cook Inlet, Kodiak, the AK Peninsula, Bristol Bay and AYK (Artic, Yukon and Kuskokwim), certainty regarding the impact of the gillnet fishery could be increased if the earlier observation of test fisheries were repeated, or an equivalent study to update verification of the degree of interaction between these fisheries and seabirds were conducted. Near the end of the recertification process, BirdLife International representatives expressed concerns over the accuracy and representativity of the data used to conclude the absence of significant levels of seabird being accidentally killed in the setnet and driftnet fisheries. They stated that Alcids (auks) are the species group most susceptible to bycatch in gillnets, and Alaskan waters host particularly large numbers of this group of diving birds. They suggested it was worth looking at the available data again, and assessing whether it is adequate to understand impacts. In preparation for the 2019 audit, BirdLife International submitted a discussion paper for a scheduled workshop slated for December 11, 2019. The primary concern expressed was for the quality of the data we used when we conclude that the SG 80 level was achieved. We note that information content is assessed under Guidepost 3.3.3 (A) and it provides for three levels of confidence in the available information. To reach a SG of 80 the standard is: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA and associated enhancement may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. OR if RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. The SG 80 level is in contrast to the SG 60 level which requires “Qualitative information” and the SG 100 level that requires “Quantitative information is available to assess with a high degree of certainty “. Based on estimates of take from the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AAMOP), test fishing and the work of Blejwas and Wright (2012), we concluded the fisheries were not a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species”. This does not mean that there is not room to improve the information base. Concern expressed for limitations of the test fisheries source as mentioned in the 2005 Certification Report 1) “No direct access of these data (test fish) is possible for stakeholders to evaluate data quality…” We agree and will provide the test fish data we have.

160 2) “Some of the most important fishing areas in terms of licenses …including Yakutat, Prince William Sound, Lower Cook Inlet or Kodiak were not covered”. True, but the AMMOP operated in these areas. 3) “the purpose of these test fisheries is to identify the numbers of salmon available for harvest and does not necessarily match the need to accurately assess seabird bycatch in gillnets…..including targeting areas of known high seabird abundance.” Test fishing can be expected to yield a comparable assessment of seabird bycatch to the fleet as whole when the same gear is used, in the same areas and times the fleet is/will be operating. As BirdLife noted, and we agree, it would not be proper to infer similar catch rates between gear types, so for example using purse seines to evaluate gillnet bycatch would be improper. As would using the same gear in different areas or substantially different times. We are not sure what BirdLife means by “including targeting areas of known high seabird abundance” because, as we are sure they are aware, this would tend to bias estimates of encounter rates relative to representative sampling of the times and areas the commercial fleet operates. Limitations of the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program Prior to discussing the specific comments BirdLife has made regarding the limitations of the AMMOP, we provide a synopsis of this research for reference. A summary of observed and estimated bird mortalities, by region and year is provided in Table 9 and its appended list of “other birds”. Responses to specific comments regarding the AMMOP program. 1) A large percentage of the Alaska commercial salmon fishery was not covered by the AMMOP. Only about 35 percent of the possible fishing effort was covered by the AMMOP studies. It is true that not all of the Alaska salmon fisheries were covered by the AMMOP studies. However, not all fisheries are likely to entangle diving seabirds for four reasons. a. First, as is acknowledged, diving seabirds are not likely to be entangled in purse seines as the web is too small. b. Second most permits in the Yukon and Kuskokwim area are fished in-river and not likely to encounter diving sea birds. c. Third, the gillnet fishery in Bristol Bay (which accounts for about half of the gillnet permits in Alaska) is not likely to encounter diving sea birds. The oceanography of Bristol Bay fishing districts is characterized by large tidal variation that translates to strong currents and the water is highly turbid water. The districts are relatively small and coupled with the large number of boats (1,749 in 2018) results in a chaotic atmosphere. K. Kuletz, an ornithologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes it unlikely that these species are incidentally caught in Bristol Bay fisheries because of these conditions (personal communication 2019).

161 d. Forth, for the murres/murrelets of concern, the summer range does not extend north beyond Bristol Bay. When all these factors are considered, we estimate that the AMMOP covered about 85% of all gillnet fisheries that are likely to encounter diving seabirds of particular concern. Table 13. The number of limited entry permits by area in 2018. Note: Kuskokwim River was closed in 2018 years, but in recent years there have been between 450 and 500 permits fished. Waters Area Number Permits Marine Southeast - Estimated number drift gillnet 316 permits fished outside of Districts 6,7, 8 Marine Southeast - Estimated number drift gillnet 105 permits fished in Southeast Districts 6,7,8 Marine Remainder of Southeast DGN 315

Mixed Yakutat SGN 102 Marine PWS DGN 107 Marine PWS SGN 26 Marine Atka 0 Marine Cook Inlet DGN 446 Marine Cook Inlet SGN 512 Marine Kodiak SGN 141 Marine Ak Peninsula DGN 147 Marine Ak Peninsula SGN 85 Marine Bristol Bay DGN 1749 Marine Bristol Bay SGN 879 Marine Kotzebue GN 95 Marine Norton Sound GN 148 Freshwater Yukon - Upper GN 0 Freshwater Yukon -Lower GN 457

Freshwater Kuskokwim - GN 0

2) “Presently these data have not been used to produce Alaska-wide estimates of seabird bycatch.” cost all gillnet fisheries of concern were sampled, and such an estimate is not required to achieve a SG score of 80.

