SCS Global Services Report

Expedited Assessment of the U.S. Northeast Northern Shortfin Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery For the expansion of scope of the U .S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery MSC Fishery Assessment Report Final Report

Client Contact Authors Jeff Kaelin Mr. Gonzalo Macho Lund’s Fisheries Inc. Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone 997 Ocean Drive, Cape May, NJ, U.S.

Katie Almeida The Town Dock 45 State St, Narragansett, RI, U.S.

April 9 2019

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax www.SCSglobalServices.com SCS Global Services Report

Table of Contents Glossary ...... 5 1. Executive Summary ...... 7 Assessment Overview ...... 7 Summary of Findings ...... 9 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 11 2.1 Audit Team ...... 11 2.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 12 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 14 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 14 3.1.1 UoA and Final Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 14 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 16 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 17 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 17 3.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 17 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery ...... 17 3.2.2 Organization and User Rights ...... 20 3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear ...... 23 3.2.4 Areas and Seasons ...... 24 3.2.5 History of catches...... 26 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 29 3.3.1 Northern shortfin squid ...... 29 3.3.2 Biology ...... 29 3.3.3 Stock Assessment ...... 39 3.3.4 Harvest Strategy ...... 42 Key Low Trophic Level Considerations ...... 54 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 54 3.4.1 Fishery Information and Monitoring ...... 54 3.4.2 Primary Species ...... 55 3.4.3 Secondary Species ...... 55 3.4.4 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 55 3.4.5 Habitat Impacts ...... 56 3.4.6 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 56 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 65 3.5.1 Area of Operation and Jurisdictional Scope Considerations ...... 65

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

3.5.2 Over-arching Governance ...... 67 3.5.3 Fishery Specific Management Considerations for Northern Shortfin Squid ...... 72 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 73 4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment ...... 73 4.2 Previous Assessments ...... 73 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 73 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 73 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 73 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 75 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 76 5. Traceability ...... 81 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 81 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 81 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 85 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 86 6. Evaluation Results ...... 87 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 87 6.3 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 88 6.4 Summary of Conditions ...... 89 6.5 Recommendations ...... 90 6.6 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 90 References ...... 91 Appendices ...... 96 Appendix 1.1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 96 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 96 Principle 1 ...... 96 Principle 2 ...... 119 Principle 3 ...... 138 Appendix 1.2 Risk-Based Framework Stakeholder Consultation: Applying a Consequence Analysis (CA) and a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to Northern Shortfin Squid (I. illecebrosus) for scoring PI 1.1.1...... 139 6.6.2 Consequence Analysis ...... 141 6.6.3 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis ...... 150 6.6.4 Final combined CA - PSA Score for Northern Shortfin Squid Using the MSC RBF Worksheet ...... 166

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 168 Client Action Plan Letter from Client Group ...... 174 Letters of Support ...... 176 Appendix 2 Peer Review Report ...... 178 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 184 Appendix 4 Objections Process ...... 186

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

Glossary ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ACCSP Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program ACE Annual Catch Entitlements APA Administrative Procedures Act ASAP Age Structured Assessment Program B Biomass BMSY Biomass calculated for Maximum Sustainable Yield CAB Conformity Assessment Body CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species F Fishing Mortality FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FLIM Limit Reference Point for Fishing Mortality FMP Fishery Management Plan FREF Fishing Mortality Reference Point GAO Government Accounting Office GARFO Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office GB Georges Bank GOM Gulf of Maine IFMP Integrated Fisheries Management Plan IFQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LOA Length Over-All LPUE Landings per unit of fishing effort ML Mantle length M Million (lbs.) MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MG Mobile Gear MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSP Maximum Spawning Potential NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NS National Standards for fishery management contained in MSFCMA Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PI Performance Indicator PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk Based Framework SAFIS Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch T1, T2, T3 Trimester (1, 2, 3) WWF World Wildlife Fund

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

1. Executive Summary This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) expedited assessment of the US Northeast Northern Shortfin Squid (Illex illecebrosus) fishery, harvested by small mesh bottom trawls in U.S. waters in the northwest Atlantic between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC. The species in this range is considered to be a straddling stock with a wide range in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, extending at least from Southern Labrador to Florida . Within the report, Northern shortfin squid may also be referred to as shortfin squid or Illex. The gear, bottom otter trawl, may be referred to as otter trawl or bottom trawl. The assessment was conducted and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC- accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. As per the recent full assessment, this expedited assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements V2.0 (October 1 2014) and the associated guidance. The fishery was assessed using the default assessment tree with no modifications. The RBF was used in the evaluation of PI 1.1.1.

Table 1. Unit of Assessment (UoA) Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3) Northwest Atlantic Northern Small mesh bottom otter State and federally licensed small shortfin squid trawl (<5.5in codend mesh bottom trawl operators with (Illex illecebrosus) mesh size) permits to land Northern shortfin squid* *Due to the ability for vessels to hold and fish under multiple permits even on the same trip, the fishery is not defined based on permit type, but rather gear. The fleet definition remains unchanged from the initial full assessment to this expedited assessment, with the recognition that only those vessels holding valid permits to land Northern shortfin squid are eligible fishers.

The U.S. Northeast longfin inshore squid fishery was first certified as sustainable in May of 2018 in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria by accredited certification assessment body, SCS Global Services (SCS). The client informed SCS of its interest in assessment of Northern shortfin squid for certification, which was assessed in the full assessment as a Main Secondary species. Because the fleet targeting Northern shortfin squid is part of the existing UoA fleet, this assessment qualifies for an expedited assessment for scope expansion of the existing certificate (FCRV2.0 7.22.1). In accordance with MSC FCRV2.0 (7.22 & Annex PE), SCS first conducted a Gap Analysis to evaluate what Assessment Components and Performance Indicators would be held in common or require differential assessment via an Expedited Assessment. SCS submitted the results of the Gap Analysis, with the formal announcement of the Expedited Assessment, on May 29, 2018. These materials are available online: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-northeast-longfin-inshore-squid-bottom-trawl- fishery/@@assessments.

Assessment Overview

The Expedited Assessment process was governed via MSC V2.0 process requirements (FCR 7.22 and Annex PE primarily). In accordance with those requirements, the assessment utilized the same assessment tree as the currently certified fishery’s most recent assessment (also FCRV2.0). The Expedited Assessment report uses the same template as the certification Public Certification Report (PCR), revised to present a focused evaluation of the components of the expanded scope UoA that differ from the current scope (i.e. adding Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) as a target species Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

in P1). The report includes the following sections, revised where appropriate to reflect the expedited assessment of purse seine gear and updated with information from the latest surveillance audit: Executive Summary, Authorship and Peer Review, UoA/UoC & Scope, Overview of the fishery, Principle Backgrounds where there are significant changes, Traceability, and Evaluation Results. This is consistent with MSC Interpretations Log guidance1. The reader is referred to the re-assessment report for the full background and scoring of those components that were not re-evaluated as part of the scope expansion process.

The team selected to undertake the assessment includes two team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are:

. Dr. Gonzalo Macho, Team Leader and Principle 1 Expert . Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone, Principle 2 Expert The team met with federal fishery managers, scientists, fishers and client representatives in Woods Hole, MA, and Cape May, NJ, July 9-10, 2018. Documents were presented by fishery managers and fisheries scientists prior to, during and after the on-site. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The assessment team conducted an interview preceding the onsite visit with management representatives unable to attend the onsite, and several additional follow-up interviews on a range of fishery management topics with US and Canadian fishery managers and scientists in the weeks following the on-site via phone and email. Stakeholders were notified of the onsite visit and invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns, and time was scheduled during the onsite to meet with interested stakeholders. No stakeholders requested to meet with the team during the onsite visit to discuss information or concerns relevant to the scope of the Expedited Assessment. Stakeholder outreach and consultation are described in detail in Section 4.4.

The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk Based Framework (RBF) may need to be used for scoring PI 1.1.1 and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The RBF was therefore applied to the evaluation of Northern shortfin squid as a Target species in PI 1.1.1, since stock status reference points are not available for this squid stock. Following Table PF1 (Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – Normative) of the FCR v2.0, CA and PSA methodologies were both used for scoring PI 1.1.1. The assessment team confirmed via a variation request to the MSC the direct applicability of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) conducted in the fall of 2017 for the evaluation of Northern shortfin squid as a Main Secondary species subject to review of findings and application of PF 4.4.32, so RBF exercises in the Expedited Assessment focused largely on the additional requirement to conduct a Consequence Analysis (CA). All stakeholders interviewed were engaged regarding the CA. A review of the findings of the PSA was done during the onsite in consultation with stakeholders, in particular seeking information on additional fleets impacting the stock (per PF 4.4.3).

1 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scope-extensions-relevant-trees-and-reporting-templates-PE3- 1527262009900 2 https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=G06iXXesQnrLx3ecUVvgaQNtUls OvdYg9eJmz5umEkU69lUjQ3FVpjmiEnzXebEw Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

Mainly, this involved consideration of the Northern component fishery in NAFO waters North of the US. The team confirmed there has been no active fishery targeting Northern shortfin squid other than the UoA since approximately 1999, and that in the last 10 years the US is responsible for approximately 98% of the catch of the stock. Within the US, the UoA gear comprises the only active fishery for Northern shortfin squid, with trace volumes captured (an estimated 1%) by other gears such as shrimp trawl (NEFSC 2017). Based on this and additional stakeholder input and information, the team concluded there was no indication of materials changes to the PSA findings or scores. For a detailed discussion of all RBF exercises, we refer the reader to Appendix 1.2. Because the United States has authority to manage the squid resource in its waters and complete authority over the fleet under assessment, and there is no active fishery North of the US, the assessment team considers that at this time non-UoA management systems are not material to scoring outcomes under Principle 1 and 3. (As Principle 2 is fleet specific, management of non-UoA fleets outside the managed area of the UoA would not be relevant in any case). Background on the Northern component is provided for completeness, and may become material to scoring should a fishery re-emerge. The client provided comments and corrections to the client draft report, with no changes to scores made. The client prepared a client action plan in collaboration with key management representatives over December and January. Peer review was organized through the MSC Peer Review College, with a single peer reviewer assigned per FCRV2.0 Annex PE 3.1.3. The peer reviewer shortlist biographies are provided in Section 2.2, and the peer reviewer evaluation and team responses are provided in Appendix 2. The peer reviewer agreed with all assessment team scores, and all corrections and suggestions for improvement were accepted, with no changes to scores.

Summary of Findings In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) assessed in the course of this expedited audit, which includes PIs under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy) and Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact). No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the Principles were above 80.0. When considered with the unchanged scores from the current certification, all Principles remain above the required average score of 80.0. The team issued 3 new conditions for 3 different PIs that did not meet SG80 level, all under Principle 1. A Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.2., was produced to meet the conditions. In Principle 1, 3 PIs received scores under SG80, due to a lack of linkage between the harvest strategy in general and particularly the ABC based harvest control rule and indicators of the status of the stock. This affects scoring on PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, and the lack of accurate abundance information to support the harvest strategy resulted in a condition on PI 1.2.3. Northern shortfin squid is a data-limited species, and there is no available stock assessment or reference points. However, information available indicates that the stock is lightly exploited and that there is a self-regulating nature to the fishery based on variable and temporally constrained availability of the stock in the range of the UoA, and a historically small market. Thus, although there are improvements needed in the harvest strategy relative to the MSC criteria, the management in place can be seen as precautionary and resource healthy. Of note is that in the fall of 2018 the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended a working group be initiated to explore improvements to the Illex harvest strategy, and the work of this group has the potential to help address the conditions assigned under Principle 1.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

In Principle 2, only two PI components were rescored. This is because the fleet targeting Illex was assessed in the course of the initial full assessment, and therefore impacts were accounted for in the existing scores. Secondary species PIs (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3) were rescored to remove Illex as a scoring element, which is now scored under Principle 1. Ecosystem component PIs (2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3) were rescored to consider in particular the effect of removal of Illex from the ecosystem. None of these revisions resulted in additional conditions. The conditions placed on the existing certified fishery under the full assessment remain in place and will continue to be assessed under the existing certificate timeline.

As noted above, under Principle 3 no PIs were rescored on the basis that the fleet and fishery are subject to the same management system and Fishery Management Plan and the lack of current active fishery in the Northern component meaning that from a practical perspective management cooperation needs are limited. Should the fishery in Northern component waters re-emerge, this jurisdiction may be considered material to some Principle 3 PIs.

Conditions applied in the full assessment remain in place, and will continue on their original timeline in accordance with the existing fishery certificate.

In this report we provide the rationales for all scores proposed, which support the assessment that the fishery is recommended for certification.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

2.1 Audit Team This assessment was conducted by Dr. Gonzalo Macho and Jennifer Humberstone MESM, with administrative and quality oversight by SCS Global Services. The assessment was carried out using the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (Effective October 1, 2014).

Dr. Gonzalo Macho – Lead, Principle 1 Gonzalo Macho, his background comes as a marine biology and fisheries management researcher (1998 - ongoing), as a fishery practitioner for the fishers´ guild of Bueu in Galicia, Spain (2007-2008), and as an independent consultant in fisheries & marine ecology (2011 - ongoing). While in the Cofradía de Bueu he launched the MSC pre-assessment and final assessment of the razor clam fishery of the Ría de Pontevedra (Galicia, Spain) which was finally the first Spanish fishery being certified by MSC. He has published more than 15 publications (SCI peer-reviewed journals) and participated in more than 20 national and international scientific projects on population dynamics of marine fishing resources (razor clams, cockles, gooseneck barnacle, clams & sea urchins), fisheries management and governance (octopus, razor clams, gooseneck barnacle, scallops, abalones, deep-sea fishes in Argentina, Chile, Spain and EU), reform of the EU common fisheries policy, marine socio-ecological systems, fisheries socio-economics and climate change impacts on marine invertebrates. Gonzalo has worked since 2014 as an assessor on 16 MSC certifications (5 Full Assessments, 5 Annual Surveillances, 1 Peer review and 5 Pre-assessments) within Europe, U.S. and Latin America, acting as Team Leader, Team member on P1, 2 and 3 and as peer reviewer. He is qualified by MSC as Team Leader and he is also part of the Peer Review College (MSCI).

Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone – Principle 2, Principle 3

Jennifer Humberstone holds a Master of Environmental Science and Management degree from the Bren School at the University of California Santa Barbara, where she specialized in fisheries management and natural resource economics. Jennifer has designed spatial bio-economic models to facilitate management decisions and performed research for the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Mrs. Humberstone has cross-sectoral and international project management experiences working with diverse stakeholders including fishers, government, private industry, and NGOs. Jennifer is proficient in Spanish and has marine resource management field experience in both the Philippines and the Dominican Republic: where she spent over two years building initiatives in protected areas, ecotourism, and fisheries management.

Jennifer is an ISO 9001 lead auditor and MSC Team Leader (V2.0), for which her training includes the RBF, enhanced salmon and bivalve fisheries, and traceability modules. In her role at SCS, she is currently leading, coordinating and/or participating as a team member on MSC pre-assessment, surveillance audits, and full assessments of fisheries worldwide, including multiple U.S. fisheries.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

2.2 Peer Reviewers

In accordance with MSC FCRV2.0, the Expedited Assessment was reviewed by one peer reviewer with qualifications in compliance with MSC FCRV2.0 7.14. A shortlist of Peer Reviewers was created by the MSC Peer Review College, and this shortlist was announced via the MSC website and direct stakeholder contact by the MSC. A single peer reviewer was selected. Don Bowen

Dr William Don Bowen is a Ph.D. graduate of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He retired from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2016 after 37 years with the Department. Prior to his retirement, he was a research scientist at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia for 31 years. He is currently an Emeritus Research Scientist at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography and continues his adjunct position at Dalhousie University. He has conducted research mainly on the ecology and population dynamics of North Atlantic seals. His professional interests also include mammalian life histories, population assessment, ecological interactions with fisheries, conservation, and ecosystem change. From 1985 to 1989, he managed fish and marine mammal stock assessments and ecological research on the Scotian Shelf for the DFO. He has published 240 scientific papers, including 170 journal articles and book chapters, and has edited two books. He has served on the USA recovery team of the Hawaiian monk seal, and as chair of the UK Special Committee on Seals. He has broad national (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, DFO) and international (US National Academy, US National Science Foundation, US Center for Independent Experts, US National Marine Fisheries Service, UKNatural Environment Research Council, North Pacific Research Board) experience as a science advisor and served as a member of the Board and Editor of Marine Mammal Science for five years. For nine years he chaired the National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee of DFO, the body responsible for providing science advice to the Minister of Fisheries. He has considerable experience as an MSC assessor (Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, Flatfishes) in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska and has been an MSC peer reviewer of Cornish Hake, US West Coast groundfish trawl fisheries, Icelandic Blue Whiting, Orange Roughy, and West Greenland Halibut.

Earl Dawe

Mr Earl Dawe retired in 2015 following a 35-year research career with Fisheries and Oceans Canada which focused on the fisheries, biology, population dynamics, and ecology of cephalopods and crustaceans. He has published 170 scientific/technical reports and journal articles (58 in the primary, peer reviewed literature) on various aspects of population biology and ecology as well as fishery resource assessment and management of both short-finned squid and snow crab. Research effort has most recently focused on ecosystem structure and functioning, particularly the relative effects of ocean climate versus predation on finfish and crustacean resources. Earl’s career included heavy involvement in the review and formulation of scientific advice for management of shellfish resources in Atlantic Canada as well as the advisory/consultative part of managing the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) fisheries for short-finned squid and snow crab. He has recently participated as a scientific advisor in the MSC certification of the NL snow crab fishery as well as recently served as a peer reviewer in MSC certification of the Western Asturias octopus trap fishery.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0

SCS Global Services Report

Jerry Ennis

Dr Ennis completed a Ph.D. in marine biology at the University of Liverpool in the early 1970s, following undergraduate and graduate degrees at Memorial University of Newfoundland in the 1960s. He retired in 2005 following a 37-year research career with the Science Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He has produced an extensive list of scientific/technical reports and journal articles (40 in the primary, peer reviewed literature) focused primarily on lobster fishery and population biology and on various aspects of larval, juvenile and adult lobster behavior and ecology in Newfoundland waters. As Head of Shellfish Section for 27 years, Dr. Ennis oversaw research projects lead by 4-5 other scientists focused primarily on fisheries management related research on northern shrimp, snow crab, scallops, squid and other shellfish throughout the Newfoundland-Labrador area of the Northwest Atlantic. Throughout his career, Dr. Ennis was heavily involved in the review and formulation of scientific advice for management of shellfish in Atlantic Canada as well as the advisory/consultative part of managing the Newfoundland lobster fishery. Since retiring, Dr. Ennis as published several articles aimed at presenting fishery science primarily to harvesters and has participated in most aspects of the MSC certification process for several Atlantic Canada fisheries.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 13

SCS Global Services Report

3. Description of the Fishery

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

3.1.1 UoA and Final Unit of Certification (UoC)

The Unit of Assessment includes the Northern shortfin squid caught by the state and federally licensed small mesh (<5.5 in codend mesh size) bottom otter trawl vessels with valid permits to land Northern shortfin squid, operating between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC, in both state and federal (EEZ) waters.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCR v2.0 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

. Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute. (FCR 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.2, 7.4.1.3, 7.4.2)

. The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCR 7.4.2.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn.

. Is not an enhanced fishery and is not based on an introduced species (FCR 7.4.3, 7.4.4) . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4) . The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized (See Section 5), and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.4.6-7.4.12).

. Does not overlap with an inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) species (7.4.13-15). . Overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery exists and has been considered in scoring See (7.4.16). See section 4.1 for a summary of harmonization considerations taken in full assessment.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 14

SCS Global Services Report

Table 2. Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC) under Assessment for Scope Expansion Units of Assessment: Defined as the species, gear, and fleet assessed Northwest Atlantic Northern shortfin squid (Illex UoA: Species & Stock (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) illecebrosus)* Small mesh bottom otter trawl (<5.5in codend mesh UoA: Gear Type (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) size) All federal and state licensed small mesh bottom otter UoA: Vessels (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3) trawl vessels permitted to land Northern shortfin squid The UoA encompasses the entire fishing grounds for the Further information: Geographic Area stock that extends from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC. Local fisheries management area comprises U.S. EEZ waters from the U.S.-Canada boundary to Cape Hatteras, as defined and managed under the Federal Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) FMP under the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC). Fishing in state waters may occur by vessels holding both a federal and a state permit or just a state permit, and longfin squid landed under state permit is included Further information: Management System in the UoA as well: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Note, that Northern shortfin squid occur primarily on the continental shelf, and therefore the state-permitted component for this expedited assessment is considered negligible. Unit of Certification: Defined as the vessels allowed to use the MSC ecolabel for catch from the Unit of Assessment (defined as the species, location and gear assessed against the MSC standard).

Client Group Lund’s Fisheries Inc. and The Town Dock All operators as described above are included in the fishery certificate, but only product received by client Fishers in the UoC for the chosen stock group members, as listed on the fishery certificate, is eligible for use of the MSC claim. Other eligible fishers include all licensed small mesh bottom trawlers with federal and/or state permits to land Northern shortfin squid, whose catch is not received and processed by one of the client group Other Eligible Fishers that may join the members: currently Lund’s Fisheries Inc. and The Town certificate for the chosen stock Dock.