162 3) “Data from the AMMOP program suggests, nonetheless that seabird bycatch hotspots appear to exist in the fishery as well as seasonal differences.” We agree that the AMMOP data shows significant variability exists in bycatch rates between years, areas, seasons, species and time of day. Of particular note was the high variability between years in some of the same areas. 4) “It is notable that other gillnet fishing areas which overlap heavily with recognized IBA’s have not been subject to bycatch collection. ……. with the omission of bycatch hotspots, risks to underestimate bycatch issue is clearly high” While not all fisheries that overlap with IBAs have been sampled, many have been as noted in our discussion of the individual AMMOP program. While it seems logical to assume that seabird bycatch would more likely be an issue in a fishery in, or next to an IBA, the available data from the AMMOP programs summarized above do not show this to necessarily be the case. Kittlitz’s Murrelets Blejwas and Wright (2012) undertook a qualitative risk assessment of gillnets impacting Kittlitz’s murrelets by evaluating the spatial and temporal overlap of the birds and nets. The areas they studied were some of the same areas covered by the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (Prince William Sound, Copper River, Cook Inlet, Kodiak and Yakutat). They used permit-days in a statistical area as an index of fishing effort and bird survey data to plot locations relative to fishing effort to identify areas with the highest potential for overlap. Their findings included: • Temporal overlap was high (in all areas except Yakutat) because effort peaked in late June or July when Kittlitz’s murrelets abundance also peaked. • There were localized areas of spatial overlap in all areas. However, these areas of overlap were typically not the areas of the highest fishing effort. • They identified two distinct areas of greatest risk - Alitak Bay on Kodiak and the Manby Shore in Yakutat. • They found several areas of low risk because of spatial segregation, including:

o the river and stream systems of Yakutat, and most of Yakutat Bay; o the heads of glacial fjords and the interior of Prince William Sound; o most of Cook Inlet south of Anchor Point (except the southern shoreline of Kachemak Bay). • In Alitak Bay, Kodiak Island they found fishing effort was high, but abundance was low. • On Manby Shore in Yakutat Bay, they found that fishing effort was low but abundance was high. • They noted that the AMMOP program did not document bycatch in areas where both bird abundance and fishing effort was low, these areas included:

o the upper arms and western bays of Kodiak during August;

163 o the Southern District of Cook Inlet; o Unakwik Inlet in Prince William Sound; o the mouths of the remaining major drainages in Yakutat. • There was insufficient survey data to assess the risks for the western bays of Kodiak in June and July and for the Copper River. Blejwas and Wright (2012) discussed assumptions of their analyses and pointed out the following: In the three areas where gillnet locations were recorded, they found little variation in the distribution of fishing effort from month to month, but higher variation year to year which depended upon annual run strength of the salmon runs. They found high variability in the distribution of Kittlitz’s Murrelets, over time and differences between areas. Specifically, they found: • In Prince William Sound, all surveys found aggregations at the head of fjords and bays. • In Cook Inlet, the survey data in late July and early August identified several consistent aggregations. • The limited temporal variation in the survey data for Yakutat Bay precluded a detailed analysis, but in nearby Icy Bay a seasonal shift from the outer Bay to the head of the bay in August was documented, and if that shift also occurred in Yakutat Bay it would tend to further reduce overlap between the fleet and birds. • There was insufficient survey data during the peak season in Kodiak to determine if any shift in distribution existed. We agree that the approach taken by Blejwas and Wright (2012) has limitations particularly when survey data does not completely overlap with the timing of the fisheries. However, this limitation should not detract from the strengths of the analysis and findings that tend to help explain results of the AMMOP.

Uncovered areas of potential high risk: example the Bristol Bay The Bristol Bay fishery is unlikely to cause significant mortality to diving seas birds. The oceanography of Bristol Bay fishing districts is characterized by large tidal variation that translates to strong currents and highly turbid water. The districts are also relatively small and coupled with the large number of boats (1,749 in 2018) results in a chaotic atmosphere. K. Kuletz, an ornithologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and specialist on murres believes it unlikely that these species are incidentally caught in Bristol Bay fisheries because of these conditions (John Kurland, NOAA Juneau, 2019). With regard to specific districts mentioned we also note the following: • The Nushagak District does overlap with an Important Coastal Bird Area and there are two identified colonies of gulls and terns at the head of the Bay (Sea Bird Net) . The bay is shallow, with everchanging channels through mud flats and is subject to tides in