See the MSC website for the client group’s formal statement on certificate sharing.

* Because Illex is a straddling stock, with a distinct management system North of the United States (Northern Component, NAFO areas 3 & 4), the assessment team has considered whether the Northern component was material to scoring under Principles 1 and 3. In the course of the onsite and follow-up meetings, the team confirmed there has been no active fishery targeting Northern shortfin squid other than the UoA since approximately 1999, and that in the last 10 years the US is responsible for

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 15

SCS Global Services Report approximately 98% of the catch of the stock. Within the US, the UoA gear comprises the only active fishery for Northern shortfin squid, with trace volumes captured (an estimated 1%) by other gears such as shrimp trawl (NEFSC 2017). Thus, it can be said that the UoA comprises the complete targeted fishery for Northern shortfin squid.

Because the United States has authority to manage the squid resource in its waters and complete authority over the fleet under assessment, and there is no active fishery North of the US, the assessment team considers that at this time non-UoA management systems are not material to scoring outcomes under Principle 1 and 3. (As Principle 2 is fleet specific, management of non-UoA fleets outside the managed area of the UoA would not be relevant in any case.) Background on the Northern component is provided for completeness, and may become material to scoring should a fishery re- emerge.

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 3. TAC and Catch Data for Northern Shortfin Squid captured by Small Mesh Bottom Trawl TAC Year 2018 Amount 22,915 t UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount NA* UoC share of total TAC Year 2018 Amount NA Total green weight catch Year (most recent) 2017 Amount 22,516 t by UoA** Year (second most recent) 2016 Amount 6,682 t *NA: The UoA comprises the entire directed fishery for Northern shortfin squid, but it is possible for other gear types to land Northern shortfin squid, and the TAC is not allocated by gear. The 2017 SBRM report indicates that non-trawl gear comprises just over 1% of total catch of Northern shortfin squid (NEFSC 2017). The UoC, described as Northern shortfin squid processed by members of the client group, likewise is not allocated a portion of the TAC. The amount received and processed by the client group is considered confidential information for competitive considerations.

**UoA green weight estimated from 2017 and 2016 the GARFO monitoring website: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/Illexsquid.html

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 16

SCS Global Services Report

3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

There is no evidence of enhancement in this fishery.

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

There is no evidence of introduced species in this fishery.

3.2 Overview of the Fishery 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery Northern shortfin squid is distributed across a broad latitudinal range in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, in continental shelf, slope, and oceanic waters located off the east coast of Florida (26º–29ºN) to 66ºN, including southern Greenland, Baffin Island, and Iceland (Roper et al., 2010). The population constitutes a unit stock throughout its range but it is managed through two separate management units: 1) the northern stock component, located north of the U.S.-Canada border in NAFO Subareas 3 and 4, is assessed and managed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), and 2) the southern stock component, located in NAFO Subareas 5 and 6 between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras (NC), is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) (Figure 1).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 17

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) nominal catch reporting areas (top) and main Northern shortfin squid fishing areas (bottom) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (Source: Dawe & Warren 1993).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 18

SCS Global Services Report

The bottom trawl fishery for I. illecebrosus occurs on the U.S. shelf (NAFO Subareas 5+6) from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras and is focused on the southern stock component of the Northern shortfin squid. The main fishing area is in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Figure 1). Regarding the northern component, an artisanal jig fishery occurs in inshore Newfoundland waters (NAFO Subarea 3) and historically, an industrial bottom trawl fishery also occurred on the Scotian Shelf in NAFO Subarea 4 (Hendrickson et al. 2005) (Figure 1). Since 1999, there has been no directed fishery for I. illecebrosus in NAFO Subarea 4 and most of the catches from Subareas 3+4 were from the Subarea 3 inshore jig fishery. Since 2010 catches in Subareas 3+4 have been below 400 t (highest catches in the period were in 2017 with 379 t), and most of the years even below 100 t (Figure 2). In the last 20 years catches from Subareas 5+6 accounted for 94% of the total catches, percentage that rises to 98% if only the last 10 years are taken into account (Figure 2, bottom right graph). The northeastern U.S. squid fishery (I. illecebrosus and D. pealeii combined) was initially incidental to other (trawl and inshore trap) fisheries. During 1887–1962 catches of squid were very low; peak catch was about 3 600 t in 1928 (O´Dor & Dawe 1998). Foreign fleets showed interest in this resource during the 60s and their access to the fishery was strongly developed during the 70s. This development began with the USSR first participating in 1964, although during 1963–1967 the annual catch of I. illecebrosus remained below 1 000 t (O´Dor & Dawe 1998). USSR was quickly followed by Japan, Spain and Poland and catches dramatically increased during the 70s (between 15,000-25,000 t), while the maximum domestic U.S. catch was about 1 600 t (see Section 3.2.5); the international fleet in 1976-77 consisted of 95 jiggers, bottom trawlers, and midwater trawlers from 11 different countries that ranged in size from 34–87 m (298–3,697 GRT), while the U.S. bottom trawl fleet consisted of much fewer and smaller vessels (O´Dor & Dawe 1998, Arkhipkin et al 2015). In 1977, the U.S. extended their jurisdiction to assume responsibility for fishery resources within 200 miles of their coastlines. This declaration led to a decline of the foreign fleet due to restrictions on effort and catch allocations. During the early 80s the fleet composition drastically changed; the U.S. domestic fishery expanded since 1981 and since 1986 there has been no foreign participation in this fishery.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 19

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 2. Northern shortfin squid in NAFO Subareas 3+4 – Canada & NAFO (top graphs) and 5+6 – U.S. (bottom left): nominal catches and TACs. (Source: NAFO 2017 for Subareas 3+4 and Hendrickson 2018 for Subareas 5+6. Bottom right graph comparing 3+4 vs 5+6 Subareas was elaborated using both previous sources of data).

3.2.2 Organization and User Rights

UoA Fishery The directed Northern shortfin squid fishery is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) under the Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Permits issued under the MSB FMP include:

Table 4. Squid permits issued by NMFS in 2014. Permit Category Type Description Permits Issued in 2014 Category 1 Limited Access Longfin Squid/Butterfish Moratorium 298 Category 2 Open Access Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish Charter Party 703 Category 3 Open Access Squid/Butterfish Incidental Catch 1,608 Category 4 Open Access Atlantic Mackerel 1,761 Category 5 Limited Access Illex Squid Moratorium 69

The MSFCMA requires fishery managers to consider a number of factors when limiting access to a fishery in order to achieve optimum yield. These include: (A) present participation in the fishery; (B) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; (C) the economics of the fishery; (D) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to engage in other fisheries; (E) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery and any affected fishing communities; (F) the fair and equitable distribution of access privileges in the fishery; and (G) any other relevant considerations. Amendment 5 in 1996 established a limited access system for longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish. To be eligible for a moratorium permit in the Illex squid fishery a vessel had to meet the following criteria: A. The vessel had five landings (including joint venture landings) of 5,000 pounds of /Illex (that is, landed 5 trips of at least 5,000 pounds) between 13 August 1981 and 13 August 1 993; or

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 20

SCS Global Services Report

B. have purchased recirculating sea water equipment, an on board plate freezer or commercial blast freezer by 31 May 1 994 and installed this equipment and have landed five trips of at least 5,000 lb.of //lex prior to the implementation of the final regulations of Amendment 5; or C. the vessel is replacing a vessel of substantially similar harvesting capacity which involuntarily left the squid or butterfish fishery during the moratorium, and both the entering and replaced vessels are owned by the same person ("Substantially similar harvesting capacity" means the same or less GRT and vessel registered length for commercial vessels); or D. Vessels that are judged unseaworthy by the Coast Guard for reasons other than lack of maintenance may be replaced by a vessel with the same GRT and vessel registered length. Amendment 5 allowed vessels that did not qualify for a Loligo/butterfish or Illex moratorium permit to land Loligo, Illex, and or butterfish if: (1) it possessed an incidental catch permit, (2) fished with a net legal in the directed fishery, (3) landed no more than 2,500 pounds of each species (Loligo, Illex, and/or butterfish) per trip, and (4) the operator of the vessel filed the appropriate trip reports. The bycatch allowance could be adjusted by the Regional Director based on the recommendation of the Council.

There are approximately 80 Illex squid limited access/moratorium permits. In any given year, a small portion of these vessels account for most Illex squid landings (Table 6) (MAFMC 2018b). The number of vessels participating depends on both Illex availability and price. Illex price has been increasing (see Figure 6– Illex prices are tied to world prices for squid), and the combination of higher prices and good availability has led to increasing participation in 2017 and 2018 compared to the immediately preceding years. In 2017, 10 vessels landed over 1,000,000 pounds and those 10 vessels accounted for 90% of the landings. In 2018 12 vessels landed over 1,000,000 pounds and it took 15 vessels to account for 90% of the landings. Most landings in recent years have gone into Rhode Island and New Jersey with smaller amounts into Massachusetts and Virginia (Table 5) (MAFMC 2018b) .

Table 5. Limited access moratorium Illex permits by homeport state in 2017. (Source: MAFMC 2018b

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 21

SCS Global Services Report

Table 6. Number of vessels that actively fished for Northern shortfin squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982-2017. (Source: MAFMC, 2018b).

States may permit commercial vessels for squid fishing in their waters, and squid landed by small mesh bottom trawl vessels with valid state licenses are included in the UoA. However, Northern shortfin squid do not frequently distribute into state waters, and there are no directed state fisheries for squid.

Any state landings, including state-only landings, are reported through the same data system for quota monitoring and stock assessments (The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP)). State- only vessels are also subject to observer coverage.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 22

SCS Global Services Report

3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear U.S. squid fishing vessels are typically bottom otter trawl vessels owned by individuals and small companies. Some are owner-operated and some have hired captains. Crew size is generally 2-5. Vessels range in size from 11 meters (35 feet) to 45 meters (146 feet). Small mesh bottom trawls are the dominant gear used to target Northern shortfin squid.

A bottom otter trawl is towed by a single boat. Two bottom tending, trawl doors are used to achieve the horizontal spread of the net. The door spread averages 300 feet or more depending upon speed and the configuration of the net. The trawl doors are attached to the net by ground cable and bridles (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Diagram of a bottom otter trawl

Appendix D of the Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a description of trawl gear: (NEFMC 2011) Trawl gear components include the warps, which attach the gear to the vessel; the doors, which hold the net open under water, the ground cables and bridles, which attach the door to the wings of the net; and the net itself. The top opening of the net, or headrope, is rigged with floats, and the lower opening, or groundrope, is rigged with a sweep, which varies in design depending on the target species (e.g., whether they are found on or off the bottom) as well as the roughness and hardness of the bottom. The net terminates in a codend, which has a drawstring opening that can be untied easily to dump the catch on deck. Three components of the otter trawl typically come in contact with the seafloor: the doors; the ground cables and lower bridles; and the footrope and sweep. Chafing gear may be attached to the codend to avoid damage caused by seabed contact, although this is not believed to be a regular occurrence. All small mesh (<5.5 in codend mesh size) gear was evaluated as part of the UoA, but fishers conFigure gear differently and use particular mesh ranges in the various directed fisheries that use small mesh bottom trawl. The directed Illex fishery uses a significantly smaller mesh size (1 ¼- 1 ½ in- corrected in consultation) than the longfin squid targeted small mesh bottom trawl (~1 7/8-2 1/8in) (J. Kaelin, pers. comm.).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 23

SCS Global Services Report

Two fleet sectors involved in the directed fishery, refrigerated seawater system trawlers (RSW vessels) and freezer trawlers (FT vessels). The RSW vessels tend to be of smaller size than the freezer trawlers and store their catches in chilled seawater. Both factors result in shorter trips, generally less than four days, than those made by FT vessels (up to 14 days) which are larger and freeze their catches at sea. The home ports for FT vessels are North Kingston and Point Judith, Rhode Island and Cape May, New Jersey. Effort patterns for the RSW fleet are primarily determined by the travel distance between a shoreside processing facility and the offshore fishing grounds. The home port for most of the RSW vessels is Cape May, New Jersey, where there is a major Illex processing facility, but other home ports include Wanchese, North Carolina, Hampton Roads, Virginia and several Rhode Island ports.

Impacts of the fishing gear on all ecosystem components, including non-target species, habitat, and ecosystem, are primarily assessed in the full assessment of longfin inshore squid, as this assessment considered the impacts of the small mesh bottom trawl fleet comprehensively. Only PIs 2.2.X and PIs 2.5.X are reconsidered in this expedited assessment. We refer the reader to the PCR of the full assessment report for a full discussion of Ecosystem impacts.

3.2.4 Areas and Seasons

The onset and duration of the Illex fisheries reflect the timing of squid availability on the fishing grounds; 1) bottom trawl fisheries occur on the U.S. continental shelf, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Figure 4) from ~June to September (Figure 5), and have historically occurred on the Scotian Shelf off Canada during June through late autumn, and 2) an inshore jig fishery exists later in the year, generally during August through late autumn, in waters off Newfoundland (Hendrickson 2004). However, these fisheries have not been significantly active since 1999.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 24

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Distribution of landings (t) from (UoA) bottom trawl trips landings greater than 4.5 t of Northern shortfin squid by ten-minute square, during 2009-2012 (left) and 2013-2016 (right). (Note: Landings shown at depths < 91 m, the shoreward regulatory depth limit for Illex fishing, and > 400 m are incorrect fishing locations reported in the VTR (Source: Hendrickson 2018).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 25

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 5. Trends in weekly U.S. I. illecebrosus landings from the VTR and Dealer Report Landings databases (x axis is the week number of the year) (Source: NEFSC 2006).

3.2.5 History of catches A detailed history of Northern shortfin squid catches in Subareas 3+4 and 5+6 is given in the review of world squid fisheries by Arkhipkin et al (2015). In this review, authors examined the different periods of catches, the fleets involved by size and country and the economic importance of these landings (Figure 6). Below, is the original information provided in Arkhipkin et al (2015). Since 1963, total landings (nominal catches) from Subareas 3–6 have varied considerably and have consisted of three distinct levels of magnitude. The period of highest landings (1976–1981), which occurred when international fishing fleets were active in all fishing areas, was bracketed by periods of substantially lower landings (Hendrickson and Showell, 2013; (Figure 6). Total landings were primarily from the northernmost fishing area (Subarea 3 inshore jig fishery) during 1963–1967 (average = 7,354 t) and from the southernmost area (international fishery in Subareas 5+6) during 1968–1974 (average = 13,470 t). Following a sustained period of record high landings in Subareas 3+4 during 1976–1981 (average = 100,300 t), these northern fisheries collapsed; declining from 162,092 t in 1979 to 426 t in 1983. However, landings from Subareas 5+6 remained stable during the same

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 26

SCS Global Services Report

period and did not exceed 25,000 t, in part, due to effort restrictions. Since 1987, total landings have been mainly from the U.S. fishery in Subareas 5+6. Subareas 3+4. The Subarea 3 inshore jig fishery has occurred since the late 1800s, but landings have only been quantified since 1911 and totaled less than 1,000 t during most years between 1911 and 1952 (Dawe, 1981). During 1920–1952, landings from Subarea 4 averaged 269 t with a peak of 1990 t in 1926 (Mercer, 1973c). Landings from Subareas 3+4 were predominately from the Subarea 3 inshore jig fishery during 1953–1969 (average = 4,647 t) due to increased export market demand and the use of mechanized jiggers beginning in 1965 (Dawe, 1981). The inshore jig fishery has repeatedly been defined as “passive” and entirely driven by squid availability (e.g., Mercer, 1973c). However, the lack of fishing effort data for the jig fishery prior to 1990 (Dawe and Hendrickson, 1998) and lack of inshore abundance and distribution data do not allow one to discern whether landings fluctuations were attributable to resource availability or changes in fishing effort and/or abundance. During the 1970s, landings from Subareas 3+4 increased rapidly with the development of offshore international fleets, from 1,485 t in 1970 to a peak of 162,092 t in 1979 (Hendrickson and Showell, 2013; Figure 6). During 1970–1978, landings from Subareas 3+4 were predominately from the Subarea 4 international fleets (average = 18,659 t). During this same period, Subarea 3 landings were predominately from the inshore jig fishery (average D 10,172 t). Landings by the offshore international fleets in Subarea 3 occurred primarily during 1975–1979 and were much lower, with a peak of only 5,700 t in 1978 (Dawe, 1981). Due to a strong export market demand, revenues from the jig fishery landings increased rapidly from $4,100 in 1976 to nearly $9 million in 1978 (Hurley, 1980). Landings in Subareas 3+4 were highest during 1976–1981 and averaged 80,645 t (Figure 6). Following a landings peak in 1979 (162,092 t), the fishery in Subareas 3+4 collapsed; landings declined to 426 t in 1983 and remained low thereafter with the exception of a few years (Figure 6). During 1987–1999, landings were primarily from an international fishery in Subarea 4 for Merluccius bilinearis, I. illecebrosus, and Argentina sp. (Hendrickson et al., 2002), but since 2000, landings have been primarily from the Subarea 3 inshore jig fishery (Hendrickson and Showell, 2013). The amounts of shortfin squid discards in the Subareas 3+4 trawl fisheries are unknown. Subareas 5+6. Landings of squids (I. illecebrosus and D. pealeii combined) off the eastern U.S. coast have been recorded since 1887, and during 1928–1963, averaged 1,232 t and 700 t from New England (ME to CT) and Mid-Atlantic (NY to NC) waters, respectively (Lange and Sissenwine, 1983). Prior to 1982, U.S. landings of I. illecebrosus were mainly from a nearshore trap fishery, for bait, off the Maine coast and incidental in bottom trawl fisheries during summer and fall (Lange, 1978). Landings from Subareas 5+6 are characterized by two distinct periods (1968–1986 and 1987– 2012). During 1968– 1982, landings were predominately taken by international fleets and averaged 15,086 t with a peak of 24,936 t in 1976; the second highest level (Hendrickson and Showell, 2013; Figure 7). Most of the landings were taken by Spain (33%), Japan (17%), Russia (16%), Italy (12%), and Poland (13%, Figure 8). After 1976, landings gradually declined to 1958 t in 1988. The decline was due to restrictions on effort and catch allocations for international vessels, the latter which were further reduced during 1982–1986 in order to develop a domestic squid fishery which initially consisted of joint ventures between foreign “processor” vessels and American “catcher” vessels (Lange and Sissenwine, 1983). During 1987–2002, U.S. fishery landings averaged 11,728 t. Following an increase to 23,568 t in 1998 (which led to an August fishery closure) landings declined to 2,750 t in 2002; the lowest level since the 1987 inception of the domestic fishery. Landings reached a record high in 2004 (26,097 t), resulting in a September fishery closure, then declined again and averaged 14,453 t during 2005–2012. Discards of shortfin squid are low in the directed fishery and due to their lower value primarily occur in the D. pealeii fishery. Total discards in both fisheries comprised 0.5–6.0% of the directed fishery landings during 1995–2004 (NEFSC, 2006). Fishing fleets. International fleets fishing in Subareas 5+6 consisted of 95 jiggers, bottom trawlers, and midwater trawlers that ranged in size from 34–87 m (298–3,697 GRT), during 1977, and which fished mainly during the day at depths of 165–200 m (Kolator and Long, 1979). The U.S. bottom trawl fleet consists of fewer and smaller vessels, totaling about 30 vessels, during highly productive years (e.g., 2004), but only 10–20 vessels during most years (Figure 9A). During 1996–2012, the U.S. fleet totaled 9–37 vessels. However, during most years, most of the landings (56–89%) were taken by 6–15

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 27

SCS Global Services Report

vessels in the 151–215 GRT size class (Figure 9A and B). The U.S. fleet fishes during the day, and during 1996– 2012, vessel logbook data indicated that 95% of the landings occurred at depths of 128–238 m (mode D 183 m) with most (69%) occurring at 146–201 m. Fishing effort by the U.S. fleet is affected by on-shelf availability of squid, abundance, vessel type, and ex-vessel price. Vessel types include freezer trawlers, on which catches are frozen at sea, and trawlers on which catches are stored either on ice or in refrigerated seawater (NEFSC, 2003). Freezer trawlers can fish for up to about 14 days and ice/refrigerated seawater trawlers generally fish less than 4 days. Freezer trawlers harvest a majority of the landings except during years when the landings are exceptionally high (NEFSC, 2006). Economic importance. A portion of the landings by the U.S. fleet are sold domestically as bait, but a majority is exported as food. Ex-vessel price is highly influenced by the global squid market, in particular, the amount of I. argentinus available from the Falklands (NEFSC, 1999). The average price of I. illecebrosus (in 2012 $/t, adjusted for inflation using the U.S. Producer Price Index (PPI)) nearly doubled during development of the domestic fishery, from $511/t in 1982 to $1,013/t in 1991, but then gradually declined to $627/t in 2000 (Figure 10). During the 1990–1999 and 2000–2009, mean prices averaged $877/t and $723/t, respectively. Average price peaked at $1,017/t in 2011 and was $908/t in 2012. During 1982–2012, trends in gross revenues (in 2012 $ adjusted using the PPI) were similar to the landings trends (Figure 10) and ranged from $1.1 million in 1983 to a peak of $23.1 million in 2004. Gross revenues were above the 1982–2011 average ($9.0 million) during 1990–1998, 2004–2006, and 2009–2012.