164 excess of 20 feet. Seabirds might be expected in the outer reaches of the bay in the spring and early summer when large numbers of salmon smolts migrate through the area. • The Togiak District is fairly large running from Cape Newnham in the west thru Hagemeister Island to Kuluak Point in the West. There are five sections within the district, Cape Peirce in the far west, Osuiak, Matogak, Togiak and Kulukak. The Togiak River system supports significant runs of Sockeye and Chinook salmon and the river’s mouth is in the Togiak Section and a great deal of the annual fishing effort occurs in this portion of the district. There are Important Bird Areas in the western side of the district and especially large colonies of seabirds around Cape Peirce (Sea Bird Net). • The Kvichak, Naknek, Ugashik and Egegik districts also overlap with Important Bird Areas. There are four small colonies of gulls, terns and cormorants in this area. Like on the west side of Bristol Bay, these systems support large runs of Sockeye Salmon and when smolts migrate out to seas in the late spring and early summer, they may attract seabirds. Discussion There are several points made in this section, and we address each in turn. “To give a real picture of the seabird bycatch issue within the Alaska Salmon gillnet fishery, we consider it essential to implement an observer program covering a sufficient percentage of the fleet (e.g. ideally 20%), but recognizing the cost implications of this , perhaps initially focusing on potential areas of concern , and which is representative of the reality. We agree that additional data in both the particular areas of concern identified, and other areas would likely lead to a better understanding of seabird bycatch and probably lead to higher value for the Information SG. We note however, the high cost of mounting observer programs makes mounting a program anything like what is being suggested highly unlikely. For instance, the annual cost of the observer program in Southeast Alaska (which occurred in 2012 and 2013) was approximately $1.0 million (Jon Kurland, NOAA, Juneau) and achieved slightly less than the target 7.5% coverage rate. ..bycatch mitigation solutions should be explored and a long-term strategy to tackle seabird bycatch should be implemented within the fishery. Previous mitigation work conducted on the coastal salmon drift gillnet fishery of Puget Sound Washington state - which demonstrated that a significant reduction in seabird bycatch (up to 70 -75%) target fishing could be achieved without a significant reduction in target fishing efficiency -prove that solutions exist and that their application to Alaska salmon gillnet fisheries is possible. We are aware of the research by Melvin et al. (1999) and can support consideration of research into the application of using a larger, highly visible webbing in the upper portion of the nets to reduce seabird bycatch. We note however, than there are a few key differences in the fishing conditions and nets used Puget Sound and in many fishing areas in Alaska. First, most of the gillnets fished in Alaska are substantially shallower than in Puget Sound. For instance, in

165 Southeast Alaska the maximum depth of drift gillnets is 60 meshes; with common 6” Sockeye Salmon web, such a net would measure about 23 feet deep. If the first 20 meshes were made of large opaque material, as was tested in Puget Sound, then the top one-third of the net would be rendered ineffective for catching salmon. This would likely have a significant effect on the nets efficiency for catching salmon. Second, in Puget Sound, the water is very clear, and the logic for making the upper portion of the net highly visible is clear. In many areas where gillnets are fished in Alaska, the water is often highly occluded because of glacier flour or other suspended particles particularly in the upper portion of the water column where salinity is low from freshwater runoff. As such, it is not clear that making the upper meshes of the net more visible would cause a similar reduction in seabird bycatch.

166 6 References Acoura Marine. 2017. MSC sustainable fisheries certification, British Columbia salmon fishery (Sockeye salmon, Pink salmon and Chum salmon). Acoura Marine. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/british-columbia-salmon/@@assess ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. State of Alaska hatchery research project: A study of the interactions between hatchery and natural pink and chum salmon in Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound. Progress synopsis. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/alaska_hatchery_rese arch_project_synopsis_june_2018.pdf ADFG 2019a. 2019–2021 Southeast Alaska and Yakutat Commercial Salmon Fishing Regulations. ADFG. Juneau. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/pdfs/commercial/2019_20 21_cf_se_yakutat_salmon_regs.pdfhttps://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishreg ulations/pdfs/commercial/2019_2021_cf_se_yakutat_salmon_regs.pdf ADFG. 2019b. 2019–2021 Arctic, Yukon, Kuskokwim, Commercial, Subsistence, Personal Use Finfish and Shellfish Fishing Regulations. ADFG Juneau. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/pdfs/commercial/2019_20 21_ayk_regs.pdf ADFG. 2019c. Proportion of hatchery fish in the spawning runs of summer chum salmon in Southeast Alaska, 2013-2015. Alaska Board of Fisherie. 2011. Findings regarding Regulatory Action Taken to Address Stocks of Concern in Upper Cook Inlet – 2011-266-FB. ADFG. Juneau. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/findings/2 011-266-fb.pdf Blejwas, K and S. Wright. 2012. Bycatch of Kittlitz’s murrlet in commercial salmon gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska: A qualitative risk assessment. Wildlife Research Report ADFG/DWC/WRR-2012-8 ADFG. Juneau. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/research_pdfs/wrr_2012_8 .pdf Brannon, E. L., D. F. Amend, M. A. Cronin, J. E. Lannan, S. LaPatra, W. J. McNeil, R. R. E. Noble, C. E. Smith, A. J. Talbot, G. A. Wedemeyer, and H. Westers. 2004. The controversy about salmon hatcheries. Fisheries 29:12–31 Brenner, R. E., A. R. Munro and S. J. Larsen. 2019. Run forecasts and harvest projections for 2019 Alaska salmon fisheries and review of the 2018 season. Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife Special Publication 19-07. Carter, H.R., and Sealy, S.G., 1984, Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) mortality due to gill-net fishing in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, in Nettleship, D.N., Sanger, G.A., and Springer, P.F., eds., Marine birds: Their feeding ecology and commercial fisheries relationships, Pacific Seabird Group Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 1985, p. 212-220.

167 Cheng, W., C, Habicht, W.D. Templin, Z.D. Grauvogel, and A. J. Gharrett. 2019. Population structure of Pink Salmon from Prince William Sound, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/2019.03.07_ahrp_pin k_population_structure.pdf Cheng, W., C, Habicht, W.D. Templin, Z.D. Grauvogel, S. D. Moffitt, R. E. Brenner, R. P. Josephson and A. J. Gharrett. 2016. Population genetic structure of odd-year Pink Salmon from Prince William Sound based on a single year (2013). Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Hatchery Research Group Technical Document 14. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/population_genetic_s tructure_oddyear_pink_pws_2013.pdf Chilcote, M. W. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1057–1067 Chilcote, M. W., K. W. Goodson and M. R. Falcy. 2011. Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:511-522. English, K, T. Mochizuki and D. Robichaud. 2012. Review of North and Central Coast Salmon indicator streams and estimating escapement, catch and run size for each Unit. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates. Sidney, BC.http://salmonwatersheds.ca/libraryfiles/lib_1.pdf Evenson, D. F., C. Habicht, M. Stopha, A. R. Munro, T. R. Meyers and W. D. Templin. 2018. Salmon hatcheries in Alaska – A review of the implementation of plans, permits, and policies designed to provide protection for wild stocks. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Special Publication 18-12. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2018- 2019/ws/SP18-12.pdf Ford, M. J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conservation Biology 16:815-825. Ford, M. J., H. Fuss, B. Boelts, E. LaHood, J. Hard, and J. Miller. 2006. Changes in run timing and natural smolt production in a naturally spawning coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population after 60 years of intensive hatchery supplementation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:2343–2355. Gilk-Baumer, S., and W. D. Templin. 2019. Population structure of chum salmon in Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/2019.03.07_ahrp_ch um_population_structure.pdf Gray, D., T. Thynes, E. Coonradt, A. Piston, D. Harris, and B. Meredith. 2019. 2019 Southeast Alaska purse seine fishery management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division

168 of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report No. 1J19-04, Douglas. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/RIR.1J.2019.04.pdf Hollowell, G., and T. Otis. 2019. Thermally marked Pink Salmon in selected Lower Cook Inlet streams, 2014-2018. Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2018- 2019/hc/or3.pdf Hollowell, G., E. O. Otis, and E. Ford. 2019. 2017 Lower Cook Inlet area finfish management report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 19-08, Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR19-08.pdf Kissling, M. L., P. M. Lukacs, S. M. Gende, and S. B. Lewis (2015). Multi-state mark–recapture model to estimate survival of a dispersed-nesting seabird, the Kittlitz’s Murrelet. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:20–30. Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 19:9-31. Lescak, E., K. Shedd, and T. Dann. 2019a. Relative productivity of hatchery pink salmon in a natural stream. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/2016_sk_final_report .pdf Lescak, E., K. Shedd, and T. H. Dann, H. A. Hoyt, D. J. Prince and C. Habicht. 2019b. Relative fitness of hatchery and natural Pink Salmon in Hogan Bay, Prince William Sound, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game final report. North Pacific Research Board Project 1619. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/research/2016_nprb_final_rep ort.pdf Lynch, M. and M. O’Hely. 2001. Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conservation Genetics 2:363-378. Manley, B. 2006. Incidental Catch and Interactions of Marine Mammals and Birds in the Cook Inlet Salmon Driftnet and Setnet Fisheries, 1999-2000 EcoSystems Technology Inc. 2003 Central Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. Available from NOAA, Juneau. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/incidental-catch-and-interactions- marine-mammals-and-birds-cook-inlet-salmon Manley, B. 2007. Incidental Take and Interactions of Marine Mammals and Birds in the Kodiak Island Salmon Set Gillnet Fishery, 2002 and 2005. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available from NOOA Juneau. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/incidental-take-and-interactions- marine-mammals-and-birds-kodiak-island-salmon Manley, B. 2009. Incidental take and interactions of marine mammals and birds in the Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery, 2007 and 2008. Western Ecosystems Technology Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available from NOAA Juneau.

169 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/incidental-take-and-interactions- marine-mammals-and-birds-yakutat-salmon-setnet Manly, B. 2015. Incidental Takes and Interactions of Marine Mammals and Birds in Districts 6, 7 and 8 of the Southeast Alaska Salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery, 2012 and 2013 . Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. Laramie, Wyoming. Available from NOAA. Juneau Ak. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/incidental-takes-and-interactions- marine-mammals-and-birds-districts-6-7-and-8 Melvin, E., J. Parrish, and L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird by-catch in coastal gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology, 13(6), pgs. 1386 -1397.Sea Bird Net. North Pacific Data Portal. http://axiom.seabirds.net/maps/js/seabirds.php?app=north_pacific#z=7&ll=57.08927,- 157.28963 Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K., and Conquest, L.L., 2001, Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries, in Melvin, E.F., and Parrish, J.K., eds., Seabird bycatch: Trends, roadblocks, and solutions: Fairbanks, University of Alaska Sea Grant, p. 161-184. Menard, J., J. Soong, J. Bell, and L. Neff. 2018. 2017 annual management report Norton Sound, Port Clarence, and Arctic, Kotzebue areas. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 18-16, Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR18-16.pdf Munro, A. R. 2018. Summary of Pacific salmon escapement goals in Alaska with a review of escapements from 2009 to 2017. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript Series No. 18-04, Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMS18-04.pdf Nickelson, T. 2003. The influence of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the productivity of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon coastal basins. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 1050–1056. Otis, E. O., G. J. Hollowell, and E. G. Ford. 2018. Observations of pink salmon hatchery proportions in selected Lower Cook Inlet escapements, 2016-2017. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Special Publication 18-11. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2018- 2019/ws/SP18-11.pdf Piatt, J.F., Kuletz, K.J., Burger, A.E., Hatch, S.A., Friesen, V.L., Birt, T.P. , Arimitsu, M.L., Drew, G.S., Harding, A.M.A., and K.S. Bixler, 2007, Status review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2006-1387, 258 p. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/fisheries- observers/alaska-marine-mammal-observer-program Pierce, D., Ritchie, W., and Kruezigar, R., 1994, Preliminary findings of seabird interactions with non-treaty salmon gillnet fishery: Puget Sound and Hood Canal, Washington: Olympia, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