Figure 6. History of I. illecebrosus catches in U.S. waters; fleet size (top left) and percent of annual landings (bottom left) by tonnage class for the U.S. directed bottom trawl fishery, landings in Subareas 5+6 by major country (top right), and landings and average price (2012 $/t, adjusted for inflation) in the U.S. directed fishery (bottom right). (Source: Arkhipkin et al 2015).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 28

SCS Global Services Report

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 Northern shortfin squid

Taxonomic classification

Class: Cephalopoda Order: Teuthida Family: Ommastrephidae Genus: Illex Species: Illex illecebrosus (Lesueur 1821)

3.3.2 Biology

Geographic Range, Distribution and Migrations

Northern shortfin squid is distributed across a broad latitudinal range in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, in continental shelf, slope, and oceanic waters located off the east coast of Florida (26º–29ºN) to 66ºN, including southern Greenland, Baffin Island, and Iceland (Roper et al., 2010). Nevertheless, its range probably extends further south into the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and east into the Atlantic (O´Dor & Dawe 1998). The southernmost limit of the range of I. illecebrosus is difficult to identify because of its co-occurrence with I. coindetii and I. oxygonius; distinguishing between the three species is difficult given the high degree of interspecific and intraspecific variability in morphological characters (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). The Gulf Stream has been characterized as a source of paralarvae and I. illecebrosus juveniles have been collected as far east as 40°W (Dawe et al 1982). Some isolated occurrences of adults of I. illecebrosus have even been cited much eastern, on banks of the mid-Atlantic ridge north of the Azores at 30°W and in the Bristol Channel (O´Dor & Lipinski 1998). Although its geographic range of distribution is very large, data from U.S. and Canadian seasonal bottom trawl surveys (1975 to 1994) indicate that Northern shortfin squid is present in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, along the western edge of the Grand Bank, and along the western shore of Newfoundland, but are most abundant on the U.S. and Scotian Shelf (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). The distribution of Northern shortfin squid is highly influenced by water temperatures and water masses; the species is associated with bottom water temperatures greater than 5-6ºC on the Scotian shelf and the Newfoundland shelf and on the U.S. shelf, it is most abundant at bottom temperatures of 8–13ºC during fall and 10–14ºC during spring (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004, Arkhipkin et al 2015). I. illecebrosus concurrently inhabits the continental shelf (even in shallow waters), slope and oceanic waters during portions of the year (Arkhipkin et al 2015). Although the overall distribution limits of I. illecebrosus remain unclear, the young stages are associated with the continental edge of the Gulf Stream and subsequently with the adjacent shelf (O´Dor & Dawe 1998). Its oceanic distribution has been confirmed by several offshore captures at 1038, 1460 and 2510 m near the Bear Seamount and in the Flemish Cap (NEFSC 2003, Hendrickson & Showell 2013). On the other extreme, it is common in

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 29

SCS Global Services Report nearshore waters north of the Gulf of Maine during summer and fall, but the species is uncommon in shallow waters (<18 m) on the U.S. shelf (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). During spring, Northern shortfin squid migrate onto the continental shelf between Newfoundland and Cape Hatteras, and during late autumn, species migrate off the continental shelf, presumably to a unknown winter spawning site (Black et al 1987). The life cycle proposed by Black et al. (1987) (Figure 7) remains hypothetical because several aspects remain unknown (location of the winter spawning site, migration patterns between northern and southern stock components, the autumn spawning migration route, and the fraction of the stock that inhabits waters beyond the continental shelf) (Hendrickson and Holmes 2004). Although the migration pattern between US and Canadian fishing grounds are unknown, long-term annual trends in relative biomass indices and mean body size are similar for the Scotian Shelf and US shelf stock components (Hendrickson 2004).

Figure 7. Hypothetical migration path of the northern shortfin squid, I. illecebrosus. (Source: Black et al 1987).

The timing of migrations into the fishing areas varies interannually and begins earliest in the southern portion of the species’ range. Arkhipkin et al (2015) did a detailed description of these migrations: During March and April, on-shelf migration occurs simultaneously along the U.S. shelf/slope edge, from South Carolina to Browns Bank on the southern Scotian Shelf, and squid densities are highest in the southernmost and deepest survey strata as well as on Browns Bank (Hendrickson, 2004). Migration onto the Scotian Shelf also begins by April (Fedulov and

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 30

SCS Global Services Report

Amaratunga, 1981; Black et al., 1987), but migration onto the Grand Banks generally occurs later, during May and June (Squires, 1957), and densities are highest along the Bank edge in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Divisions 3O and 3N (Figure 4; Black et al., 1987; Hendrickson, 2006). During late May, both juveniles with a modal mantle length (ML) of 40 mm and adults were caught near the U.S. shelf edge (Hendrickson, 2004). By July, the species is broadly distributed across the U.S. shelf, Scotian Shelf and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Hendrickson, 2004, Black et al., 1987) and has migrated to the inshore fishing grounds off Newfoundland (Dawe, 1981). Fall offshore migrations also begin earliest in the southern portion of the species’ range. During September and October, squid remain distributed throughout the U.S. shelf but density and squid body size increase with depth for individuals greater than 100 mm ML (Brodziak and Hendrickson, 1999), indicating an off-shelf migration along the entire length of the U.S. shelf (Hendrickson, 2004). However, migration from the Newfoundland inshore fishing grounds occurs later, generally during November (Dawe, 1981).

Stock Identification

The I. illecebrosus population is considered to constitute a single stock throughout its range in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (Dawe & Hendrickson 1998). This stock is, however, very variable and its structure is complicated and not completely known. Based on an allozyme polymorphism analysis, there is no significant genetic heterogeneity of I. illecebrosus populations located off Newfoundland and Cape Cod (Martínez et al 2005a,b). This lack of intraspecific allozyme differentiation may be due to the long migrations effected by these oceanic species (e.g. 1,260 miles for I. illecebrosus), or the discriminatory limitations of the electrophoretic technique (Martínez et al 2005a). Although conclusive, genetic stock identification studies have not been conducted for I. illecebrosus, several factors lend support to the unit stock concept: 1) Only one spawning site has been found in the Northwest Atlantic. Hendrickson (2004) presented the first evidence of a spawning area, which was located along the edge of the continental shelf in the Mid- Atlantic Bight (Figure 8). No spawning has been found north in Georges Bank or in Canadian waters, supporting the single stock approach. 2) In all areas in the Northwest Atlantic, the first occurrence of short-finned squid on the Continental Shelf is along the shelf edge during spring; this distribution pattern suggests a single stock which recruits to all fishery areas simultaneously from offshore (Dawe and Hendrickson 1998). 3) Long-term annual trends in relative biomass indices and mean body size are similar for the Scotian Shelf and US shelf stock components (Hendrickson 2004). Throughout the species range, catches and biomass indices are significantly positively correlated, a synchrony apparently regulated by oceanographic processes which affect the entire Northwest Atlantic. such broad-scale environmental effects on recruitment further support the existence of a single stock (Dawe and Hendrickson 1998). On the other hand, some evidence compiled in Hendrickson 2004 suggest the opposite; 1) the lifespan of the winter cohort is about four to seven months (mean is 5 months) in Mid-Atlantic Bight shelf, which is narrower than expected from extrapolation of the age range (110-250 d) of females caught in Newfoundland waters, 2) females reach maturity and spawn at smaller sizes and younger ages than

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 31

SCS Global Services Report females from Newfoundland waters and, 3) males caught on the Scotian Shelf reached maturity two months earlier than those caught further north. Collectively, these findings suggest that squid from warmer waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight exhibit faster rates of growth and maturation, and possibly a shorter lifespan, than their northern counterparts. Still, there is no evidence that Northern shortfin squid spawn in Newfoundland waters (Hendrickson 2004).

Figure 8. Percentage of Stage 5 females by stratum and number of mated females used to define the I. illecebrosus spawning area (encircled strata) in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. (Source: Hendrickson 2004).

Life cycle

Like many squid species, I. illecebrosus lives for less than one year, has a high natural mortality rate, and exhibits a protracted spawning season whereby overlapping “microcohorts” enter the population throughout the year and exhibit variable growth rates (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). Based on observations of females spawning in captivity, I. illecebrosus is classified as a semelparous terminal spawner; females are capable of releasing multiple egg balloons but only during a single spawning period that occurs shortly after mating and they die within days thereafter (Hendrickson 2004). The presence of spawners during May–September, combined with the documentation of November–June hatch dates indicate that spawning occurs year-round (Arkhipkin et al 2015), although the majority of spawning occurs between October and June (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). The Mid-Atlantic Bight is the primary spawning area during at least May–September, based on the mature females and spawning individuals found on a May survey (Hendrickson 2004) and on the directed bottom trawl fishery during June-September (Hendrickson & Hart 2006). Hendrickson (2004) found mated females in front of the coasts of the states of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, but not in the northern stations in Georges Bank (Figure 8). So far, this is the only confirmed spawning area for the Northern shortfin squid in the Northwest Atlantic, but spawning may also occur offshore in the Gulf Stream/Slope Water frontal zone, where paralarvae have been collected (Hendrickson 2004). The winter spawning area remains

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 32

SCS Global Services Report uncertain, but an area located off the east coast of Florida in the vicinity of the Blake Plateau has also been inferred (see Hendrickson & Holmes 2004 for signals collected supporting this). Females can produce multiple, neutrally buoyant, egg masses housed in a gelatinous balloon and containing thousands of eggs (10,000 – 100,000; Hendrickson and Holmes, 2004); these egg balloons have never been found in nature (Arkhipkin et al 2015). Eggs hatch after 1-2 weeks depending on temperature (Hendrickson & Holmes, 2004). Paralarvae hatch at 1.1 mm mantle length, develop into a transitional stage by 5 mm mantle length, and reach the juvenile stage at 7-10 mm mantle length (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). Paralarvae occur year round in the Gulf Stream, but are most common in winter-spring (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004). During spring, epipelagic juveniles migrate from the Convergence Zone to cooler, more productive, neritic waters of the continental shelf where individual growth rates are more rapid (Perez & O’Dor 1998). Gonadal development began at about 64 mm mantle length (ML) in males and at 74 mm ML in females and males attained 50% maturity at a smaller size and older age than females (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004), although size- and age-at-maturity increased with latitude and are correlated with decreases in water temperature (Hendrickson 2004). Age estimation, accomplished by counting daily growth increments in the statoliths, has been validated for I. illecebrosus (Dawe et al. 1985). The lifespan of mated females from the winter cohort inhabiting the U.S. shelf was 115– 215 days whereas a maximum age of 250 days was documented for females in Newfoundland and which were not mature (Dawe and Beck, 1997). The maximum ML and weight recorded for the species are 350 mm and 700 g and females achieve larger sizes than males (O’Dor and Dawe, 1998). Curvilinear models have been used to describe I. illecebrosus growth throughout the life cycle because growth may follow different patterns between paralarval and adult stages; differences between males and females con be observed (Hendrickson 2004) (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Observed lengths-at-age and derived Gompertz growth curves (left panels) and observed weights-at- age and derived power growth curves (right panels), by sex for I. illecebrosus. (Source: Hendrickson 2004).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 33

SCS Global Services Report

A summary of life history and habitat parameters for Northern shortfin squid is given in Hendrickson & Holmes (2004) (see Figure 10).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 34

SCS Global Services Report

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 35

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 10. Summary of life history and habitat parameters for northern shortfin squid I. illecebrosus. (Source: Hendrickson & Holmes 2004).

Recruitment

The recruitment pattern is not well understood and a recruitment index has not been found for this fishery. It is known that recruitment is highly variable, particularly at the northern limit of the species’ range, primarily due to the effects of variability in water temperatures and broad-scale oceanographic conditions (Arkhipkin et al 2015). Recruit success of I. illecebrosus is considered to be related to larval transport by the Gulf Stream (Dawe et al. 2000, 2007). Hendrickson (2004) proposed a hypothetical recruitment pattern. The winter cohort (hatched primarily during December and January) provides most of the recruits for the Northern shortfin squid fishery on the US shelf starting in June, but few individuals from this cohort were caught in the Newfoundland jig fishery during July through November, suggesting that few survive long enough to migrate all the way to

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 36

SCS Global Services Report

Newfoundland. Newfoundland adult catches from July through September were dominated by the spring cohort (squids hatched during March), while this same cohort is caught as juveniles on the US shelf in May. During October and November, April/May-hatched squid dominated the Newfoundland fishery catches. Confirmation of these hypothetical recruitment patterns will require age analyses of squid collected concurrently from the different fishing grounds throughout the fishing season (Hendrickson 2004).

Natural Mortality

Northern shortfin squid, as many other squids, has a high natural mortality rate. Since older individuals are more likely to spawn (due to its semelparity life history characteristic), natural mortality is likely to increase with age (Hendrickson & Hart 2006). There are no reliable natural mortality estimations for this species, but as a reference, Sealifebase (www.sealifebase.ca) estimates a natural mortality for I. illecebrosus of 0.85 year-1 based on growth parameters and temperature using Longhurst & Pauly (1987) method (the website itself considers this estimation as doubtful). Despite the difficulties for this kind of species, Hendrickson & Hart (2006) could successfully estimate the total natural mortality rates for mature (spawning) I. illecebrosus (0.54–0.64 week−1), but non-spawning natural mortality could not be accurately estimated.

Environmental impact

Northern shortfin squid have extremely high growth and fecundity rates with short life cycles and no age class storage, which makes them extremely sensitive to climate driven changes in ocean structure and dynamics. Several studies have shown that this species is highly adapted and dependent on physical and biotic ecosystem variability and that variation in population abundance is closely related to variability in multiple interacting ocean climate processes. O´Dor & Dawe (2013) have recently compiled the impact of the environmental variability on the life cycle this species, showing its close relationship. Dawe et al. (2000) showed that squid abundance is positively related to a favourable oceanographic regime associated with a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (weak winter northwesterly winds), high water temperature off Newfoundland and a southward shift in the position of Gulf Stream and the boundary between the shelf waters and the offshore slope waters. In addition, decreased meandering of the Gulf Stream appears to promote increased abundance, probably through enhanced downstream transport of squid. Such ocean climate relationships with squid indices are believed to reflect effects of broad- scale "inter atmospheric circulation patterns on Gulf Stream dynamics, which largely regulate year-class strength of the dominant winter-spawning group early in life. This is highly adaptive in that environmental conditions which promote strong year-classes also favour population expansion through expedient advection of young stages and a suitable oceanographic regime in the northernmost area. Individuals of the broadly distributed winter-spawning group are strongly selected for large body size because near maximum growth and delayed maturation maybe necessary to survive the lengthy spawning migration and complete the life cycle. In direct support of this strategy, it appears that squid body size and physical condition (Dawe, 1988) at Newfoundland are directly positively related to recruitment magnitude, indicating early peak spawning or rapid growth rate in warm years of high abundance.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 37

SCS Global Services Report

It has been hypothesized (Dawe et al 2007) that there is a limited carrying capacity for squjd and the southern (U.S.) region approaches its relatively stable limit each year. The carrying capacity near the northern limit of distribution in Canadian wafers, may be much more variable with higher capacity in warm years. Furthermore, short-finned squid shares its habitat with a sympatric long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) in the southern (U.S.) region. A recent study showed that these species share habitat and a common niche through opposing responses at the population level to environmental variation, such that their populations vary inversely (Dawe et al 2007). The neritic long-finned squid is associated with higher bottom temperature conditions than is the oceanic short-finned squid on the U.S. shelf (Brodziak and Hendrickson 1999). Strong atmospheric forcing (positive NAO) generally results in high bottom temperatures in the southern area, favourable for long-finned squid, whereas weak atmospheric forcing (negative NAO) results in southward displacement of the Gulf Stream and associated fronts as well as warm bottom temperatures at the northern extreme, conditions favourable for short-finned squid.

The opposing responses to environmental variation between northern shortfin and longfin squids commented above, can be seen in Figure 11 from Dawe et al (2007).

Figure 11. Annual catch rates by species from the NEFSC autumn survey from 1973-2001 (Source: Dawe et al 2007).

Several authors have shown that recruitment and consequently abundance and biomass is mostly environmentally driven in Northern shortfin squid. Dawe et al. (2000), using a seventy-three-year time series of catch and meteorological data illustrated that environmental variability drives I. illecebrosus recruitment. Population productivity in I. illecebrosus appears to fluctuate periodically between high (1976- 1981) and low productivity periods (1970-1975 and 1982-2012; Hendrickson & Showell 2013) based on fishery independent survey data. Variation in productivity is thought to be strongly related to variations in oceanographic conditions and features including the position of the shelf slope front (SSF) that are forced by climate variations such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (Dawe et al 2007). Northern shortfin squid are abundant and relatively large in body size during periods when the shelf slope front is displaced southward due to atmospheric forcing associated with the low NAO anomaly; in contrast, the northward displacement of the shelf slope front with a high North Atlantic Oscillation

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 38

SCS Global Services Report anomaly results in fewer, smaller squid in survey based population biomass estimates (Dawe et al. 2000, Chaudhuri et al 2014). Under a global chance scenario, Hare et al (2016) assessed the vulnerability of fish and invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf in a study combining the exposure of a species to a stressor (climate change and decadal variability) and the sensitivity of the species to the stressor. Conclusions for I. illecebrosus were: The effect of climate change on Northern Shortfin Squid on the Northeast U.S. Shelf is estimated to be positive, but this estimate is highly uncertain (<66% certainty in expert scores). Warming may increase available habitat on the Northeast U.S. Shelf and a northward shift in the Gulf Stream may result in more squid on the shelf. However, population productivity may decrease as ocean acidification continues creating some uncertainty in the directional effect of climate change.

3.3.3 Stock Assessment

Details of the assessment methods are described in report of the 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW) in 2006 (NEFSC 2006). The stock was assessed using a DeLury depletion model, although the assessment was not able to estimate fishing mortality rate, stock biomass, or to determine stock status. The SARC indicated that the available data on Illex were not adequate to estimate these quantities; nevertheless, significant advances in modeling had taken place. The SARC advocated finding a new approach for evaluating overfishing, and deemed the existing criteria inappropriate for this short-lived species. The assessment summary was:

Data and Assessment: I. illecebrosus was last assessed in 2003 at SAW 37 (NEFSC 2003). It was not possible in the current assessment to estimate fishing mortality or stock size. Although new models show promise, the results could not be accepted because required seasonal maturity and age data are lacking.

Biological Reference Points: The current FMP specifies BMSY as 39,300 t and FMSY as 1.22 per year (MAFMC 1998). These reference points were based on results from a biomass dynamics model that utilized U.S. fishery data for 1982-1993 (NEFSC 1996). However, this model is now considered inappropriate to use to derive biological reference points for the Illex stock because the model does not address the semelparous (living for only a single season or year) life history of Illex. SFA Control Rule: The Amendment 8 control rule (MAFMC 1998) states that when the stock biomass exceeds BMSY, the overfishing threshold is FMSY, and target F is 75% of FMSY. Below BMSY, target F decreases linearly and is set to zero when stock size is at the biomass threshold of 50% of BMSY. Fishing Mortality: No estimates of fishing mortality are available. Despite a shorter fishing season, fishing effort (days fished), an indicator of fishing mortality, was twice as high in 2004 as in 2003, due to a doubling in the number of vessels participating in the fishery and four times the number of trips. Recruitment: Statolith-based age data suggest that spawning occurs throughout the year (Dawe and Beck 1997: Hendrickson 2004) and that recruitment to the fisheries is continuous. However, absolute estimates of recruitment during 2003 and 2004 are not available. Stock Biomass: The current level of stock biomass is unknown. The NEFSC autumn bottom trawl survey occurs primarily after the U.S. Illex fishery and can be considered to provide a relative index of spawner escapement because the survey occurs near or after the end of the fishing season. The Autumn survey relative abundance index for Illex was a record high in 2003, but was very low in 2004 (Figure C2). Special Comments: I. illecebrosus is a highly migratory, transboundary species with a maximum observed age of 215 days for squid from U.S. waters. The overfishing definition currently in place for

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 39

SCS Global Services Report

this stock, FMSY, addresses yield rather than ensuring adequate spawning escapement for this subannual species. Adequate escapement of spawners is needed to ensure sufficient recruitment in the subsequent year. The magnitude of escapement could be affected by increased exploitation. Alternative approaches to managing the Illex fishery, including constant quota, constant effort, realtime management, and constant escapement should be investigated. Cooperative research projects with the Illex fishing industry such as the collection of tow-based fisheries and biological data and electronic logbook reporting (Hendrickson et al. 2003) should continue because these high resolution data are needed to improve the assessment models. Based on promising new models, the collection of in-season maturity and age data are essential for improvement of the assessment.