170 PSC-JTCC. 2017. Annual report of catch and escapement 2016. Report TC Chinook (17-2). Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. http://www.psc.org/publications/technical- reports/technical-committee-reports/Chinook/ PSC-JTCC. 2019. Pacific Salmon Commission, Joint Technical Committee Report -Annual report of catch and escapement for 2018. PSC. Vancouver, B.C. Canada. https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee- reports/chinook/ PSC-JTTC. 2019. Final estimates of transboundary river salmon production, harvest and escapement and a review of enhancement activities in 2017. Report TCTR (19)-2. PSC. Vancouver B.C. Canada. https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical- committee-reports/transboundary/ PSC-NBTC. 2019. 2017 Salmon fisheries management report and preliminary expectations for 2018. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. Canada. https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee- reports/northern-boundary/ Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, gairdneri. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:123–128 Smith, M., N. Walker, C. Free, M. Kirchoff, N. Warnock, A. Weinstein, T. Dister and l. Stenhouse. 2012. Marine Important Bird Areas in Alaska Identifying Globally Significant Sites Using Colony and At-Sea Survey Data. Audubon Alaska. http://docs.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/marine_ibas_report_final_sep_20 12.pdf Stopha, M. 2019. Alaska salmon fisheries enhancement annual report 2018. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report No. 5J19-01. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/RIR.5J.2019.01.pdf Vega, S. L., C. W. Russell, J. Botz, and S. Haught. 2018. 2017 Prince William Sound area finfish management report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 19-07, Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR19-07.pdf Wilburn, D. M., and R. L. Renick. 2018. Chignik Management Area salmon annual management report, 2018. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 18-32, Anchorage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR18-32.pdf Wynne, K., D. Hicks and N. Munro. 1991. 1990 Salmon gillnet Fishery observer programs in Prince William Sound and South Unimak Island. NMFS, Juneau. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/fisheries-observers/alaska-marine-mammal- observer-program Wynne, K., D. Hicks and N. Munro. 1992. 1991 Marine Mammal Observer Program for the salmon Drift Gillnet Fishery of Prince William Sound. NMFS. Juneau.

171 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/1991-marine-mammal-observer- program-salmon-driftnet-fishery-prince-william-0

172 Appendix A – Proceedings of Avian Workshop Agenda

173

174

175

176 Workshop Purpose – Dave Gaudet This workshop was organized to address stakeholder concerns regarding bycatch of birds in Alaska commercial salmon fisheries, identified in public comments on the 3rd Marine Stewardship Council reassessment of this fishery completed in 2018. Background – Amanda Stern Pirlot Ms. Stern Pirlot described the Marine Stewardship Council certification standard and its application to the issue of bird bycatch. A full reassessment of this fishery was initiated in 2017 under MSC certification standard. This process is conducted by a certified accreditation body, in this case, MRAG Americas. The standard identifies three principles of sustainable fishery management. Principle I addresses the sustainability of target species. Principle 2 addresses the environmental impact of fishing. Principle 3 addresses fishery management effectiveness. Bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species is considered under Principle 2. These include Kittlets and Marbled Murrelets which are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). ETP species indicators address status, management and information. The focus of this workshop is on this information piece. The information standard weighs whether some quantitative information is available to measure impacts. In response to stakeholder comments on the reassessment, the assessment team acknowledged that are more explicit treatment of Murrlet bycatch was appropriate. Neither Kittlets or Marbled Murrelets are formally designed as an endangered, threatened or sensitive species in Alaska by the Federal system or the State. This workshop provides the opportunity to examine related information in greater detail. The assessment team will review the results of this workshop and consider whether changes in rationales and scoring are appropriate based on the new information. Workshops like the are sometimes used in the assessment process in cases where it is necessary to bring together information which is not extensively published. A workshop provides an opportunity to gather expert information and other evidence. MRAG has not been involved in one where birds where the issue. However, comparable information gathering exercises have involved expert team series of meetings for pacific groundfish fisheries. Alaska Responsible Fisheries Management Overview – Jeff Regnart Mr. Regnart represent the RFM certification standard developed and owned by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. Independent certification provides an assurance of sustainability to customers and markets that require third party certification. Certification is not research, advice, or management but rather a process for making sure that the govt management agencies are doing what they said they were going to do. Despite Alaska’s proven track record and reputation, fisheries certification has become a requirement in most markets. ASMI conducted an open competitive RFP process to convert FAO Key reference documents into auditable criteria. Industry-based Fishery Clients currently hold certification of a broad range of Alaska fisheries. Over 95% of Alaska seafood covered by this program including seven fishery clients (soon to be nine). Details of the RFM standard were further described (see slides below)

177

178

179

Comparison of the MSC and Alaska RFM Management Standards – Ivan Mateo This presentation reviewed the purpose and application of the respective certification standards. Both standards are based on FAO code of conduct, guidelines and ISO. Assessment processes generally include an application, preassessment, assessment decision, announcement, fact finding meetings, scoring, findings/nonconformances, report for peer review, public review, independent certification committee decision, 5-year period of certificate, milestones and action plan for nonconformances. Refer to the slides below for further explanation.

180

181

182 Birdlife International see ppt – Yann This presentation reviewed concerns regarding the potential bycatch of seabirds in gillnets of Alaska commercial fisheries. Seabird bycatch has been identified as a significant mortality factor in a number of gillnet fisheries throughout the world. Information was presented on two case studies. The Icelandic Lumpfish fishery was subject to a 2015 MSC certification. Thousands of seabirds were estimated to be killed in this fishery every year including endangered murre. The fishery initially was cooperative regarding bird issues. The fishery later lost certification and lost market share accordingly. Illustrates that not dealing with bycatch can have significant ramifications. In the Yorkshore salmon fishery, the significance of seabird bycatch significance threatened closure of the fishery. Subsequently, collaboration reduced bycatch from 500 to 0. Examples of research on measures to reduce bird bycatch in gillnets was presented. In a Baltic Sea study, experimental measures included lights and panels to discourage catch of diving birds. This study produced mixed results so far, either partial success or none at all. Follow-up work is exploring different solutions including an improved understanding of the diving behavior of the birds. Since 2013, have been involved with fisheries around the world looking for solutions to bird bycatch issues. In the Alaska fisheries, a previous MSC assessment identified a condition for information on bird bycatch that was closed based on information collected from the fishery in 2002-2004. Birdlife became involved in the 2018 MSC assessment. They expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the available test fishery information. Concerns included poor data, areas were not covered, temporal gaps, information fitness for purpose, seasonal effects, unrepresentative gear, and no recent data. Birdlife considered this information inadequate for assessing bird impacts. Extensive data was also provided by observations in NOAA’s marine mammal assessments. Here the concern was spatial gaps, (e.g. only 2 of 5 traditional gillnet areas). Temporal gaps, effort covered (only 5%, need 20%). Birdlife found this to be better than the original information but still inadequate. Based on this information Birdlife developed example estimates of bird bycatch on the order of several thousand per year but these estimates were not comprehensive. It was also noted that their may be important hotpots which might were apparent in the data. It was stated that some gillnet areas not covered but others noted that the fishery is currently restricted to 5 areas with the others closed by regulation. The importance of continuous monitoring and questions were also raised regarding the effects of changes in distribution over time. Effects of climate change on forage fish interactions. Concerns also extend to other bird species beyond murrelets. Information was provided on research conducted on bird bycatch in a Puget Sound salmon gillnet fishery. This fishery caught significant numbers of Guillemots & auklets. This research examined the effects of different net configurations on bird bycatch. Examples included upper panel composition to increase visibility. Strong seasonal patterns in bird abundance were identified. This provided seasonal options for managing bycatch. Bycatch also varied with time of day with dawn and dusk catches the highest. The study found that net target selectivity could

183 be substantially reduced by a combination of measures. Yann stressed in conclusion that they want to work with the fishery and identify solutions that work for everyone. In follow-up comments, Kathy Hansen noted that Puget sound upper panels would not work in Southeast Alaska. Most salmon are caught in the upper quarter of the nets which are not that deep. In 35 years of fishing her personal experience is that they have caught but a handful of birds and maybe one was a murrelet.

184

185

186 Alaska Salmon Gillnet Fisheries – Dave Gaudet This presentation reviewed details of the commercial gillnet fishery implementation throughout Alaska. Gillnet fisheries occur in most fishery management areas with the exception of Chignik and portions of the Aleutian chain. The review identified fishing effort based on numbers of permits fished by year, fishery distribution within the management area, net configurations including mesh size and net depth. Fishing seasons and hours of operation. Details for each fishery may be found in the following slides. Information was also presented on the distribution and status of Murrelet species in relation to the fisheries.

Figure 2. Commercial salmon management areas.

187 Table 14. Summary of Alaska commercial gillnet fishery attributes.

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195 Murrelets: An overview of life history, habitats, foraging distribution, threats to Alaska populations – Kathy Kuletz Two Murrelet species occur in Alaska, the Marbled and Kittias. These species are distinguished from other seabirds because they are not colonial. Marbled Murrelets nest at solitary sites in old growth forest, often at great distances inland. Kittias Murrelets are adapted to nest in glacial landscapes. These species are an old evolutionary lineage. Both species are distributed along the coast throughout Alaska from the Bering Sea southward. Both species prefer sheltered inland coastal waters where they are often associated and can be difficult to tell apart. Abundance surveys are generally based on surveys at sea from small boats. Radio telemetry is also widely used to identify distribution. Marbled Murrelets are much more abundant than Kittias. Food is primarily small fish and krill. For instance, foraging distribution has been mapped extensively in Glacier Bay. Kittias prefer glacial waters for foraging. Kittias distribution concentrated in areas of glaciers primarily concentrated in south central with a few scattered distributions in western Alaska. Extensive research and abundance surveys are conducted regularly in Prince William Sound. Often found in upper reaches of fjords during daytime. Much different at night. Often concentrated in specific fjords. Abundance and distribution have changed over time. Marbled Murrelets found in much different habitats for foraging and are more widely distributed. They leave the nearshore waters in August, presumably for offshore areas for molting. Return inshore around March. Daily behavioral patterns can be quite variable. Abundance estimates from 1998-199 estimated greater than 11,000 birds in PWS. May group up in morning but disbursed for foraging or otherwise. Carry fish back to the nests but avoid spending a lot of time there after hatching. Strong seasonal patterns in distribution. Peak chick rearing occurs in July corresponding to period of peak forage fish numbers. Offshore surveys have been conducted since 2006 in Berry Sea and northwest Gulf of Alaska along the shelf. Seasonal concentrations are seen in various areas as far north as Chukchi Sea. Kittias Murrelets have a similar distribution at sea during post breeding feeding period. This species has a more northerly fall distribution perhaps to take advantage of krill and longer daylight periods for foraging. Distribution data was also present for upper and lower Cook Inlet and southeast Alaska. Significant concerns include oil spills, and climate change. Information was also summarized on commercial salmon fisheries on bird bycatch where data are available for Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and Yakutat.