In the previous stock assessment SAW-SARC 37th (NEFSC 2003) a different model was used. New information about the age, growth and maturity of squid caught by a special Illex survey conducted in U.S. waters was incorporated into a maturation-natural mortality model. The model estimated the natural mortality rate of mature females, which die after spawning, at 0.80 per week when the natural mortality rate of immature squid was fixed at 0.01 per week. Aging error was also incorporated in the model. These natural mortality estimates were incorporated in yield-per-recruit and egg-per-recruit

(EPR) models to estimate biological reference points that may serve as FMSY proxies. Potential reference point proxies estimated using the new EPR model (F40%=0.27 and F50%=0.21 per week) were considered preliminary by the SARC 37 panel. The F values for reference points in Amended 8 and SAW-SARC 29th were expressed as seasonal totals computed as the sum of weekly fishing mortality rates during each week of a 31-week fishery (FMSY = 0.75 per 31 weeks is equivalent to FMSY = 1.22 per year). In contrast, F values for reference points in SAW-SARC 37th were maximum values for fully-recruited age groups.

Results were considered preliminary and Amended 8 reference points were not changed (BMSY = 39,300 t and FMSY = 1.22 per year).

Relative to reference points, the SAW-SARC 37th report (NEFSC 2003) also highlighted that “Ensuring adequate spawning stock escapement is of primary importance in the management of Illex; an annual species with highly variable interannual recruitment. A % MSP [Maximum Spawning Potential]-based reference point that would ensure adequate spawning stock escapement should be evaluated for management use”.

Since 2006 there has been no other stock assessment benchmark and when this will happen has not been decided so far. The NOAA Office of Science and Technology in its 2018 Quarter 2 report considers the Northern shortfin squid assessment not to be adequate. “Assessments are considered adequate when they use modeling approaches that are able to address long-term population dynamics of the stock (i.e. assessment level of 3 or above according to the 2001 Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan), have been updated within five years, and are recommended as best scientific information available after being subjected to regional peer review processes” (NOAA, 2018).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 40

SCS Global Services Report

Biological Reference Points

The existing biological reference points for Northern shortfin squid were established in the Amendment 8 (MAFMC 1998) based on 21st SAW (NEFSC 1996). Overfishing was defined to occur when the catch associated with a threshold fishing mortality rate of FMSY is exceeded. Annual quotas were specified which correspond to a target fishing mortality rate of 75% of FMSY. Maximum optimum yield (OY) was specified as the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of FMSY. In addition, the biomass target was specified to equal BMSY. The minimum biomass threshold WAS specified as ½ BBMY.

21st SAW (NMFS 1996) estimated the long-term potential yield based on a surplus production model estimate of MSY. FMSY was estimated to be equal to 0. 75 (FMSY = 0.75 is expressed as a fishing season of

31 weeks, which is equivalent to FMSY = 1.22 per year) and the biomass target should be equal to BMSY

(39,300 t). The minimum biomass threshold was set at ½ BMSY (19,650 t) and a fishing mortality target that is 75 % of the estimate of FMSY = 0.56 (equivalent to FMSY = 0.94 per year).

Amendment 8 control rule (MAFMC 1998) is still the current SFA control rule in the fishery. It states that when the stock biomass exceeds BMSY, the overfishing threshold is FMSY, and target F is 75% of FMSY.

Below BMSY, target F decreases linearly and is set to zero when stock size is at the biomass threshold of

50% of BMSY.

Although reference points have been set, the MAFMC is not using them since the stock assessment models are not able to estimate fishing mortality and stock biomass. Nevertheless, this reference points has been never rejected, but, at the same time, has never been fully accepted and used for management purposes. The last 42nd SAW (NEFSC 2006) considered that the surplus production model from 21st SAW is inappropriate to derive biological reference points for the I. illecebrosus stock because the model does not address the semelparous (living for only a single season or year) life history of the species.

Stock Status

Although Northern shortfin squid U.S. stock is currently listed as not subject to overfishing (NMFS 2017) (Figure 12), the most recent stock assessment (2006) was not able to precisely determine current exploitation rates or stock biomass. Nevertheless, the overfishing status of this stock remains unchanged and un-revisited based on the results of an earlier assessment in 2005 (NMFS 2017).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 41

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 12. Summary of stock status for FSSI stocks: Northern shortfin squid (Source: NMFS 2017).

Although the stock assessment is not evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way, there is a general understanding of the health of the stock based on different pieces of information and considerations. In the September 2018 Memorandum from the MAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee (MAFMC SSC 2018) stated: Based on discussions among members at the meeting, the SSC stands by its statement establishing the current ABC in our May 2015 SSC report that "based on the observation that landings of 24,000 - 26,000 t do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock." This statement formed the basis of our three-year ABC specification in May 2017. Our standing recommendation of 24,000 t is based on the judgement of the SSC that Illex has been lightly exploited historically because of the relatively small portion of its range within which the commercial fishery operates. Given this categorization of a relatively light fishing history, setting an ABC near the maximum historical catch is reasonable (Wiedenmann et al 2013). However, the SSC believes that raising the ABC to 26,000 t in 2019, and perhaps 2020 as well, will likely not result in a greater than a 40% chance of causing overfishing.

3.3.4 Harvest Strategy

Since 1978 the Atlantic mackerel, longfin inshore squid, Northern shortfin squid, and butterfish fisheries have been managed in Federal waters by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). Since 1983 all these resources were combined into a single fishery management plan (FMP), referred to as the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish (MSB) FMP with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) serving as the federal implementation and enforcement body. The FMP has been amended with 19 amendments (the most recent in 2015), and 11 framework adjustments.

The current HCR was implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006. The MSRA requires the MAFMC to determine Acceptable Biological Catchs (ABCs), Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) for all managed stocks. Nevertheless, squid species (northern shortfin and longfin) are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less than one year (FR 2018). Therefore, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages the squid fishery with Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rules. The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews the biological status (overfishing and overfished) determination criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign the squid stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC reviews the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for northern shortfin squid.

The risk policy, last updated in 2012 with the MAFMC’s Framework 6, is used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 42

SCS Global Services Report addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process, specifically when no OFL or OFL proxy is available. The Council’s risk policy determines an acceptable probability of overfishing (P*) as a function of the stock biomass and life history of the species. Lower stock size and/or life history characteristics that increase susceptibility to overfishing (and are not incorporated into assessments) require greater confidence that overfishing will be avoided (via larger buffers). The probabilistic approach was adopted for three of the levels because it explicitly incorporates uncertainty and the MAFMC’s acceptable probability of overfishing in determining ABCs. It also recognizes that uncertainty is very difficult (or impossible) to fully and quantitatively characterize in some situations. The threshold acceptable probability of overfishing is 0.4 for species with a typical life history and 0.35 for those with an atypical life history (stock has a life history strategy that results in greater vulnerability to exploitation). The acceptable probability of overfishing is zero if relative biomass (projected biomass divided by the expected biomass if the stock was fished at the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold) is less than 0.1. The acceptable probability of overfishing increases to its threshold as relative biomass approaches 1. Northern shortfin squid is considered a typical species.

The MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) meets annually to develop and recommend specifications for consideration by the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee of the MAFMC. As the basis for its recommendations, the Monitoring Committee reviews the best available data to recommend specifications consistent with the following.

For Northern shortfin squid, the ABC for any fishing year must be either the maximum Optimum Yield (OY), or a lower amount, if stock assessments indicate that the potential yield is less than the maximum OY. The OYs specified during a fishing year may not exceed the catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of FThreshold (Figure 12). However, in the case where there are no fishing mortality reference points, the SSC has recommended an ABC for a three-year period equal to the catch in the year of the highest exploitation ratio (see Figure 2). Thus, the recommended ABC is 24,000 t, the same as has been set since 2000 by the SSC, which is assumed to occur during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation according to the SSC (MAFMC-SSC 2018).

Based on the review of the data, the Monitoring Committee recommends to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee the measures from the following list that it determines are necessary to ensure that the specifications are not exceeded. Measures that apply to the Northern shortfin squid fishery are:

. The amount of Northern shortfin squid that may be retained and landed by vessels issued the incidental catch permit

. Commercial quotas (DAH: domestic annual harvest), set after reductions for incidental catch permits.

. No trip limit for moratorium permits, but incidental permits have a 20,000 pound per trip limit. . Commercial closures for the directed fishery when 95% of the DAH is reached. . Commercial post-closure trip limits of 10,000 pounds for the incidental catch permits. . Commercial gear configuration restrictions

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 43

SCS Global Services Report

. Although the Northern shortfin squid fishery has no minimum codend mesh size requirement, fishing is prohibited shoreward of 91 m (depth) during June through September to reduce the bycatch of longfin inshore squid

. Spatial closures directed at the protection of other species or habitats. . And other issues

The Northern shortfin squid fishery does not have size or weight limit and spatial or temporal closures focused on protecting spawning or recruitment events of I. illecebrosus.

Vessels must cooperate with the NMFS, NEFSC, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), and carry observers as requested. (For more detail on the fishery monitoring system and observer program see Section 3.4.2 on the PCR for the longfin squid fishery published in 2018). Participants in the squid fishery must maintain on board the vessel and submit an accurate Federal Vessel Trip Report (VTR) for all fishing trips. VTRs must be submitted weekly and must be postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week.

The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee reviews the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comment received thereon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC then reviews these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator reviews the recommendations and then publishes a proposed rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER, proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded and providing a 30-day public comment period.

The Regional Administrator makes a final determination concerning the specifications for each species and any measures necessary to ensure that the specifications will not be exceeded. After the Regional Administrator considers all relevant data and any public comments, notification of the final specifications and any measures necessary to ensure that the specifications will not be exceeded and responses to the public comments will be published in the Federal Register.

A new squid amendment (MAFMC 2018b) was launched by the MAFMC in September 2018 that considers measures to reduce latent (unused or minimally used) Northern shortfin squid permits. A draft scoping document has been released and the MAFMC is now seeking public input for the development of an “Illex Permit and MSB Goals and Objectives Amendment” to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council is proposing to develop an amendment because there is considerable latent effort in the Illex squid fishery. As this amendment is early in

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 44

SCS Global Services Report development it is not considered in evaluating the harvest strategy. If approved and implemented, materiality of the amendment would be evaluated in an annual surveillance audit.

Harvest Control Rule The MAFMC manages the northern shortfin squid fishery with an ABC control rule. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) (a group of approximately 15 scientists and academics independent from the Council. See section 3.5.2 National Level Management: Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities, and Decision Making Processes) determines an ABC to prevent overfishing. This ABC represents an upper limit for the Council when setting final catch and landings limits (IOY and DAH). The ABC is reviewed annually based on a range of fishery indicators collected by different programs: 1) annual landings (all fleets and discards included) and effort and its spatial distribution, 2) annual relative biomass (stratified mean kg per tow) and relative abundance (stratified mean number per tow) indices based on NEFSC fall surveys in the US shelf since 1968 (indices based on NEFSC spring surveys are also used), 3) annual relative biomass (stratified mean kg per tow) and relative abundance (stratified mean number per tow) indices based on DFO-Canada July surveys on the Scotian Shelf (Div. 4VWX) since 70s and EU-NAFO surveys in Flemish Cup (Div. 3M) since 80s (DFO also does two annual surveys, spring and fall, since 1995 off Newfoundland -Div. 3LNO-)., 4) mean body weight of caught in the Canadian Div. 4VWX and the U.S. Subareas 5+6 based on the previous surveys, 5) fishery dependent data (LPUE, CPUE, discards and bycatch by all fleets), and 6) relative abundance spring NEAMAP Index for I. illecebrosus. All these sources of information (see in the following section more details) are used in the different departments of the MAFMC to take and based decisions. For recommending an ABC the SSC only uses information from the southern component of the stock (MAFMC-SSC 2017), so Canadian-NAFO data are not taken into account. The Council staff makes an ABC recommendation based on SSC recommendation but also taking into account all sources of information presented above. The final step inside the Council is the final approval of an ABC and DAH taking into account that the ABC recommended by the SSC represents an upper limit for the Council’s final ABC determination. The ABC has to be finally approved by the NMFS-GARFO which sends it for publication in the Federal Register along with the rest of the MSB fishery specifications. Both the ABC control rule and the risk policy guide the SSC in making ABC recommendations. The MAFMC has four levels of ABC control rules. The SSC shall review the ABC control rule level assignment for each stock each time an ABC is recommended, based on the species' assessments and its treatment of uncertainty. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for the Northern shortfin squid, but it is reviewed annually by the SSC and the Council. The level applied to the Northern shortfin squid is “ABC control rule for when an OFL (Over-Fishing Level) cannot be specified” (e-CFR 2018). Based on this control rule:

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 45

SCS Global Services Report

1) the SSC have to determine that the OFL cannot be specified given the available information, which is the case in this fishery (MAFMC-SSC 2017). 2) An ABC for stocks with an OFL that cannot be specified will be determined by using control rules based on biomass and catch history and application of the MAFMC's risk policy. The risk policy shall be used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process. SSC considers northern shortfin squid to have a “typical life history” (no greater vulnerability to exploitation), and not subject to a rebuilding plan, therefore, a maximum probability of overfishing as informed by the OFL distribution is set at 40%. Nevertheless, because an OFL cannot be determined given the current state of knowledge, it is not possible to specify the probability of overfishing. The ABC for the northern shortfin squid fishery in the U.S. has been set at 24,000 t by 2000 (NEFSC 2003) and it has not changed since then. Nevertheless, historically the ABC has changed from 30,000 t (1977- 1996), to 19,000 (1997-98), raised to 22,800 (1999) and finally set at its current 24,000 t since 2000 (NEFSC 2003). The SSC has been endorsing this ABC of 24,000 t since its first northern shortfin squid ABC recommendation in 2010 based on: The 24,000 t for Illex is not an assessment-based ABC. Even though trawl survey CPUE and landings have varied, there do not appear to be any long-term trends; changes in landings could be the result of changes in abundance, availability, and/or market conditions. Additionally, there is no available evidence that landings of 24,000-26,000 t have caused harm to the Illex stock (MAFMC-SSC 2010). In its last ABC report (MAFMC-SSC 2018) the SSC recommended: a 2018-2020 multi-year ABC specification of 24,000 t (the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC). This is based on the observation that landings of 24,000 - 26,000 t do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock, based on indices and landings in years following when landings were in the range of 24,000 t - 26,000. After the SSC recommends an ABC, the Council approves a final ABC taking into account that the recommended one is the upper limit. In the next step the MAFMC calculates a IOY by deducting an estimated discard rate (4.52% in 2018, so IOY=22,915 t) from the ABC. A DAH will be afterwards set after deduction for RSA (no quota for northern shortfin squid is set-aside for research); since there is no RSA in this fishery DAH=IOY=22,915 t, which is the final 2018 and projected 2019–2020 specifications (FR 2018).

Information and Monitoring The Northeast regional fisheries management and research system regularly collects a large amount of information. Besides the official monitoring focused on the fishery management, there are several scientific institutions and government agencies, that produce information that could be relevant to the harvest strategy, in the short and long-term. Nevertheless, the system also has several relevant gaps of information on the population dynamics, stock structure and stock assessment. In this section we will comment on the different programs and monitoring around the fishery.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 46

SCS Global Services Report

Catches: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) monitors the landings of all mackerel, squid, and butterfish. Weekly landings reports and quota status are available at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm. Historic annual commercial landing statistics since 1971 can be accessed at the NOAA Office of Science and Technology website: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual- landings/index.

Real-time information on commercial fishery landings are also collected through the SAFIS electronic data collection system managed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), which is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. (http://www.accsp.org/safis).

Catches in the Canadian part of the stock are also regularly monitored although this data is not taken into account in the harvest strategy of the southern component of the stock in U.S., since the northern component of the stock in Canada and NAFO waters has its own assessment and TAC. NAFO Members send their annual compilation of information on national catches and landings to the NAFO Secretariat. Complete statistical data have been published in Statistical Bulletin since 1951 and is currently available through the electronic database of the STATLANT 21. The 21B database contains monthly catch and effort information by country, gear, tonnage, main species (including northern shortfin squid) and Division Both databases are available at: https://www.nafo.int/Data/Catch-Statistics. The DFO collects and compiles statistics related to commercial and recreational fishing through its regional headquarter offices. Statistics for northern shortfin squid commercial and recreational landings can be consulted on the web pages of each regional office; the Gulf (http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Home), Maritimes (http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Maritimes/Home) and the Newfoundland and Labrador (http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0004341). Since 2010 landings of northern shortfin squid has only been declared in the last two regions.

Fleet monitoring (VTR): since 1997 the bottom trawl fleet is required by NOAA-GARFO to submit a vessel trip report (VTR) for every fishing trip regardless of where the fishing occurs or what species are targeted. VTRs are required in order to provide information on catch (retained and discarded), effort and fishing location data. Operators of all federally permitted vessels must complete a VTR prior to landing and this can be submitted either through the use of paper forms or through the use of electronic VTR software. Vessel monitoring system (VMS) positional data, mandatory in the Illex fishery since 2017 (Amendment 16), is used to validate the statistical area fished and landings derived from mandatory VTRs.

Dealers and dock monitoring: any dealer issued a Federal permit for the main species, including Northern shortfin squid, must submit trip-level reports on a weekly (at minimum) basis to NOAA Fisheries Service via computer, using approved electronic means. This information is compiled in the Northeast Dealer Report Landings database (sometimes referred to as the Weighout database) which is considered the most accurate landings information available (Wigley & Tholke 2017). The Analysis and

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 47

SCS Global Services Report

Program Support Division (APSD) from GARFO (belonging to NMFS) is responsible for dockside collection of catch data, biological samples from commercial fishing trips, and producing finished data products to support fisheries management and scientific analyses.

Moreover, the information commented above on landings and effort is monitored by the fleet sector (refrigerated seawater system trawlers -RSW- vs freezer trawlers) (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Number of vessels (A), proportion of annual landings (B) and number of trips (C), by fleet sector, in the directed fishery during 1999-2004 (Source: NEFSC 2006).

Fishery dependent data: in-season indexes of daily catch, effort, CPUE and LPUE is also monitored for the small-mesh bottom trawl fleet (see NEFSC 2006). Since I. illecebrosus discards for the U.S. fishery are low in comparison to landings, LPUE is considered to be representative of CPUE. The purpose of these indexes was the implementation of an in-season depletion model, since in-season pattern of CPUE reflects the balance of recruitment, fishing and natural mortality, and emigration from the fishing area (Caddy 1991). The boundaries between these processes are sharp and are assumed to induce point changes in the slope of log CPUE versus time.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 48

SCS Global Services Report

This kind of in-season information directly from the fishing fleet was also used by Powell et al (2003a, 2003b and 2005) for identifying the best measures of effort for building reliable CPUE indicators and examining the influence of vessel type (freezer trawlers vs refrigerated seawater trawlers) and vessel behavior (searching, set-up time between tows, towing, steaming overnight, and laying-to overnight) on subsequent analyses of trends in catch and effort. The final aim of these studies was to develop fishery- dependent indicators for any real-time management plan where industry vessels necessarily must be depended upon for data on catch and CPUE.

Independent Surveys: independent annual surveys are available for both components of the stock since the 60s. The NEFSC does two surveys, one in spring (before the fishing season started) and a second one in fall (when fishing is finished, therefore this survey may serve as an index of spawner escapement). NEFSC survey procedures and details of the stratified random sampling design are provided in Azarovitz (1981) and details on the data collected are described in Hendrickson (2004). On each station total weight and number of the I. illecebrosus catch is registered as well as body size (mantle length) and body weight of a subsample. More detailed studies are done regularly using this surveys were sex, maturity stage and age in days are determined (see Hendrickson 2004). The spring bottom trawl survey occurs in March, prior to the U.S. fishery, but captures low densities of squid at few stations in comparison to the autumn survey because the spring survey occurs at a time when I. illecebrosus are migrating onto the continental shelf (Hendrickson 2004). Individuals are caught at 5-10% of the offshore stations sampled during spring surveys and at 30-80% of the offshore stations during autumn surveys. The NEFSC autumn survey occurs when the species is migrating off the shelf. The autumn survey indices can be considered as an index of spawner escapement because the survey occurs near the end of the fishing season. A portion of the stock resides outside the range of the NEFSC surveys; the outer shelf and continental slope are important. I. illecebrosus habitats that are not intensively sampled during NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. In addition, the survey bottom trawl gear is not likely to sample pelagic species efficiently. Therefore, survey indices may represent the on-shelf availability of I. illecebrosus rather than a measure of relative abundance or biomass. Based on these surveys a relative abundance (stratified mean number tow), relative biomass (stratified mean kg per tow) and body weight indices are available (Figure 14).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 49

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 14. I. illecebrosus mean body weight (bottom right) and indices of relative abundance (stratified mean number per tow) and biomass (stratified mean kg per tow) derived from NEFSC fall (top graph) and spring (bottom left graph) bottom trawl surveys (Sources: MAFMC 2018, Hendrickson 2018).