196

197

198

199

200

201

Population Estimates & Trends for Murrelets in Alaska - Robb Kaler Marbled Murrelets (MAMU) range widely in Alaska but are concentrated during breeding season in Southeast Alaska Prince William Sound, Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak. Kittias Murrelets (KIMU) distribution overlaps in these areas. Abundance is very difficult to assess due to wide distribution and solitary nature. Kittas was petitioned for listing in 2013 but was not listed. Best information on abundance comes from that period. Survey data provides trends but is complicated by site specific effectiveness. Estimates are available around Gulf of Alaska – these are likely to be minimum estimates. A widespread decline has been identified since 2007.

Abundance data is limited from Southeast Alaska for Kittias. Perhaps 5-10% of abundance thought to occur in the Russian far east. KIMU has been identified as a population of concern for Alaska. KIMU populations declined 30% per year, 1989-2000, then stabilized, 2000-2012. More recent status information is limited. Glacier Bay and PWS populations continue to be monitored. It is believed that declines are continuing in some areas perhaps related to temperature changes and loss of habitat with retreat of glaciers.

202

203

Fishery & Murrelet Interactions – Scott Marshall This presentation reviewed studies which have provided information on fishery-bird interactions since the 1990s as part of the marine mammal observer programs. Information is available from Southeast around the coast to the Alaska Peninsula. Studies were focused on marine mammals relative to a 10% impact standard. Bird information was also a significant focus. Observer coverage was 1-7% generally 4-5%. Data was collected on bird numbers and types, proximity to nets and entanglements. Information was presented on sampling effort and catches. Coverage may have been limited but there were large numbers of observations. The study also examined factors related to bird catches. Murrelets were widely distributed throughout the fishery areas. Fisheries generally occurred in only a portion of the bird distribution. Mortality of murrelets was documented in most all of the fisheries. Both murrelet species were documented. Many other bird species were generally observed in greater numbers. Annual numbers in observations of any given fishery were generally low. Yearly occurrence of murrelets varied considerably in some areas. Catches were generally single individuals but one set near Copper River accounted for half of that year’s total in that area.

204

205

206

207 Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Assessment Team Lead, MRAG Americas 1631 15th Ave W, Suite 215, Seattle, WA 98119 [email protected]

RE: AFDF Client Action Plans for the Alaska salmon fishery Board of Directors

Dear Ms. Stern-Pirlot, March 18, 2020 Jan Jacobs – President Harvester, Region IV American Seafoods Company As the Client for the MSC certification of the Alaska Salmon fishery, the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF) commits to the following Client Mark Scheer – Vice-President Processor At-Large Action Plans in response to the two new conditions issued by MRAG Americas Premium Aquatics in the Client Draft Report (CDR) for the 1st annual surveillance of the Alaska th Trevor Sande - Treasurer salmon fishery, issued on February 20 , 2020. The conditions issued refer to Harvester, Region I the following Principle Indicators (PIs) and Scoring Guidepost (SG) 80 criteria Marble Seafoods under the MSC standard v 2.1: Tommy Sheridan - Secretary Service Sector, At-large Prince William Sound Aquaculture 1) PI 3.2.2b, 3.2.2c (Decision-making processes) – The fishery-specific and associated Corporation enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an Al Burch – Emeritus Director appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. SG80: Decision-making Harvester, Retired Founding Member of AFDF processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and Jim Denning adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision- Service Sector, At-large making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available AquaStar

information. Tom Enlow 2) PI 2.3.2d (ETP species review) – There is a regular review of the potential Processor, At-large effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA and UniSea enhancement related mortality of Endangered Threatened or Protected (ETP) Buck Laukitis species and they are implemented as appropriate. SG80: There is a regular review of Harvester, Region II the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA Magic Fish Company and enhancement related mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate. Chris Mierzejek Processor, At-large Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Condition 9 (PI 3.2.2b, 3.2.2c): By the 4th year surveillance audit, it must be Development Assoc. demonstrated that decision-making processes respond to serious and other Stefanie Moreland important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner, and use the Processor, At-large Trident Seafoods precautionary approach and are based on best available information as applied the Pink and Chum Salmon hatchery enhancement programs. Glenn Reed Processor, At-large Pacific Seafood Processors Assoc. AFDF believes that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) decision- Keith Singleton making process is transparent, responsive in a timely and adaptive manner Harvester, At-large and uses the precautionary approach as applied to the Pink and Chum salmon Alaskan Leader Seafoods hatchery program. ADFG detailed their decision making process and hatchery John Sund management actions during the March 7th BOF Hatchery Committee Meeting, Service Sector, At-large Stellar North LLC including information on Relative Reproductive Success (RRS), fitness, straying, escapement, wild productivity and a proposed third-party working

Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation P.O. Box 2223, Wrangell, AK 99929 www.afdf.org group review of the hatchery research results. Specifically, in response to new and unexpected information related to Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) and West Crawfish Inlet (WCI), ADFG discussed additional monitoring, new studies, and adaptive management strategies which will be undertaken in 2020. This meeting reviewed information garnered from current and planned studies and activities, next steps and addressed key stakeholder concerns.