A Canadian (DFO) and EU bottom trawl surveys also occurs during July on the Scotian Shelf (NAFO Divisions 4VWX) and the Flemish Cup (Div. 3M) respectively (Figure 15). The DFO also does two annual surveys (spring and fall) since 1995 off Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO) from shallow (32 m) to deep waters (1500 m) were individuals collected are counted and weighted; abundance and body weight indexes are derived from these surveys (Figure 16). Since the Scotian Shelf survey occurs near the start of the directed fisheries, it can be considered as a pre-fishery relative abundance index for the area surveyed.

Figure 15. I. illecebrosus mean body weight (right) and relative biomass index derived from the July Div. 4VWX (Scotian shelf) and Div. 3M (Flemish Cap) surveys (left) for 1988-2015. (Source: Hendrickson & Showell 2016).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 50

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 16. GAM outputs for I. illecebrosus mean body weight (right) and relative abundance index (number per tow) derived from the fall off Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO) surveys (left) from 1995-2017. (Source: Krista Baker, personal communication).

Observer program: the NOAA Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) manages the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and the At-Sea Monitoring Program (ASM) which collects, processes and manages data and biological samples obtained during commercial fishing trips. These data are collected by trained fishery observers for scientific and fisheries management purposes. Under this program two main reports are delivered annually; 1) the SBRM (Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology) Annual Discard Report with Sea Day Allocation and 2) the Discard Estimation, Precision, and Sample Size Analyses. Although the main focus of this observers program is the bycatch monitoring, I. illecebrosus weight frequency data (1989-2017) for the small mesh bottom trawl fleet was kindly provided to the assessment team (Figure 17).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 51

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 17. Northern shortfin squid mean body weight (± sd) from NEFOP surveys (1991-2017) on the small mesh bottom trawl fleet. (Note: information of some years is aggregated due to NMFS confidentiality requirements). (Source: own elaboration based on FSB-NEFOP data).

NEAMAP survey: the NorthEast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) from VIMS (Virginia Institute of Marine Science) is an integrated, cooperative state/federal data collection program. Its mission is to facilitate the collection and dissemination of fishery-independent information. One of NEAMAP efforts is a trawl survey started in 2008 in the coastal zone (6-27 m) of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Based on this survey, an I. illecebrosus index and occurrence maps are available in coastal waters (Figure 18).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 52

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. I. illecebrosus biomass maps and CPUE index (bottom right graph) based on NEAMAP spring survey from 2008-2017. (Note: not all years shown because he 2008-2016 count numbers are all less than 17/sq km). (Source: NEAMAP-VIMS).

Natural history studies on I. illecebrosus: the species has been the subject of many studies on many different parts of its life history; spatial and temporal distribution of its different life cycle phases, habitat, maturity, spawning, growth, age, diet, predation, behavior, mortality, environmental impact on the population dynamics … and more studies are regularly published. Nevertheless, several authors have pointed out important unknown information: recruitment pattern, migrations between the northern and southern stock components, fraction of the stock that resides offshore, the location of the winter spawning area and a detailed genetic structure of the stock are still pending gaps of information relevant for the fisheries management. Excellent and recent reviews on the ecology, fisheries and the environmental drivers of this species can be found in O´Dor & Dawe EG (1998, 2013), Hendrickson & Holmes (2004), Rodhouse et al (2014) and Arkhipkin et al (2015).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 53

SCS Global Services Report

Key Low Trophic Level Considerations

Northern shortfin squid serves as a prey species for a variety of marine mammals, diving birds, and finfish species, and thus was evaluated for classification as key low trophic level (LTL) according to the Annex SA 2.2.9 (FCR v2.0).

Estimate of the trophic level of Northern shortfin squid is 3.98 (±0.65) and mainly feeds on animals with a trophic level of 2.8 and up (www.sealifebase.ca) and is therefore high in the food chain. Squids are not listed on the MSC key LTL table (Box SA1, FCR v2.0), and the species does not fully meet the criteria to be assessed as a key LTL species. In particular Northern shortfin squid do not have a trophic level of about 3 and do not feed predominately on plankton as required in the Annex SA 2.2.9 (FCR v2.0) for consideration as key LTL species.

Fish, squid, and crustaceans make up the majority of the diet of Northern shortfin squid, with an ontogenetic shift from primarily crustaceans to fish and squid (including cannibalism) with increased size (Hendrickson and Holmes, 2004). Fish prey consists of the early life history stages of Atlantic cod, Arctic cod, redfish, sand lance, mackerel, Atlantic herring, haddock and sculpin, and also feed on adult capelin and longfin inshore squid (Hendrickson and Holmes, 2004). Predators of Northern shortfin squid include several benthic and pelagic species such as bluefin tuna, silver and red hakes, bluefish, monkfish (goosefish), fourspot flounder, Atlantic cod, sea raven, spiny dogfish, swordfish, pilot whales, common dolphin, shearwaters, gannets, and fulmars (Hendrickson and Holmes, 2004).

Based on the above, northern shortfin squid is not considered as a key LTL species for this assessment.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Only select components of Principle 2 were reviewed in the course of the Expedited Assessment, in accordance with the gap analysis findings. The expedited assessment is equivalent in scope in terms of the fleet and gear type (<5.5in codend mesh bottom otter trawl), and therefore there is no difference in catch composition, ETP interactions, and interactions with habitat types or areas than that assessed in the full assessment. PIs 2.2.X must be re-scored to remove Northern shortfin squid as a Secondary species element. In addition PIs 2.5.X will be re-considered with a focus on the ecosystem impacts of the fishery’s removal of Northern shortfin squid. For Background regarding the information and monitoring systems relevant to Principle 2, Primary, Secondary and ETP species, and habitat, we refer the reader to the PCR of the certified unit, available online at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-northeast-longfin-inshore-squid-bottom-trawl- fishery/@@assessments 3.4.1 Fishery Information and Monitoring The fishery information and monitoring system is equivalent to that described in the full assessment report. Please see the Full Assessment PCR, Section 3.4.2.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 54

SCS Global Services Report

3.4.2 Primary Species Primary species were not re-evaluated in the course of this Expedited Assessment. Please see the Full Assessment PCR, Section 3.4.5 3.4.3 Secondary Species Equivalent to that reported in the Full Assessment report, with the exception of the removal of content pertaining to Northern shortfin squid. With the removal of Northern shortfin squid, there are no Main Secondary species elements. Minor Secondary Species All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight (Table 7). The assessment team has elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1). Also noted above, species that comprise <0.50% of the catch by weight are not considered explicitly in the background. A complete list of species found in the catch according to SBRM and NEFOP data are found in Appendices 6 and 7, respectively (please refer to the full assessment PCR for these appendices).

Table 7. Key status and management information for minor primary species (comprising >0.50% of total catch) Species Common Scientific Management % of UoA Abundance and status information Name name Catch available (NEFOP data) Horseshoe crab Limulus ASFMC 1.92% Trends vary by sub-region. Declines in polyphemus New York, New England Northern sea robin Prionotus NA 1.12% Some distribution data available from carolinus NEFSC** Spotted hake Urophycis NA 1.03% Some distribution data available from regius NEFSC** Atlantic Mackerel Scomber MAFMC 1.32%* See NEFSC 2017b. scombrus Smooth Dogfish Mustelus NA 0.83% Some distribution data available from canis NEFSC** Striped sea robin Prionotus NA 0.73% Some distribution data available from evolans NEFSC** Fourspot flounder Hippoglossina NA 0.69% Some distribution data available from oblonga NEFSC** *SBRM percentage (because federally managed). Not recorded as >1% of catch in NEFOP data. ** https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/spatial-analyses/

3.4.4 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ETP species were not re-evaluated in the course of this Expedited Assessment. Please see the Full Assessment PCR, Section 3.4.7

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 55

SCS Global Services Report

3.4.5 Habitat Impacts Habitat impacts were not re-evaluated in the course of this Expedited Assessment. Please see the Full Assessment PCR, Section 3.4.8. 3.4.6 Ecosystem Impacts This section has been updated to consider the impacts of fishery removals of Northern shortfin squid rather than longfin inshore squid. Key ecosystem elements: The UoA resides within what NOAA identifies as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), which spans the area from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine. LMEs are defined by four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically linked populations. It is by these characteristics that the ~260,000km2 area known as the NES LME is defined and distinguished from adjacent ecosystems. The NES LME is further characterized into subunits by NEFSC, including: Georges Bank, Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf, and Mid-Atlantic Bight. The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem is a dynamic, highly productive, and intensively studied system providing a broad spectrum of ecosystem goods and services. This region supports some of the highest revenue fisheries in the U.S. The system historically underwent profound changes due to very heavy exploitation by distant-water and domestic fishing fleets. Further, the region is experiencing changes in climate and physical forcing that have contributed to large-scale alteration in ecosystem structure and function. Projections indicate continued future climate change related to both short and medium terms cyclic trends as well as noncyclic climate change. (MAFMC 2014) The assessment team has considered that the ecological criteria used to define the UoA as an LME is an appropriate parallel for identifying key ecosystem elements, where SA 3.16.3 defines key ecosystem elements as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity.” Fisheries do not impact all of these criteria: bathymetry and hydrography are examples of key ecosystem characteristics that are not subject to material fishery impact. Productivity at the base of the foodweb is certainly related to fisheries, though whether dynamics are bottom-up or top down can vary by system. For instance, Mcowen et al (2014) found that bottom-up and top-down effects vary consistently with past fishing pressure and oceanographic conditions; where bottom-up control predominates within productive, overfished regions and top-down in relatively unproductive and under- exploited areas. Trophically linked populations is the criteria most vulnerable to fishing impacts, and the assessment team considers this key ecosystem element to encompass a consideration of impacts of ecological community structure. This assessment has focused on these two biological LME defining criteria as the key ecosystem elements vulnerable to fishery impacts in assessing ecosystem status relative to UoA impacts. Management and information evaluations will consider the extent to which management systems

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 56

SCS Global Services Report monitor and manage to also account for the broader range of ecosystem characteristics and dynamics that affect the ecosystem structure and function in fisheries management. Status and Information NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program (www.noaa.gov/iea) evaluates ecosystems in 5 regions where it is currently being implemented, including the Northeast. Information available is synthesized in the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Reports (ESR; available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/sitemap.html). The following text primarily draws from the most recent version of the NES LME Ecosystem Status Report available online at the time of the assessment. Productivity Ecosystem productivity begins with production at the base of the food web, including both primary and secondary production. Primary and secondary producers indirectly and directly serve as a food source for Northern shortfin squid and several of the species under assessment under Principle 2. In terms of primary production, phytoplankton are responsible for nearly all primary production in marine ecosystems. Beyond their role as a food source, phytoplankton are an important biological component of the carbon cycle and can significantly affect trophic food-web dynamics. Zooplankton provide the most direct energy transfer pathway up the foodweb, and zooplankton are routinely monitored in the NES LME with six surveys per year covering 120 stations across the entire ecosystem. The time series of zooplankton biovolume among the Georges Bank, Mid-Atlantic, and western Gulf of Maine ecoregions are relatively consistent suggesting large‐scale coherence in zooplankton throughout much of NES LME. The trends in the eastern Gulf of Maine/western Scotian Shelf are somewhat different with lower biovolumes through the 1990s. Zooplankton, and copepods in particular, also serve as an important food source to forage species, including squid. Recent work has found that the composition of the zooplankton community has changed over time. Specifically, several species of small copepods increased in abundance in the 1990s resulting in an increase in total copepod abundance (see Figure 19). Other species of macrozooplankton are routinely monitored by NEFSC. Trends in abundance of arrow worms (chaetognaths), krill (euphausiids), sand fleas (amphipods), and planktonic sea squirts (appendicularians or larvaceans), indicate generally increasing trends over time. Of note are the large increases in the eastern and western Gulf of Maine over the last few years.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 57

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 19. Zooplankton size index comparing the abundance of small (C. typicus, C. hamatus, T. longicornis, and Pseudocalanus) and large copepods (C. finmarchichus). This relatively simple indicator shows changes in community structure that is consistent with more statistically rigorous methods. (Source: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/primary-secondary-production.html).

A 2002 study by Sherman et al looked at trends in zooplankton abundance during periods of fish stock rebuilding and found there to be no significant decline, suggesting stability in the lower trophic levels of the NES LME over this period. Steele (2010) likewise considers that the lower food web structure of the NES LME is relatively robust compared to other LMEs. The 2011 Ecosystem Assessment Program (NEFSC 2012) update reported that recent increases in primary phytoplankton production are not matched by increases in secondary zooplankton production raising the concern that the phytoplankton community structure is shifting to species that fail to effectively enter the food web. The ‘main findings’ of the current report online concludes that evidence for changes in the relative abundance of small and large zooplankton species points to decadal-scale regime shifts at the base of the food web. The available evidence does not indicate significant top-down impacts by fisheries on primary and secondary productivity. Trophic Interactions and Community Structure Squids play a diverse and important trophic role in the NES LME. Squid are considered a forage species by the Council as well, subject to additional considerations under their Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Squid are also considered an important predator, and can be placed in similar trophic levels to Apex predators in some ecosystem models. Overall, the role of squids in pelagic ecosystems has been found to be more constrained to bottom-up impacts on predators, rather than top down

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 58

SCS Global Services Report

(Luckhurst 2017). While longfin squid migrate in and offshore, Northern shortfin squid are a pelagic species that rarely occurs inshore. Luckhurst (2017) summarizes available information on trophic interactions of squid species in the North Atlantic, noting that ommastrephid squids have been found to be the most ubiquitous prey group across large pelagic fish predator species, and that squid are an integral prey group for all five tuna species. Bowman et al (2000) provides a reference document for researchers interested in the types of prey eaten by fishes and two common species of squids in continental shelf waters off the northeastern United States. The stomach contents of 31,567 individuals representing 180 species were analyzed (Table 8): Longfin inshore and northern shortfin squids were the principal squid species identified as prey within all areas sampled except the Middle Atlantic. In the Middle Atlantic, only longfin inshore squid was found to be a major squid prey, although it didn’t make up >50% of the stomach contents of a single species. Several species fed intensively on squid (i.e., the stomachs of all predators noted immediately below contained on average >50% squid by weight). For example, the diet of summer flounder and bluefish sampled in Southern New England was mostly squid. On Georges Bank, squid was an important prey of bluefish and fourspot flounder. In Scotian Shelf waters, predation on squid was noted by pollock and northern shortfin squid. Goosefish was identified as having >50% squid in the diet for the inshore area north of Cape Hatteras. No predators were observed with >50% squid in their diet for the area south of Cape Hatteras. Houde et al 2014 also considers the importance of squid as a forage species for pelagic species, including sharks, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals. The document reports that squids comprise 36% of the diet of toothed whales and that while total consumption by marine mammals is typically on the same scale as fisheries landings on the northeast U.S. shelf for all fished groups except squid: marine mammals are estimated to consume more than twice the amount of squid that is landed. Squid and plankton are also considered critical prey for seabirds. As in other squid species, natural mortality is considered high for Northern shortfin squid, however, natural mortality has not been accurately estimated to date.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 59

SCS Global Services Report

Table 8. Percentage by weight of squid component of diet of predators which eat squid according to geographic area of collection (from Bowman et al 2000).

The online Ecosystem Status Report for the NES LME considers benthic invertebrate communities, fish communities, and protected species communities separately. Benthic animals play an important role in energy transfer, preying on benthic biomass and serving as prey for fish and upper trophic animals. Several benthic invertebrates are key commercial species, including several MSC certified fisheries (sea scallop, American lobster, surfclam and ocean quahog). Some of the more prominent benthic biomass trends throughout the NES LME include increases in American lobster, Homarus americanus, sea scallop, Placopectin magellanicus, and Astropecten americanus populations, and decreases in ocean quahog, Arcitca islandica, and Atlantic surfclam, Spisula solidissima, populations, especially in recent years. Impacts on these commercial species are evaluated in each species’ respective FMP, and as required according to EFH designations and considerations in FMPs. Impacts from the UoA on benthic communities more generally are evaluated primarily through the SASI modeling described in Section

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 60

SCS Global Services Report

3.4.7. In general the highest relative risk to benthic communities was associated with scallop and hydraulic dredges in sand and pebble habitats (the only two habitat types where these gear operate). Biological communities were generally subject to higher relative risk than physical habitats and risk was uniformly higher in low energy habitats. The latter observation reflects the fact that natural disturbance regimes had already shaped the physical structure of the physical habitat and biological communities in high energy environments. The evaluation of fish communities has found dramatic increases over time in the small elasmobranch and pelagic fish components. In contrast, an initial decline and subsequent recovery is evident for the groundfish category, while other fish have remained stable or increased. These trends in groundfish are understood to be related to historic overfishing practices and the successful implementation of management measures to rebuild some groundfish species. (Figure 20) A review of the ratio of pelagic to demersal species shows a relative decrease in demersal species in all regions except the Mid-Atlantic Bight in the 1970s and 80s, with trends leveling in the 1990s. Biodiversity trends are evaluated using Hurlbert’s expected number of species which standardizes the sample size between tows. For the NES LME, trends in the expended number of species follow one of two patterns; expected numbers either increased during the middle of the time series with recent slight declines or vice versa (Figure 21). In terms of fish size, Georges Bank has remained relatively stable with some evidence of a slight recent, the Gulf of Maine has had seen relatively continuous decline, and the Mid-Atlantic region showed initial declines followed by a stabilization at low mean size, with a recent increase in this area. Link et al (2012) found declines in several diversity indices in the groundfish community of the NES LME continental shelf. Studies have found varying results on compensatory dynamics within feeding guilds, but overall In the NES LME, despite declines in species diversity it appears that functional diversity has been mostly preserved and that the compensatory process has functioned to replace commercial species that have declined to maintain the basic ecosystem functions of the NES LME food web (Link et al 2012). Mean trophic levels have been stable across most areas, with the exception of the Mid-Atlantic Bight which underwent a decline in the early 90s, followed by a rebound and another recent decline.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 61

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 20. Survey indices (mean catch per tow) of aggregate species groups caught during NEFSC autumn bottom trawl surveys. From: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/fish-communities.html

Figure 21. The mean expected number of species from the NEFSC autumn bottom trawl survey by ecological production units. Tows were standardized using 100 individuals. From: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/fish-communities.html

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 62

SCS Global Services Report

While historical trend data provides evidence that fisheries can have a significant effect on the ecological community, this evidence also indicates that management has had success in rebuilding some stocks, suggesting that such overfishing impacts can be considered ‘reversible’. The ecosystem is also undergoing significant changes due to the changing ocean climate. There have been shifts in distribution and regional productivity largely attributed to climate change, including a southwestern movement in the Gulf of Maine and northeasternly movement across the coast as a whole. In addition this this movement, there has been notable shifts in depth distribution with species moving to deeper water due to warming waters. The Ecosystem Status Report features a synthesis section that integrates climate, physical and ecological indicators that evaluates drivers and pressures related to these factors as well as management interventions and other factors, by 7 major species groups (Figure 22). There is a general overall positive trend, with a period pattern shows in the second composite score in red. The report notes that there are key fisheries management actions or changes that correspond with these periodic shifts. The report further states that data also indicate decadal ecosystem changes in the LME, that together with management interventions strongly affect fishery performance.

Figure 22. Composite fishery index values for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The first composite index is shown in the blue line. The second composite index is shown in the red bars. The composite indices are based on landings data for species groups. Source: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/synthesis.html.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 63

SCS Global Services Report

Management According to the NEFSC Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch website (https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/), the importance of implementing marine Ecosystem-based Management in the United States has recently been highlighted with the adoption of a new National Ocean Policy, established under presidential order on July 19, 2010. This policy identifies nine objectives, the first of which establishes Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) as its guiding principle. The second priority highlights the importance of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning as a tool for EBM. As further detailed in Section 3.5 below, every federal fishery management action requires either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). This process includes the identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), which include: 1) Managed resources 2) Non-target species 3) Habitat including EFH for the managed resource and non-target species 4) Endangered and protected resources 5) Human Communities Impacts to VECs are analyzed relative to both short-term impacts and from a cumulative effects perspective, which is in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) articulated objectives for the living marine resources under its management authority in its Strategic Plan in 2011 (Gaichas et al 2016). Foremost among these objectives is the need to advance ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic. In June 2015, the Council convened a workshop with scientists and managers to discuss potential strategies to more fully consider species interactions and climate drivers in the stock assessment and management process (including determination of catch limits), and to build capacity within the region to conduct comprehensive management strategy evaluations (MSEs) as part of the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The workshop reviewed existing single species approaches as well as information and analytical tools available to address key interactions between species and their environment, between species within the food web, and between the ecosystem and fisheries, and between fleets due to technical or management issues. A white paper has been produced as a step towards creating a plan to operationalize a decision-making process and framework for incorporating species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions into fishery management. In addition to this document, the EAFM section of the Council website features a white paper on managing forage fishes, which would include managed and unmanaged species, and includes considerations for longfin inshore squid. (Houde et al 2014). In 2016, the Council approved a Guidance Document for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. This document does not in and of itself operationalize any changes in management, but is

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 64

SCS Global Services Report rather considered a “how-to” guide, though it could be converted into a regulatory document in the future (MAFMC 2016). According to the updated MSB FMP specifications (in draft; from j. Didden pers. comm) some highlights from the EAFM Guidance Document that could apply to MSB management include:

. It is the policy of the Council to support the maintenance of an adequate forage base in the Mid- Atlantic to ensure ecosystem productivity, structure and function and to support sustainable fishing communities.

. The Council could adopt biological reference points (overfishing levels or OFL) for forage stocks that are more conservative than the required MSA standard of FMSY.

. The Council could modify the existing risk policy to accommodate ecosystem level concerns for forage species by reducing the maximum tolerance for risk of overfishing.

. The Council will promote the timely collection of data and development of analyses to support the biological, economic and social evaluation of ecosystem-level connections, tradeoffs, and risks, including those required to establish an optimal forage fish harvest policy.

. Habitat and climate change considerations will be more fully integrated into fishery management decisions. At the point of writing this report, none of these potential policies have been adopted by the MAFMC or applied to the management of the UoA. In March of 2017 the NEFSC Ecosystem Dynamics and Assessment Branch provided a ‘State of the Ecosystem’ report focused on the Mid-Atlantic, reviewing trends and available information based on ecosystem objectives spanning economic, social, and environmental considerations, including elements identified above as key ecosystem elements (i.e. productivity, biomass, trophic structure). Also in 2017, the Council has introduced Risk Elements to be evaluated according to defined indicators in support of its Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. A Risk Element is an aspect that may threaten achieving the biological, economic, or social objectives that the Council desires from a fishery. These documents and related materials are found online here: http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/october-2017.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Area of Operation and Jurisdictional Scope Considerations The Expedited Assessment is focused on the management of Northern shortfin squid harvested by the same gear as the existing certified fishery for longfin inshore squid (Small mesh bottom otter trawl: <5.5in codend mesh size) in the same geographic location of federal and state waters of the United States from Cape Hatteras, NC, to the Gulf of Maine. Northern shortfin squid is managed under the same FMP and United States governance structure, thus Principle 3 scope considerations are largely unchanged in regards to fleet management. However, unlike longfin inshore squid, Northern shortfin squid are a straddling stock: recognized as a single biological unit from Labrador to Florida. This region spans both the United States and Canadian

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 65

SCS Global Services Report

EEZs and high seas to the East (NAFO area). For management purposes, the stock has been divided into a Northern and Southern component, with the Northern component managed by the Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Southern component managed by the United States: Southern Component: As in the longfin squid fishery, the Southern component of the Northern shortfin squid fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone fall under a single, U.S. federal jurisdiction and is managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). The Southern Component of the stock includes NAFO areas 5 & 6, which extends beyond the U.S. EEZ. No vessels (U.S. or international) have accessed these international waters in recent years; regulations would require that such catches be deducted from the US ABC and in order to access these waters, vessels would need to be appropriately licensed through flag states and NAFO (D. Christel, pers. comm). Since 1978 the Atlantic squid fisheries have been managed by the MAFMC, first under a single-species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and then under the merged Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP since 1981. The FMP was approved, implemented, and enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The FMP was amended once prior to being merged with the mackerel and butterfish FMPs and the merged FMP has been amended 18 times. The merged FMP has also been modified 9 times through framework actions. Some aspects of the fishery- specific management system differ for Illex, and these are provided where applicable below. The fishery is also regulated by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) with regard to habitat protection in areas under the jurisdiction of the NEFMC. Legislative authority and requirements are provided by Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and various U.S. Executive Orders. Unlike the longfin inshore squid fishery, there is no active state fishery component because the species does not typically occur in State waters. Thus, state level considerations are less relevant when considering the Northern shortfin squid as a target species, and background on state regulations has been removed. Northern Component NAFO, founded in 1979, is the RFMO responsible for management of Northwest Atlantic fisheries that straddle or are completely outside the EEZ of the United States, Canada, France (for St. Pierre et Miquelon) and Denmark (Faroe Islands and Greenland). The founding convention is the NAFO Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic; which superseded the previous convention and RFMO body, the International Commission of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), in place from 1949-1978. The objective of NAFO is “to ensure the long term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the Convention Area and, in so doing, to safeguard the marine ecosystems in which these resources are found.”

Scope Conclusion: There has not been an active fishery in the Northern Component (i.e. North of the United States) for approximately 20 years (or since 1999). During the period 2008-2017 average catch in the USA

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 66

SCS Global Services Report

(Subareas 5-6) was 12,698 t while in Canada-NAFO (Subareas 3+4) was 215 t. This means that 98.3% of 2008-2017 landings are from USA waters. Based on the 2017 SBRM report, around 1% of Northern shortfin squid in US waters are caught by a gear other than small mesh bottom trawl. This means that around 98% of the catch of Northern shortfin squid are accounted for by the existing UoA and management system. Because the United States has authority to manage the squid resource in its waters and complete authority over the fleet under assessment, and there is no active fishery North of the US, the assessment team considers that at this time non-UoA management systems are not material to scoring outcomes under Principle 3. Should a fishery re-emerge in the Northern stock component, this would merit reconsidering of scope and scoring under Principles 1 and 3, and if scored under Principle 3, some harmonization consideration with other certified NAFO fisheries would be merited under Principle 3. This will be monitored at surveillance audits moving forward. 3.5.2 Over-arching Governance

Due to the independent nature of management of the Illex stock components and lack of current fishery in the Northern component, the US fishery management system is the only jurisdiction considered material to scoring. For completeness, some background on NAFO is provided. For all other aspects of overarching governance as relevant to the UoA, we refer the reader to the Longfin Inshore Squid Full Assessment Report, Principle 3 background.

NAFO Governance & Policy

Framework The NAFO Convention Area is displayed in Figure 23. While the Convention area includes coastal state EEZs, the regulatory area (NRA) includes only the areas straddling and outside the EEZs, and encompasses 2,707,895 km2. Beyond the four coastal states of Canada, the United States, Denmark and France, other contracting parties to NAFO include: Cuba, The European Union (EU), Iceland, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the Ukraine. NAFO was founded in 1979. The Convention has been amended 4 times in its history, most recently and comprehensively in May of 2017 (NAFO 2017a). The 2017 amendments sought to modernize NAFO through incorporation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, streamline decision-making processes, strengthen contracting party, flag state and port state obligations, and instituted a dispute resolution mechanism. Article II of the NAFO Convention (2017) states: The objective of this Convention is to ensure the long term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the Convention Area and, in so doing, to safeguard the marine ecosystems in which these resources are found. Article III follows with General Principles: (a) promote the optimum utilization and long-term sustainability of fishery resources;

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 67

SCS Global Services Report

(b) adopt measures based on the best scientific advice available to ensure that fishery resources are maintained at or restored to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield; (c) apply the precautionary approach in accordance with Article 6 of the 1995 Agreement; (d) take due account of the impact of fishing activities on other species and marine ecosystems and in doing so, adopt measures to minimize harmful impact on living resources and marine ecosystems; (e) take due account of the need to preserve marine biological diversity; (f) prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity, and ensure that levels of fishing effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of the fishery resources; (g) ensure that complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities within the Convention Area are collected and shared among them in a timely manner; (h) ensure effective compliance with management measures and that sanctions for any infringements are adequate in severity; and (i) take due account of the need to minimize pollution and waste originating from fishing vessels as well as minimize discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of species not subject to a directed fishery and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 68

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 23. NAFO Convention Area. Source: https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/GeneralInfo/NAFO%20map- poster-8.5x11.pdf

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 69

SCS Global Services Report

In fisheries management, NAFO covers the following straddling stocks: cod in 3NO, redfish in 3LN and 3O, American plaice in 3LNO, yellowtail flounder in 3LNO, witch flounder in 3L and 3NO, white hake in 3NO, capelin in 3NO, skates in 3NO, Greenland halibut in 3LMNO, Northern shortfin squid in sub-areas 3 & 4, and shrimp in 3L. The 3M area of the Convention is entirely in the NRA, and in this region the following are managed as discrete stocks: cod, redfish, American plaice and shrimp in the 3M zone. Stocks managed by NAFO undergo assessment according to frequencies outlined online: https://www.nafo.int/Science/Stocks-Advice. Each stock is assigned a designated expert, who leads assessment work. The most recent assessment of Illex in subareas 3 & 4 occurred in 2016, and the designated expert for Illex at NAFO is in fact Dr. Lisa Hendrickson of the NEFSC (also the lead stock assessment scientist for the management of the Southern component by the United States). Quotas and Conservation and Enforcement Measures (applicable in the NRA) are updated annually. Because management of the Southern component (subareas 5 & 6) has been deferred to the United States, the quota and CEM do not apply to the UoA. The US is allocated quota to participate in fishing in NAFO waters, but historically there has been no interest in accessing this quota.

Organizational Structure The organizational structure of NAFO is depicted in Figure 24. The Commission is tasked with the supervision and coordination of the organizational, administrative, financial and other internal affairs of the Organization, including the relations among its constituent bodies and external relations of the Organization. Each Contracting Party is a member and appoints to the Council up to three representatives.

Figure 24. Organizational Structure of NAFO. Source: https://www.nafo.int/About-us

The Commission is also responsible for the management and conservation of fishery resources in the NRA. In consideration proposals for joint action by the Contracting Parties, the Commission must take into account any relevant information or advice from the Scientific Council (SC). In addition, the Commission seeks to ensure consistency between: . any proposal that applies to a stock or group of stocks occurring both within the Regulatory Area and within an area under the fisheries jurisdiction of a Coastal State, or any proposal that would have an effect through species interrelationships on a stock or group of stocks occurring in whole or in part within an area under the fisheries jurisdiction of a Coastal State; and

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 70

SCS Global Services Report

. any measures or decision taken by the coastal State for the management and conservation of that stock or group of stocks with respect to fishing activities conducted within the area under its fisheries jurisdiction. While the STACFAD Committee focuses on finance and information, the STACTIC Committee is comprised of one representative from each Commission member and is charged with the following: . review and evaluate the effectiveness of the Conservation and Enforcement Measures established by the Commission; . review and evaluate the compliance by Contracting Parties with the Conservation and Enforcement Measures established by the Commission; . review and evaluate reports on the inspection and surveillance activities carried out by the Contracting Parties; . review and evaluate reports on infringements, including serious infringements, and the follow-up thereto by the Contracting Party; . produce an annual report on compliance by all Contracting Parties for the preceding calendar year. The report shall be based on a comprehensive provisional compilation by the Executive Secretary of relevant reports submitted by Contracting Parties and any other information available to the Executive Secretary. This compilation shall be dispatched to all Contracting Parties together with the draft provisional agenda pursuant to Rule 4.1; . promote the co-ordination of inspection and surveillance activities carried out by the Contracting Parties; . develop inspection methodologies; . consider the practical problems of international measures of control; . consider such other technical matters as may be referred to it by the Commission; . obtain and compile all available information on the fishing activities of non-Contracting Parties in the Regulatory Area, including details on the type, flag and name of vessels and reported or estimated catches by species and area; . obtain and compile all available information on landings, and transshipments of fish caught in the Regulatory Area by non-Contracting Parties, including details on the name and flag of the vessels; the quantities by species landed, transshipped; and the countries and ports through which the product was shipped; . examine and assess all options open to NAFO Contracting Parties including measures to control imports of fish caught by non-Contracting Party vessels in the Regulatory Area and to prevent the reflagging of fishing vessels to fish under the flags of non-Contracting Parties; and . make appropriate recommendations to the Commission. According to the NAFO website, the Scientific Council “compiles and maintains statistics and records, and publishes information pertaining to the fisheries including environmental and ecological factors. Upon request, Scientific Council also provides advice for the Commission and Coastal States on stocks and the conservation and management of fishery resources.” Each Contracting Party is a member to the SC and appoints its own representatives. The SC is comprised of several committees, where the STACFIS

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 71

SCS Global Services Report

Committee is charged with the assessment of stock status, the effects on fish stocks of fishing strategies and management, and evaluating new methods for stock assessment. NAFO Rules of Procedure specify invitees to annual meetings of the Commission and Scientific Council. The following must be invited as observers (NAFO 2017b): . Intergovernmental organizations that have regular contacts with NAFO as regards fisheries matters or whose work is of interest to NAFO or vice-versa; and . Non-Contracting Parties identified as harvesting fishery resources in the Regulatory Area. . Any non-governmental organization (NGO) that supports the general objectives of NAFO and with a demonstrated interest in the species under the purview of NAFO, and desires accreditation as observers to NAFO meetings. (NGOs must notify the Secretariat at least 100 days in advance of the first meeting it wishes to attend). Decision making procedures are laid out in the Convention text, in Article XIII (NAFO 2017b): 1. As a general rule, decision-making within the Commission shall be by consensus. For the purposes of this Article, “consensus” means the absence of any formal objection made at the time the decision was taken. 2. If the Chairperson considers that all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted, decisions of the Commission shall, except where otherwise provided, be taken by two-thirds majority of the votes of all Contracting Parties present and casting affirmative or negative votes, provided that no vote shall be taken unless there is a quorum of at least two-thirds of the Contracting Parties. Each Contracting Party shall have one vote. Dispute settlement procedures are described in detail in Article XV of the Convention (NAFO 2017a).

3.5.3 Fishery Specific Management Considerations for Northern Shortfin Squid Fishery specific management measures and characteristics applicable to Principle 3 that may differ as applied to Northern shortfin squid are described in the Overview Section or under Principle 1. Mainly, this includes the fishery permitting system and access rights, and management measures related to the harvest strategy and control rule. No differences were considered material to scoring outcomes under Principle 3.

For all other aspects of fishery specific management, we refer the reader to the Longfin Inshore Squid Full Assessment Report, Principle 3 background.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 72

SCS Global Services Report

4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment

4.2 Previous Assessments

The U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid bottom trawl fishery was certified in May 2018. This assessment intends to expand the scope of this certificate.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The Expedited Assessment process was governed via MSC V2.0 process requirements (FCR 7.22 and Annex PE primarily). In accordance with those requirements, the assessment utilized the same assessment tree as the currently certified fishery’s most recent assessment (also FCRV2.0). The Expedited Assessment report uses the same template as the re-certification Public Certification Report (PCR), revised to present a focused evaluation of the components of the expanded scope UoA that differ from the current scope (i.e. gear type). The report includes the following sections, revised where appropriate to reflect the expedited assessment of Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) as a target species in P1and updated with information from the latest surveillance audit: Executive Summary, Authorship and Peer Review, UoA/UoC & Scope, Overview of the fishery, Principle Backgrounds where there are significant changes, Traceability, and Evaluation Results. This is consistent with MSC Interpretations Log guidance3. The reader is referred to the re-assessment report for the full background and scoring of those components that were not re-evaluated as part of the scope expansion process.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits The assessment team selected site visit locations and interviewees based on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management and research representatives and organize industry stakeholders for input. The team met with federal fishery managers, scientists, fishers and client representatives in Woods Hole, MA, and Cape May, NJ, July 9-10, 2018. Documents were presented by fishery managers and fisheries scientists prior to, during and after the on-site. Before the site visit meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The assessment team conducted an interview preceding the onsite visit with management representatives unable to attend the onsite, and several additional follow-up interviews on a range of fishery management topics with US and Canadian fishery managers and scientists in the weeks

3 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scope-extensions-relevant-trees-and-reporting-templates-PE3- 1527262009900

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 73

SCS Global Services Report following the on-site via phone and email. Stakeholders were notified of the onsite visit and invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns, and time was scheduled during the onsite to meet with interested stakeholders. No stakeholders requested to meet with the team during the onsite visit to discuss information or concerns relevant to the scope of the Expedited Assessment and none attended the open stakeholder session.

Table 2. Stakeholder Meeting Attendees

Name Role Affiliation Onsite/Remote Gonzalo Macho SCS Assessment Team Leader, SCS Global Services NA Principle 1 Jennifer SCS assessment Team Member, SCS Global Services NA Humberstone Principle 2 & 3 Doug Christel Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries GARFO Remote Office (GARFO): Squid Fishery Management; NAFO Relations Moira Kelly Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries GARFO Remote Office (GARFO): NAFO Relations Lisa Hendrickson Research Fishery Biologist; Lead stock NEFSC Onsite assessment scientist Glenn Chamberlain Principal Biologist NEFSC/NEFOP Onsite Jason Didden MAFMC MSB FMP MAFMC Onsite Jeff Kaelin Client Representative Lund’s Fisheries Onsite Wayne Reichle Client Representative The Town Dock Onsite Bill Bright Fisher/Industry Stakeholder Owner/Captain: FV Retriever Onsite Leif Axlesson Fisher/Industry Stakeholder Captain, FV Dyrsten Onsite Owner/Captain, FV Jason Onsite Hank Lackner Fisher/Industry Stakeholder Danielle Rory Mullen Fisher/Industry Stakeholder FV Enterprise Skipper Onsite Krista Baker Aquatic Science Biologist, Shellfish DFO Newfoundland & Labrador Remote Science Region Northeast Cooperative Research Remote John Manderson NEFSC Program John Boreman SSC Chair SSC Remote Thomas Miller SSC Illex Lead SSC Remote Brandon Muffley MAFMC MAFMC Remote

Table 9. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations Date Meeting Time Location Topic Attendees July 8, 6:00pm- Falmouth Inn Arrival and team meeting Gonzalo Macho 2018 8:30pm 824 Main St, Rte Jennifer Humberstone 28, Falmouth, MA 9:00am- Woods Hole Principle 1: stock status, harvest Lisa Hendrickson 10:30am Oceanographic strategy and control rule, information July 9, Institution (WHOI) and assessment Gonzalo Macho 2018 Redfield 204 (US and NAFO) Jennifer Humberstone 10:30am- 86 Water St, Principle 1: stock status Lisa Hendrickson 11:00am Woods Hole, MA Glenn Chamberlain

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 74

SCS Global Services Report

RBF: Consequence Analysis Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 11:00am- Principle 1-2: Observer Program and Glenn Chamberlain 11:30am Fishery Information & Trends Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 12:30pm- Coffee Obsession Open Stakeholder Meeting TBD 1:30pm 38 Water St, Woods Hole, MA Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 1:30pm- TBD Team to review notes and update RBF Gonzalo Macho 3:00pm Falmouth, MA materials and closing meeting Jennifer Humberstone materials Travel from Boston, MA, to Philadelphia, PA 10:00am- Malaga Diner Discussion of the Council Jason Didden 11:00am 3433 Harding management of Northern shortfin Hwy squid, harvest strategy and control Gonzalo Macho Franklinville, NJ rule, emerging and current issues Jennifer Humberstone

Review of RBF exercises 1:00pm- Client opening meeting: audit scope Jeff Kaelin 1:30pm and process overview, timeline and Jeff Reichle next steps Wayne Reichle

Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 1:30pm- RBF Workshop: Consequence Analysis Jeff Kaelin 2:45pm Jeff Reichle July 10, Wayne Reichle 2018 Lund’s Fisheries, Bill Bright Inc. Hank Lackner 997 Ocean Dr. Leif Axlesson Cape May, NJ

Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 3:00pm- Client closing meeting: Jeff Kaelin 3:30pm Jeff Reichle Preliminary findings (as available), Wayne Reichle outstanding document requests, pending interviews Gonzalo Macho Jennifer Humberstone 5:30pm- TBD Team closing meeting Gonzalo Macho 6:30pm Philadelphia, PA Jennifer Humberstone

4.4.2 Consultations Consultations built upon the list of interested stakeholders gathered with support of the MAFMC in the course of the full assessment of Longfin inshore squid. The email outreach list includes over 85 individuals from a range of organizations spanning the government, private, and non-profit sectors. To date, no

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 75

SCS Global Services Report general stakeholders have expressed interest providing comment on or expressing concerns regarding the scope of the expedited assessment (i.e. Northern shortfin squid). RBF Consultations

The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk Based Framework (RBF) may need to be used for scoring PI 1.1.1 and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The RBF was therefore applied to the evaluation of Northern shortfin squid as a Target species in PI 1.1.1, since stock status reference points are not available for this squid stock. Following Table PF1 (Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – Normative) of the FCR v2.0, CA and PSA methodologies were both used for scoring PI 1.1.1. The assessment team confirmed via a variation request to the MSC the direct applicability of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) conducted in the fall of 2017 for the evaluation of Northern shortfin squid as a Main Secondary species subject to review of findings and application of PF 4.4.34, so RBF exercises in the Expedited Assessment focused largely on the additional requirement to conduct a Consequence Analysis (CA). RBF outreach was conducted in each stakeholder meeting, engaging stakeholders primarily on the Consequence Analysis, but also in review of key factors relevant to the PSA update. Details on the RBF consultations are found in Appendix 1.2.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures. Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested, or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location. Information for the assessed was gathered based on client document submission and receipt of stakeholder comments prior to the onsite visit (and after), via on-site meetings with key management representatives and via subsequent phone and email conversations with management representatives and stakeholders.