AFDF will work with ADFG to provide documentation that decision-making processes are transparent, responsive in a timely and adaptive manner and use the precautionary approach as applied to the Pink and chum salmon hatchery program.

• AFDF ACTION: AFDF will work with ADFG and NSRAA to document evidence of actions taken in response to new and unexpected information related to LCI and WCI hatchery strays. Additionally, AFDF will report on ADFG’s progress towards implementation of the proposal presented at the March 7th, 2020 BOF Hatchery Committee Meeting, which outlined a third-party convening of a working group of agency staff, stakeholders and subject matter experts to review the hatchery research results (Slide 46 Tab 7). The proposed working group would provide the following core services: 1) Review current state of knowledge, 2) Identify issues, concerns and data needs and 3) Provide ADFG with recommendations. ADFG identified the following implementation needs: 1) Define scope, 2) Identify facilitator group and 3) Seek funding. AFDF intends to close out this condition during the 2nd surveillance audit, however, until the condition is met, and at the time of each annual audit, AFDF will submit to the AT a progress report specifically describing progress toward satisfying this condition.

Condition 10 (PI 2.3.2d): By the 4th annual audit, the client must demonstrate that there is a process in place to ensure a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise Unit of Assessment (UoA) and enhancement related mortality of ETP seabirds (particularly murrelet species), and they are implemented as appropriate.

In response to a complaint issued in the 2019 reassessment regarding the potential interaction between Marbled and Kittlitz’s murrelets and salmon gillnet fisheries in Alaska, AFDF sponsored a workshop exploring population and distribution structures of the murrelet species in relation to gillnet fisheries in December of 2019 in Anchorage. Participants included members from the MSC and Responsible Fisheries Management (RFM) ATs, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), NGO’s, gear group representatives and other industry stakeholders. The purpose of this workshop was:

The current version of the MSC standard requires assessment teams to consider a larger range of ETP species than had been required in previous versions. ETP designation now also applies to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red-listed seabirds, even if they are not already protected by a given jurisdiction, and in the case of Alaska salmon, this adds Marbled and Kittlitz’s murrelets to that list. Therefore the purpose of this workshop is to bring together seabird experts as well as members of the and conservation NGOs to gain a coherent understanding of the state of information about these birds and potential or actual interactions with Alaska salmon gillnetters.

Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation P.O. Box 2223, Wrangell, AK 99929 www.afdf.org Although the AT found that “the level of annual mortality likely experienced in the gillnet fisheries is likely to be relatively insignificant to the total population and would not hinder a rebound of the population to historic numbers given favorable environmental and habitat conditions” (page 48 of the CDR), a condition was placed on this PI. Since the largest unknowns in determining significance of gillnet interaction with murrelet species in Alaska are population estimates and distributions, AFDF will work with aforementioned parties to hold biennial seabird workshops to report on ongoing research and monitoring efforts regarding population, distribution and potential gillnet interaction for the murrelet species in Alaska.

• AFDF ACTION: AFDF will sponsor biennial workshops including the following (at the minimum): USFWS and AFSC , salmon gillnet fishermen, AFDF, MSC and RFM ATs, NGOs and other stakeholders. These workshops will both review current murrelet population and distribution data, and explore potential research areas and methods to mitigate seabird bycatch. In addition, these workshops will explore industry partnerships and methodologies to collect data related to interactions between salmon gillnet fisheries and murrelet species. [Note: these biennial meetings may be remote and held via videoconference]. • At the time of each annual audit and/or seabird workshop, AFDF will provide a brief report to the AT on research activities and findings as outlined below. When appropriate, this will include seabird interaction with salmon gillnet fisheries. When appropriate, AFDF will explore the potential to work with identified parties to expand studies and research to other areas of concern to the AT, including LCI, Upper Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound (PWS), Copper-Bering, Southeast Alaska (SEAK), Kodiak, Chignik and Alaska Peninsula UoAs. o Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP): according to the AFSC this program will be potentially reinstated in the next 1-2 years. Target areas for the study will be established by NOAA. o Brian Manly extrapolation of AMMOP data: if funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the USFWS will work with a contractor to do a more complete analysis of seabird bycatch using observer datasets from the AMMOP program, particularly to identify factors affecting interactions between murrelets and salmon gillnet fisheries. Additional future work could potentially include seeking funds to improve murrelet population estimates and examine the overlap in distribution between murrelets and fisheries. o Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council’s funded research of Kittlitz’s and Marbled murrelet population and distribution in EVOS regions. The USFWS and Alaska Sealife Center are in the process of finalizing a cooperative project to conduct vessel-based surveys in Kachemak Bay, Resurrection Bay, and Kenai Fjords to update murrelet population trends and abundance. The surveys are proposed to begin in 2021. o EVOS Trustee Council biennial July PWS marine bird surveys: following the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, the USFWS conducts July marine bird surveys (biennially since 2010) and provides population trend information for Marbled and Kittlitz’s murrelets in PWS. Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation P.O. Box 2223, Wrangell, AK 99929 www.afdf.org • AFDF will support proposals submitted for funding by other appropriate entities to further research related to salmon gillnet interaction with Marbled and Kittlitz’s murrelets and/or population and distribution monitoring.

Thank you for your consideration of these Client Action Plans.

Sincerely,

Julie Decker, Executive Director, AFDF

Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation P.O. Box 2223, Wrangell, AK 99929 www.afdf.org