4 https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=G06iXXesQnrLx3ecUVvgaQNtUlsO vdYg9eJmz5umEkU69lUjQ3FVpjmiEnzXebEw

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 76

SCS Global Services Report

MAFMC, GARFO, and NEFSC, with the support and guidance of the client representatives from The Town Dock and Lund’s Fisheries Inc., were key in providing the assessment team with documents as requested, and were generous with their time to accommodate phone and in-person meetings and email exchanges. The NEFSC observer program, Lund’s Fisheries Inc., and DFO all provided new data based on assessment team requests to support RBF exercises. For a summary of information gathering as it pertains to RBF exercises, please see Appendix 1.2.

Scoring and Report Development Process

1. Onsite Visit: Scoring was initiated prior to and during the 3 day site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between September and November 2017.

2. Additional Document Submission: Following the onsite visit, the team compiled meeting summaries that included follow-up questions and document requests for submission. All meeting attendees were asked to respond with any corrections to the meeting notes and to submit information according to the follow-up requests where available within one week of receipt. The assessment team received further clarifications and documentation from meeting attendees upon this request.

3. Client Draft: Rationales and associated background was developed by respectively assigned assessment team members, and then cross read by team members and SCS staff for production of the client draft report. Scoring was completed by consensus through this review process and team meetings by phone and email. The fishery received a total of 3 new conditions within 3 performance indicators, all under Principle 1. The team finalized scoring and submitted the Client Draft in November 2018. The client fishery then worked with SCS to generate an acceptable client action plan and obtain letters of support from the MAFMC and GARFO.

4. Peer Review: Peer review comments did not suggest any changes to scores. The team reviewed and incorporated the minor corrections and suggestions made to improve document clarity.

5. Public Comment Draft Report: No stakeholders submitted additional objective evidence, but based on concerns expressed in phone calls received from stakeholders (See Appendix 3) and the MSC Technical Oversight Report, the assessment team reconsidered and revised several scoring rationales. Scoring outcomes on PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.4 were lowered and on PI 2.3.1 increased slightly. No new conditions were added, but 2 recommendations were created regarding PIs 1.2.3 and 2.1.2.

6. Final Report: The publication of the Final Report and determination kicked off a 15 working-day objection period. No objections were received, and SCS has reached a positive certification decision.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 77

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCR v2.0 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues are considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 10 determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements5’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 10.

Table 10. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCRV2.0 Table 4) Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there. 75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCRV2.0 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology utilized.

When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS interprets the terms in the Table 10 as following:

. Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few. . Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some. . Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

5 MSC FCRV2.0 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 78

SCS Global Services Report

Elements evaluated in the expedited assessment scoring of the fishery are as follows:

Table 11. Revised Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not Target Northern shortfin squid Main Data-deficient Secondary Atlantic mackerel Minor Data-deficient Secondary Horseshoe crab Minor Data-deficient Secondary Northern sea robin Minor Data-deficient Secondary Spotted hake Minor Data-deficient Secondary Smooth dogfish Minor Data-deficient Secondary Striped sea robin Minor Data-deficient Secondary Fourspot flounder Minor Data-deficient Key Ecosystem Productivity Main Not Data-deficient Elements Key Ecosystem Community Structure/ Main Not Data-deficient Elements Trophic Linkages ^ Minor species elements have been scored together based on the ‘all or none approach’ described in the MSC interpretation titled “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100.” (http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/minor- species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-sg100/) Only minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch are considered explicitly in the background and scoring. For a full list of species encountered in the fishery see appendices 6 & 7 (please refer to the full assessment PCR for these appendices).

Data Deficient Elements and Use of the RBF Secondary species, by definition, will almost always be considered data deficient and trigger the RBF on the basis of Table 3 in V2.0. In the Full Assessment, of the Secondary species in the catch of the UoA, only Northern Shortfin Squid was considered “Main” on the basis of catch composition (where northern shortfin squid is the only Secondary species that comprises >5% of the UoA catch by weight. All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. Minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch include: Horseshoe crab, Northern sea robin, Spotted hake, Atlantic Mackerel, Smooth Dogfish, Striped sea robin, and Fourspot flounder. The assessment team elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score for PI 2.2.1 is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1). To evaluate Northern shortfin squid for certification, it becomes a Target species element and is no longer evaluated as a Main Secondary species. Thus, Secondary species PIs were re-scored to remove Northern shortfin squid as a scoring element. This did not result in any material changes to scoring outcomes. RBF consultations and information gathering in support of the Expedited Assessment are described in Sections 4.4.2 and Appendix 1.2. Decision Rule The MSC provides a mandatory Excel template that facilitates the calculation of Principle level scores. Within the Excel template (and provided in Section 6.2) PIs are organized into components, where each PI within a component is weighted equally (PI weight), where the sum of PI weights per component equals 1. Multiple components make up each Principle, and components are likewise weighted (evenly, except in Principle 1) (Component weight), where the sum of component weights per Principle equals 1. The PI weight within the component multiplied by the component weight within the Principle provides a weight

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 79

SCS Global Services Report for each PI within the Principle (PI weight * Component weight= PI Principle weight). Each PI score is then multiplied by its weight within the Principle (PI Principle weight), and all weighted PI values are summed to generate a Principle level score, reported to the nearest one decimal place in accordance with MSC FCRV2.0 (7.10.3) The decision rule for MSC certification is based on the resulting Principle level scores and is as follows:

. No PIs score below 60 . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 80

SCS Global Services Report

5. Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date is the date of release of the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), is scheduled to occur in late February, 2019. Any products harvested from this fishery after release of the PCDR and prior to certification could be considered “Under MSC Assessment Fishery” or UMAF. The client has been informed that under-assessment product must be handled in conformity with the relevant requirements in the MSC CoC Standard (V4.0 Section 5.6), as per FCRV2.0 clause 7.6.2, and has confirmed with SCS that from the date of publication of the PCDR the traceability systems as required per the description below are in place. Verification of the client groups claims regarding the adequacy of traceability systems in place from the date of the PCDR and compliance with CoC requirements for Under Assessment Product is to be assessed by a qualified CoC auditor. "CoC begins at the change of ownership (i.e. CoC is not required on vessels operating in the UoC). At present, both fishery client group members hold current MSC CoC certificates. Lund’s Fisheries Inc. is certified for packing and repacking, processing (primary and secondary), storage, trading, and transportation of Longfin squid, Scallop (Atlantic), Scallop (queen), Scallop (yesso) (MSC-C-53408-1 & MSC-C-53408-2). The Town Dock holds a valid MSC certificate for primary processing, storage, trading and transportation of Cod (Atlantic), Haddock, Longfin squid, Prawn (northern), Redfish (golden), Sablefish, Salmon (chum), Salmon (pink), Shrimp (Oregon pink) (MSC-C-54519). Both clients report use of lot-based traceability systems based on vessel and trip-level purchases. This eligibility date was selected per client request, and was considered justified considering the relatively low traceability risks present in the fishery and the client group’s confirmation that traceability systems could be in place prior to the release of the PCDR to satisfy UMAF and fishery traceability requirements described below. 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering the U.S. Northeastern Longfin Inshore Squid Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Fishery. It is considered nearly directly applicable to Northern shortfin squid, and thus only minor revisions are included below. Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the UoC fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step:

Capture of Product

Catch Reporting and Vessel Trip Reports (VTR): Owner/operators participating in the Atlantic mackerel, Illex squid, and Longfin squid/butterfish fisheries must submit trip reports weekly. Reports must be postmarked or received by midnight of the Tuesday following the reporting week (Sunday through Saturday). If reported in the week the catch was offloaded. Copies of fishing log reports must be kept on board the vessel and available for

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 81

SCS Global Services Report

review for at least 1 year, and must be retained for a total of 3 years after the date the fish were last possessed, landed, and sold. Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements: Squid/butterfish: The owner or operator of a vessel issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit must report catch (retained and discarded) of longfin squid daily via VMS. Reports are required even if longfin squid caught that day have not yet been landed. Vessels involved in this fishery have an operational Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board , mandatory since 2017 (Amendment 16). (https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/msb/index.html#el111022) State-only permitted vessels are not necessarily subject to the same reporting requirements, but landing ports are licensed via States and thus product from a State-permitted trip and federally permitted trips are landed in the same locations. States may have different reporting forms or requirements, and the client group is aware of their obligation to demonstrate provenance to a licensed state or federal small mesh bottom trawl vessel. Both States and Federal fishery landings are reported to and warehoused in the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). GARFO staff report that several states voluntarily use the federal VTR form, including states known to have the significant squid fisheries in state waters such as Massachusetts and New York (D. Christel, pers. comm). State fisheries are understood to contribute <2% of total commercial landings of longfin squid (See Section 3.5.4). State fisheries are not known to land significant volumes of Northern shortfin squid.

Product Unloading, Sale, and First Change of Ownership

Dealers that buy and sell Northern shortfin squid from federally-permitted vessels must have a federal permit issued by NOAA Fisheries. Dealers must report transactions weekly and annually through the Internet. Required dealer records must be kept for three years. Both client group members are federally licensed dealers, and it is expected that most eligible product will be received directly from vessels by the client group members (http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/infodocs/.pdf). Only product received by client group members, as listed on the fishery certificate or from dealers that purchase and then sell directly to the client group, is eligible for certification Federally permitted dealers, and any individual acting in the capacity of a dealer, must submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a detailed report of all fish purchased or received for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land, on a weekly basis, by one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by NMFS, unless otherwise directed by the Regional Administrator. The following information, and any other information required by the Regional Administrator, must be provided in each report (USOFR 2016a): (i) All dealers issued a dealer permit must provide: Dealer name; dealer permit number; name and permit number or name and hull number (U.S. Coast Guard documentation number or state registration number, whichever is applicable) of vessel(s) from which fish are purchased or received; trip identifier for each trip from which fish are purchased or received from a commercial fishing vessel permitted for the fishery; date(s) of purchases and receipts; units of

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 82

SCS Global Services Report

measure and amount by species (by market category, if applicable); price per unit by species (by market category, if applicable) or total value by species (by market category, if applicable); port landed; cage tag numbers for surfclams and ocean quahogs, if applicable; disposition of the seafood product; and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. If no fish are purchased or received during a reporting week, a report so stating must be submitted.

The VTR has several carbon copies for sharing different key information with different parties. A copy of the VTR is provided to the dealer at the first change of ownership, but the copy provided to dealers has most fields redacted and only provides the dealer with basic operational detail (vessel name, permit number, VTR number, date sailed/landed). An alternative copy of the VTR (e.g. one labeled for dockside monitoring) would include gear information, and the vessel owner may choose to share this copy with a dealer as well. A screenshot of the electronic VTR may also present a means to convey the full VTR data. Sharing of information beyond that included in the dealer copy of the VTR is at the vessel’s discretion, but it will be necessary for the client group members to be able to demonstrate provenance to a small mesh bottom trawl vessel. Dealers, if not buying from federally permitted fisheries, may be licensed by the state in which they operate, and in this case will be subject to the reporting requirements of the respective state. As noted above, non-federally permitted longfin inshore squid landings is understood to comprise <2% of total landings on average, and there are no targeted fisheries for Illex in state waters.

Product Transport and Storage

The client group reports that a bill of lading accompanies the product in transport and that product is labelled with a lot number, and always remains traceable to the vessel/trip level. The adequacy of traceability systems of the client group during transportation and storage activities are beyond the scope of the fishery certificate, and are to be evaluated as part of the scope of an MSC CoC audit.

Table 12. Traceability Factors within the Fishery. (Revised for Northern shortfin squid) Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) The UoC comprises the modern commercial directed fishery for Northern shortfin squid. Shortfin squid may occasionally be caught incidentally by other gear types, Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used such as shrimp trawl. This product may be landed at the same ports and dealers as UoC squid. All non-UoC gears within the fishery combined comprise ≤2% of landings (NEFSC 2017). Based the low volumes from other gears, in addition to the client group’s traceability systems which track lots based trip-level purchases, and the client’s plan to obtain

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 83

SCS Global Services Report

VTR reports with gear specifications for each purchase, the risk non-certified gear presents is considered quite low. The client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a UoC vessel, see traceability description above. NA. The UoC covers the range of the entire fishery and Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish includes both state and federal waters. outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) All vessels with permits to catch squid with small mesh Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or bottom otter trawls are included in the UoC. This client group fishing the same stock comprises nearly all landings of the target species. There are no other gears operating in UoA waters targeting Illex. Trace amounts of Illex may be incidentally caught by other gears. See row 1 of this table for further detail. Non-squid, non-certified catch is not considered a relevant traceability concern as it is easily distinguishable. Other certified species (i.e. longfin squid) is targeted by Risks of mixing between certified and non- the same fleet, however, the temporal and spatial certified catch during storage, transport, or differences in the schooling of longfin and shortfin mean handling activities (including transport at minimal bycatch of either occurs. All sorting and sea and on land, points of landing, and sales processing occur on shore at the client’s facilities, and if at auction) catch is mixed, then the species will be separated/sorted by the onshore facilities. No sorting occurs on the vessel. Because of the differences in tube shape and color as well as tentacles, it is easy to distinguish between species upon arrival at the client’s onshore processing facilities in possession of a valid MSC CoC Certificate.

There is little chance of certified and non-certified catch being mixed before Chain of Custody because the UoC encompasses nearly all Northern shortfin squid landings and the entire directed federal fishery. Landings data from dealer reporting confirms there are no other gears that target Illex, and incidental landings by other gear Risks of mixing between certified and non- types are very low (≤2% of total landings). The client certified catch during processing activities group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a UoC vessel, see traceability description above. (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Processing activities by the client group are outside the Custody) scope of the fishery certificate, and traceability systems will therefore be evaluated by a CoC auditor.

In terms of at sea activity, the majority of the vessels use Refrigerated Sea Water (RSW) to ensure product quality till arrival at the processing plant. Some vessels do conduct sea frozen production, however, this does not

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 84

SCS Global Services Report

impact visual identification of the species. No processing besides freezing occurs on the vessels and no on-deck sorting occurs. All further processing occurs at client’s processing facilities in possession of a valid MSC CoC Certificate Vessels may transfer longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish within the EEZ if both vessels participating in the transfer have been issued a valid longfin squid and butterfish or Illex moratorium or incidental permit and a letter of authorization (LOA) to transfer such species from the Regional Administrator. Vessels may only transfer species for which the vessels are permitted. From 2013-2017 between 8-12 LOAs have been issued for squid transfers per year. Despite the issuances of Risks of mixing between certified and non- these LOAs, the client group and GARFO were not aware of any transfers occurring in the fishery in recent years. certified catch during transshipment In any case, the vessel receiving product at sea is treated as a dealer, and a VTR may be forwarded in the same manner as a land-based dealer. In all cases the client group will be required to demonstrate provenance to a small mesh bottom trawl vessel, see traceability description above.

Any vessel purchasing or processing squid at sea must submit a dealer report as described above.

The risk of substitution between fish from the UoC and Any other risks of substitution between fish fish from outside this unit before Chain of Custody is from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from minimal because the UoC comprises ~98% of all outside this unit (non-certified catch) commercial landings of shortfin squid, and because before subsequent Chain of Custody is product will be most commonly landed directly at the required client group members, who are licensed dealers. No additional risks are noted than those described above.

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the UoC will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The point of intended change of ownership of product is the point where the client group takes ownership of the product, and this is the point where Chain of Custody begins. In the case of the client group buying the product directly from the vessel, either at a client group facility or at a remote offloading site, the change of ownership takes place when the product is offloaded from the vessel and Chain of Custody commences at that point. In the case of product purchased from a UoA

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 85

SCS Global Services Report vessel by a licensed dealer other than a client group member6 (that is not a member of the client group but whose operations are described above), and the product is subsequently sold to a member of the client group, the fishery certificate will cover such dealer in this trading7 operation, such that CoC will begin at the point of change of ownership to a member of the client group. A list of licensed dealers with a permit for Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish is maintained at the GARFO Dealer Permit Website, and should be consulted to confirm the license status of the dealer.6The assessment team considers that interim dealer operations described above may be included in the scope of the certificate on the basis of the extremely low volume of non-UoA product landed (where gears other than small mesh bottom trawl are estimated to comprise <2% of total commercial Northern shortfin squid landings and the UoA comprises the entire directed fishery), and the confirmed ability of the client group to obtain pass- through documentation from dealer purchases that can identify product back to a UoC vessel and trip (including gear). SCS considers that this satisfies the criteria found in FCRV2.0 7.12.1-2. In both cases, the client group is responsible for demonstrating provenance to the UoC, i.e. that the Northern shortfin squid was caught by a state or federally permitted small mesh (<5.5in codend mesh size) bottom otter trawl vessel. The client group currently plans to require that MSC eligible product be accompanied by a copy of the VTR that identifies the vessel name, gear fished including mesh size, hail weight, and port and state of landing. See above for a description of the different VTR copies, where the expectation is that the client group will arrange to obtain a copy that contains the sufficient detail regarding the gear type, vessel, and licensing information. Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label:

. Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., Cape May, NJ . The Town Dock, Inc., Narragansett, RI The client group is to be maintained as current on the fishery certificate on the MSC website.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody IPI considerations were not deemed relevant to this UoA. See Section 3.1 for more detail.

6 Eligible product may be landed at any licensed dealer with a permit for Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish. A current list of dealers may be found on the GARFO Dealer Permit website: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/permits/data/index.html. In the rare event that the client group purchases eligible product from a state-only permitted vessel (<2% of landings), that sells through a state- only licensed dealer, such a dealer may not be listed in the above database. In this case, it will be the client group responsibility to provide evidence that the purchase was made through a valid licensed dealer (in addition to provenance to a UoA vessel). Like the federal database, many states provide public databases of permitted dealers online. 7 The client group has confirmed that dealer operations in this case will not include processing or product transformation beyond freezing.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 86

SCS Global Services Report

6. Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 13. Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle UoA 1: UoA2: Longfin Inshore squid Northern shortfin squid (Scoring (from full assessment) in this Expedited Assessment) Principle 1 – Target Species (Illex) 85.8 80.5 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 82.7 82.7 Principle 3 – Management System 96.9 96.9

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 87

SCS Global Services Report

6.3 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 14. Summary of PI Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores in Expedited Assessment. Scores carried over without rescoring in grey. Re-scoring Principle Component Wt. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt. for Illex UoA ) 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 94 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 75 One Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 65 Management 0.667 tools 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 80 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 95 Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 85 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 85 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 85 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 85 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 2.4.3 Information 0.333 80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 85 2.5.3 Information 0.333 90 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 100 framework Governance and 0.5 Consultation, roles & policy 3.1.2 0.333 100 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 100 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 100 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 100 management 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 85 system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 90 performance evaluation

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 88

SCS Global Services Report

6.4 Summary of Conditions Table 15. Summary of New Conditions Applied to the Illex UoA Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification1, evidence must be presented that shows the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the 1 1.2.1a NA stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification, an HCR is in place that ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, 2 1.2.2a,b NA is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is robust to the main uncertainties.. By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification, evidence must be presented that shows that stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage 3 1.2.3b NA consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. 1Although the certification duration of Illex will be the same as the existing certificate, conditions timelines may extend up to five years from the date of the scope extension certification, as clarified in FCP V2.1.Thus, condition timelines for new conditions based on this scope expansion will be based on years from scope expansion certification, rather than the existing surveillance schedule on the existing certificate.

Table 16. Summary of Carry-over Conditions

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) By the fourth annual surveillance1, provide evidence 1 that the measures/strategy is being implemented 2.3.2d NA successfully for long-finned pilot whales. By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved, that there is some objective basis 2 2.4.2b NA for confidence that the measures/partial strategy in place for habitat protection based on the EFH will work. 1Condition timeline in accordance with existing certification for longfin inshore squid. No additional client action plan requirements.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 89

SCS Global Services Report

6.5 Recommendations

Carried Over from Full Assessment

PI 1.2.3: The assessment team recommends that the impact of mobile bottom fishing activity including trawling and dredging on the survival of longfin inshore squid eggs be investigated, including consideration of the relative importance of the inshore spawning grounds and expanded cohort analysis, to support with greater certainty that the harvest strategy as currently designed is robust to fishing pressure on inshore spawning grounds during Trimester 2. Such information may be available from research associated with the 2016-2020 Research Plan and EFH redo.

PI 2.1.2: The assessment team recommends that the Council provide a summary of the results of the research undertaken regarding alternative measures to minimize unwanted mortality of bycatch species, such as those described in the 2016-2020 Research Plan, to demonstrate consideration of alternative measures to reduce bycatch and implementation should any research result in measures that would be appropriate for the UoA.

6.6 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

With the information available, the US Northeast longfin inshore squid bottom trawl fishery meets the minimum requirements for being awarded certification which includes meeting the SG60 for all Performance Indicators and an average score of 80 or greater for all three Principle scores. The team discussed the merits and shortfalls of the fishery and by consensus recommended certification for the fishery.

In accordance with MSC Certification Requirements, the report was made open to objection by interested parties for a period of 15 working days from publication of the Final Report with the positive certification determination, through May 1 2019 (5:00pm GMT). No objections were received. The SCS Certification Board reviewed the report, Performance Indicator rationales, peer reviews and stakeholder comments and agreed with the Assessment Team’s recommendation to certify the fishery. The certificate will be awarded once the Public Certification Report is posted to the MSC website. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-northeast-shortfin-inshore-squid-bottom-trawl- fishery/@@assessments.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 90

SCS Global Services Report

References Arkhipkin AI, Rodhouse PGK, Pierce GJ et al. 2015 World squid fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 23 (2). 92-252. DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2015.1026226. Azarovitz TR. 1981. A brief historical review of the Woods Hole Laboratory trawl survey time series. In: Doubleday, W.G. and Rivard, D. (Eds.) Bottom trawl surveys. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, p. 62-67. Berkson J, Barbieri L, Cadrin S, Cass-Calay SL, Crone P, Dorn M, Friess C, Kobayashi D, Miller TJ, Patrick WS, Pautzke S, Ralston S & Trianni M. 2011. Calculating Acceptable Biological Catch for Stocks That Have Reliable Catch Data Only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks – ORCS). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- SEFSC-616, 56 pp. Black GAP, Rowell TW & Dawe EG. 1987. Atlas of the biology and distribution of the squids Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei in the northwest Atlantic. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 100. 62 p. Chaudhuri AH, Gangopadhyay A, Manderson J. 2014. A simulation based approach to the assessment of climate impacts on the productivity and distribution of pelagic forage stocks: A tool enabling proactive management using Illex illecebrosus as a case study. Project proposal. Dawe EG & Hendrickson LC. 1998. A review of the biology, population dynamics, and exploitation of short-finned squid in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, in relation to assessment and management of the resource. NAFO SCR Doc. 98/59, Ser. No. N3051, 33 p. Dawe EG & Beck PC. 1997. Population structure, growth, and sexual maturation of short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) at Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 137-146. Dawe EG, Froerman YM, Shevchenko EN, Khalyukov VV & Bolotov VA. 1982. Distribution and size composition of juvenile short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic in relation to mechanisms of transport, February 4 –April 30, 1982. NAFO SCR Doc., No. 25, Serial No. N513, 41 p. Dawe EG, O’Dor RK, Odense PH & Hurley GV. 1985. Validation and application of an ageing technique for short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus). J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 6: 107-116. Dawe EG, Colbourne EB & Drinkwater KF. 2000. Environmental effects on recruitment of short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 1002–1013. Dawe EG, Hendrickson LC, Colbourne EB, Drinkwater KF & Showell MA. 2007. Ocean climate effects on the relative abundance of short-finned (Illex illecebrosus) and long-finned (Loligo pealeii) squid in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Oceanogr. 16, 303–316. e-CFR [Electronic Code of Federal Regulations]. 2018. Part 648 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States. Subpart B—Management Measures for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries. data is current as of November 1, 2018. FR [Federal Register]. 2018. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications. Final Regulation. Vol. 83, No. 41, Thursday, March 1, 2018. Gedamke T & Hoenig J. 2018. Consultancy for ‘Responsiveness’ of Harvest Strategies for the Marine Stewardship Council. MER Consultants LLC. March 15, 2018. 31 pp. Hendrickson LC. 2018. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Regarding Fishery and Survey Data Updates, through 2017, for the Southern Stock Component of Northern Shortfin Squid (Illex illecebrosus). Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 91

SCS Global Services Report

Hendrickson LC & Hart DR. 2006. An age-based cohort model for estimating the spawning mortality of semelparous cephalopods with an application to per-recruit calculations for the northern shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus. Fish. Res., 78: 4–13. Hendrickson LC & Holmes EM, 2004. Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-191. Hendrickson LC & Showell MA. 2013. Assessment of Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in Subareas 3+4 for 2012. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/31, Ser. No. N6185. Hendrickson LC & Showell MA. 2016. Assessment of Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in Subareas 3+4 for 2015. NAFO SCR Doc. 16/34REV, Ser. No. N6577. Luckhurst, B.E. 2017. A Preliminary Assessment of the Ecological Role and Importance of Squid in the Pelagic Trophic Web of The Northwest Atlantic Ocean Including the Sargasso Sea. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 74(7): 3679-3691 (2018). Martínez P, Pérez-Losada M, Guerra A & Sanjuan A. 2005a. First genetic validation and diagnosis of the short-finned squid species of the genus Illex (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae). Mar. Biol., 148: 97–108 Martínez P, Belcari P, Sanjuan A & Guerra A. 2005b. Allozyme analysis of geographical and seasonal variation of Illex coindetii (Cephalopoda: Ommastrephidae) from central Mediterranean and Iberian Atlantic. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K., 85: 177–184. MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council]. 2015. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Comprehensive Five Year (2016-2020) Research Plan. Approved December 7, 2015. MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council]. 2018. Memorandum: Squid and Butterfish Specifications Review. September 19, 2018. 47pp. MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council]. 2018b. Illex Permit and MSB Goals and Objectives Amendment - Scoping Guide. October 2018 Draft. 13pp. MAFMC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council]. 2018c. 2019 Implementation Plan. 29th November 2018 Draft. 10 pp. MAFMC-SSC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee]. 2017. Memorandum: Report of the May 2017 SSC Meeting. 19pp. MAFMC-SSC [Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee]. 2018. Memorandum: Report of the September 2018 SSC Meeting. 13pp. NAFO [Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization]. 2017. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting. NAFO SCS Doc. 17-16. Serial No. N6718. NAFO [Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization]. 2017a. Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. ISBN 978-0-9959516-0-0 NAFO [Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization]. 2017b. Rules of Procedure & Financial Regulations. ISBN 0-9698167-1-5 NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 1996a. Report of the 21st Northeast Region Stock Assessment Workshop (21st SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 96-05; 200 p.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 92

SCS Global Services Report

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2003. Report of the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (37th SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 03–16. NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2006. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW) stock assessment report, part A: silver hake, Atlantic mackerel, and northern shortfin squid (CRD 06-09a). Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-09a; 284p. NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2017. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report with Observer Sea Day Allocation. Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service]. 2017. 4th Quarter 2017 Update: Summary of Stock Status for Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) Stocks. (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population- assessments/fishery-stock-status-updates). NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2018. Fish Assessment Report. FY 2018 Quarter 2 Update 2. Office of Science and Technology - NOAA Fisheries. 30p. O´Dor RK & Dawe EG. 1998. Chapter 5. IIlex iIlecebrosus. In: Squid recruitment dynamics. The genus Illex as a model. The commercial Illex species. Influences on variability. Rodhouse, P.G.; Dawe, E.G.; O'Dor, R.K. (eds.). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 376. Rome, FAO. 273p. O’Dor RK & Dawe EG. 2013. Illex illecebrosus, Northern short-finned squid. In: Rosa, R., Pierce, G., O’Dor, R. (Eds.), Advances in Squid Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. Part II. Oegopsid Squids. Nova Biomedical, New York, pp. 73–108. O´Dor RK & Lipinski MR. 1998. Chapter 1. The genus Illex (Cephalopoda; Ommastrephidae): Characteristics, distribution and fisheries. In: Squid recruitment dynamics. The genus Illex as a model. The commercial Illex species. Influences on variability. Rodhouse, P.G.; Dawe, E.G.; O'Dor, R.K. (eds.). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 376. Rome, FAO. 273p. Perez JAA & O’Dor RK. 1998. The impact of environmental gradients on the early life inshore migration of the short-finned squid Illex illecebrosus. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 20: 293–303. Roper CFE, Nigmatullin C & Jereb P. 2010. Family Ommastrephidae. In: Cephalopods of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species known to date. Vol. 2. Myopsid and Oegopsid Squids. FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes. No. 4, Vol. 2, pp. 269–347 (P. Jereb and C. F. E. Roper, Eds.). Rome, Italy. Shea EK, Judkins H, Staudinger MD, Dimkovikj VH, Lindgren A & Vecchione M. 2017. Cephalopod biodiversity in the vicinity of Bear Seamount, western North Atlantic based on exploratory trawling from 2000 to 2014. Marine Biodiversity, 47(3): 699-722. Wigley SE & Tholke C. 2017. Discard Estimation, Precision, and Sample Size Analyses for 14 Federally Managed Species Groups in the Waters off the Northeastern United States. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 17-07. February 2017. Applied Full Assessment Resources

Bowman, Ray; Stillwell, Charles E; Michaels, William L; Grosslein, Marvin D. 2000. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-155.

Dawe, Earle G.; Brodziak, Jon K.T. 1998. Chapter 7: Trophic relationships, ecosystem variability and recruitment. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 376: Squid recruitment dynamics: The genus Illex as a model,

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 93

SCS Global Services Report the commercial Illex species and influences on variability. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/w9000e/w9000e00.pdf

Froerman, Yu. M. 1983. Feeding Spectrum and Trophic Relationships of Short-finned Squid (IIex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies, 7: 67-75: Based on a paper presented at the NAFO Special Session on "Trophic Relationships in Marine Species Relevant to Fisheries Management in the Northwest Atlantic", held at Leningrad, USSR, 14-16 September 1983.

Gaichas, S; Seagraves, R; Coakley, J; DePiper, G; Hare, J; Rago, P; Wilberg, M. 2016. A framework for incorporating species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions into fishery management: A DRAFT white paper for the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Hendrickson, Lisa C. 2004. Population biology of northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and intial documentation of a spawning area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 252-266. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2003.10.010

Houde, Edward; Gaichas, Sarah; Seagraves, Richard. 2014. Managing Forage Fishes in the Mid-Atlantic Region: A White Paper to Inform the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Jacobson, L. 2005, Longfin inshore squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. EFH source Document, Second edition, NMFS TM NE-193.

Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 34 (eds J.H.S. Blaxter, A.J. Southward & P.A. Tyler), pp. 203-354. Academic Press, London.

Kashef, Neosha. 2016. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch: Longfin Squid, Shortfin Squid: East Coast Bottom Trawl.

Link, JS; Bell, RJ; Auster, PJ; Smith, BE; Overholtz, WJ; Methratta, ET; Pranovi, F; Stockhausen, WT. 2012. Food Web and Community Dynamics of the Northeast U.S. Large Marine Ecosystem. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-15.

MAFMC. 1978. Squid Fishery Management Plan. Accessed August 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/53e3cd73e4b006554847fa90/14 07438195981/SMB__Squid__Original_Plan.pdf

MAFMC. 1995. Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Final adopted by MAFMC 25 May 1995.

MAFMC. 2009. Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Final adopted by MAFMC 16 October 2008.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 94

SCS Global Services Report

MAFMC. 2011-2015. Subpart B—Management Measures for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries §648.20 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council ABC control rules. CFR 2015 Part 648 Subpart B.

MAFMC 2015b. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Comprehensive Five Year (2016-2020) Research Plan. Approved December 7, 2015.

MAFMC 2016. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document. Approved August 8, 2016.

Mcowen, C. J., Cheung, W. W. L., Rykaczewski, R. R., Watson, R. A. and Wood, L. J. (2015), Is fisheries production within Large Marine Ecosystems determined by bottom-up or top-down forcing?. Fish Fish, 16: 623–632. doi:10.1111/faf.12082

MSC 2014. Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance Version 2.0. Marine Stewardship Council. London.

NEFSC. 2012. Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem – 2011. Ecosystem Assessment Program for NOAA NMFS NEFSC.

NEFSC 2017. Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Annual Discard Report with Observer Sea Day Allocation. Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office

NMFS. 2011b. U.S. national bycatch report (W. A. Karp, L. L. Desfosse, S. G. Brooke, editors). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_nationalreport.htm

NMFS. 2012. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 1 [L. R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E. E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., 57 p. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-1

NMFS. 2016c. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 2 [L. R. Benaka, D. Bullock, J. Davis, E. E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., 90 p. Online edition: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/first-edition-update-2.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 95

SCS Global Services Report

Appendices

Appendix 1.1 Scoring and Rationales Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Principle 1

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

(Y/N) Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

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

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific The team conducted the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) during RBF meetings ation conducted as part of the Full Assessment of longfin inshore squid. The PSA was reviewed in the course of this expedited assessment to confirm that no changes in rationales or scores was merited, in particular in light of Annex PF requirements 4.4.3.1See the PSA update in Appendix 1.2 for more detail. The information was completed by using the MSC provided worksheets and templates, and the rationale can be checked in Appendix 1.2. The PSA derived score for PI 1.1.1 was 88 and the Consequence score was 100. The overall score was assigned according to RBF worksheet. The final MSC score for this PI is 94. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 96

SCS Global Services Report

1See MSC variation request response: References https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=G06iXXesQnr Lx3ecUVvgaQNtUlsOvdYg9eJmz5umEkU69lUjQ3FVpjmiEnzXebEw

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point Reference point NA NA NA used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point NA NA NA used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 94 Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 97

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding (NOT APPLICABLE) Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes Guidep A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable

ost specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 years or specified which does not 2 times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5

years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific According to table PF1 (Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – Normative) of the FCR v2.0, if RBF ation is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is stock within the specified likely based on simulation highly likely based on timeframe. modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, or previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance that rebuild the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation

Click here to enter text. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 98

SCS Global Services Report

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

a Harvest strategy design

Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Met? Y N N

Justific The Harvest Strategy is the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules ation and management actions.

The Greater Atlantic regional fisheries management and research system regularly collects a large amount of information. Besides the official monitoring focused on the fishery management (fishery dependent and independent information is regularly collected), there are several scientific institutions and government agencies that produce information that could be relevant to the harvest strategy, in the short and long-term (see section 3.3.4 Harvest Strategy: Monitoring and Information for details). Nevertheless, the system also has several relevant gaps of information on the population dynamics, stock structure and stock assessment. The MAFMC has actually given “first priority” to “Collect demographic information on growth, mortality, reproduction by sex, season, and cohort” in its 5-Years Research Plan for northern shortfin squid (2016-2020) (MAFMC 2015). These gaps in the demographic information prevent reliable estimates of stock status against reference points, and challenge the harvest strategy’s ability to respond to the state of the stock.

The MAMFC manages the squid fishery with ABC control rules. The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) assigns the squid stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC reviews the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for northern shortfin squid. ABC and other fishery regulations are set out in FMP specification documents, according to the procedure described below. The risk policy, last updated in 2012 with the MAFMC’s Framework 6, is used by the SSC in conjunction with the ABC control rules to ensure the MAFMC's preferred tolerance for the risk of overfishing is addressed in the ABC development and recommendation process, specifically when no OFL or OFL proxy is available, as it is in the case of the northern shortfin squid fishery. The risk policy states a maximum probability of overfishing set at 40% for this fishery; nevertheless, because an OFL cannot be determined, it is not possible to specify the probability of overfishing. The Council approves an ABC and DAH annually,

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 99

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place taking into account that the ABC recommended by the SSC represents an upper limit for the Council’s final ABC approved. The ABC has to be finally approved by the NMFS-GARFO. The ABC for the Northern shortfin squid fishery in the USA has been set at 24,000 t by 2000 (NEFSC 2003) and it has not changed since then. This 24,000 t ABC is considered to be conservative by management, but several issues on how this was set relative to the guidance found in the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) approach from NOAA-NMFS. In addition, other authors’ approaches draw relevant concerns (see PI 1.2.2a). Gedamke & Hoenig 2018 considered this kind of ABC approaches not to be responsive to the state of the stock.

The SSC reviews annually, amongst other information, the relative abundance and biomass indexes from the NEFSC surveys in the USA shelf. Although these are supposed to be one of the key sources of information, these indexes are not considered very reliable and ABC has not been adjusted based on them, although they have shown large fluctuations over time (Figure 14).

Other relevant management measures include:

- Commercial quotas (DAH: domestic annual harvest), set after reductions for incidental catch permits (discard rate in 2018 was 4.52%).

- Commercial closures for the directed fishery when 95% of the DAH is reached.

- Commercial post-closure trip limits of 10,000 pounds for the incidental catch permits.

Monitoring against the quota utilizes multiple sources of information. Participants in the squid fishery must maintain on board the vessel and submit an accurate Federal Vessel Trip Report (VTR) for all fishing trips. VTRs must be submitted weekly and must be postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. UoA product must be landed at registered dealers, who are also subject to regular reporting requirements. The fishery is also subject to observer coverage which contributes to annual estimations of total catch and discards.

Despite these concerns regarding responsiveness, available evidence indicates that the harvest strategy can be expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, as many stock status indexes indicate this is occurring (see SIb). Therefore the northern shortfin squid fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that the harvest strategy has been responsive to the state of the stock, as the ABC has not changed since 2000 despite the relevant fluctuations in the relative abundance and biomass indexes and the low catches in some years much below the DAH approved quota, and no other measure have been activated to ensure achieving the objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Therefore, SG 80 is not met and a condition will be raised b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the ost to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 100

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The Northern shortfin squid fishery is managed under a FMP that is supported by an ation operational framework with scientific research, monitoring, stock assessments with outside peer review (although the last benchmark was done is 2006), and independent and acamedia-based SSC and stakeholder participation. There is a control rule and demonstrated capacity to take corrective management actions to limit catch and/or effort, as necessary. Many recent indexes from the sourthern and northern component of the stock in 2016-17 demonstrate that the Northern shortfin squid resource is healthy, with good recruitment and high productivity, abundance levels around MSY and lightly exploited. The management plan is clearly achieving a stock status consistent with the management objectives.

Several of the indicators showing the good stock status are:

- Historic landings in the fishery (Figure 2) have shown great variability with four peaks of around 25,000 t in 1976-77, 1998, 2004 and 2017-8. In 2017 and 2018 the fishery was closed earlier than usual (95% of the DAH was reached), which is considered as a reflection of the healthy status of the resource.

- A LPUE annual index (Figure 26) based on the number of vessels attending the fishery and the total landings shows as and up and down pattern with an upward trend in the 1982-2018 time series. LPUE in 2017 is the second highest in the time series and 2018 is between the peak years. Higher fishing effort does not lead to lower LPUE which confirms the self regulation characteristic of the fishery based on squid availability.

- The NEFSC spring bottom trawl survey in USA (Figure 14), the NEAMAP coastal survey in U.S. (Figure 18), the Div. 4VWX July survey in the Scotian shelf (Figure 15) and the fall survey off Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO) (Figure 16), show maximums of relative abundance and biomass in 2017-18 since the beginning of the time series in 1965 (spring survey) and 2008 (NEAMAP) and since the 70s (Div.4VWX) and 1997 (Div. 3LNO). The NEFSC fall bottom trawl survey (Figure 14) show average and low relative abundance and biomass indexes respectively in recent years, although no data is available for 2017 (vessel mechanical problems) and 2018 (not ready yet). - Body weight data is mixed. Mean body weight index from the Observers Program shows a very variable but upward trend since the 90s with a peak of 190 g in 2016-17 (Figure 17), while the body weight index from the July Scotian shelf (Div. 4VWX) survey is above the average in 2016 (Figure 15). On the other hand, the off-Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO) survey body weight is below average in 2017 (Figure 16), and the NEFSC fall body weight index (USA shelf) shows an historic downward trend (Figure 14). Related to this last index, SSC considers

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 101

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that the causes for the decline in average size remain unknown, but could include changes in environmental variables, a possible change in the timing of the survey, and/or an increase in an unspecified size-selective source of mortality, such as fishing or natural mortality (MAFMC-SCC 2017). See the Consequence Analysis findings for discussion of the environmentally-driven nature of the species (Appendix 1.2).

While there is evidence that to show that the HS is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels, the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated using a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). Therefore, the northern shortfin squid fishery meets the SG 60 and 80 requirements that is the harvest strategy is both likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument, and while it may not have been fully tested, the evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives, including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. However, the fishery does not fully meet the SG 100 level requirement because the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Y

Justific The NMFS NEFSC has a program of fishery independent, seasonal scientific trawl surveys for ation fishery resources on U.S. northeast coast. This is complemented with a program of fishery dependent surveys including an at-sea observer program, dockside sampling, log-books, vessel trip reports (VTRs), and dealer reports from shore-side buyers. There are regular stock assessments with outside peer review conducted by staff at the NEFSC. There is a sound enforcement program to ensure the regulations are being followed both at sea and on land. There is a high degree of stakeholder participation in the management process including commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental NGOs, and academic scientists. There appears to be general consensus that the fishery management plan with its operational framework as managed by the MAFMC is working well. Monitoring of landings and effort led to the recent Squid Capacity Amendment discussed in Section 3.5.3 of this report, demonstrating the system’s ability to monitor whether the strategy is working as intended. For a detailed description of the information collected regularly on the northeast regional fisheries management and research system, see section 3.3.4 Harvest Strategy: Monitoring and Information. Therefore the Northern shortfin squid fishery meets the SG60 requirements that the monitoring that is in place will determine whether the harvest strategy is working d Harvest strategy review

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 102

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Met? N

Justific The harvest strategy is based on the Magnuson Stevens Act and is implemented by the ation MAFMC through the Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish FMP, with its period updates in amendments and frameworks that respond to changing conditions and information. The fishery dependent and independent monitoring provides real time information used to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. The SSC meets annually and reviews the status of the stock, landings in the fishery, discards, etc, and specifies the ABC. The MAFMC has been constantly improving several areas of the MSB FMP (see section 3.5.3 Fishery-Specific Management), most recently related to the risk policy (2012), Bycatch Reporting Methodology (2015), deep-sea corals protection (2016), electronic Trip Reporting Framework (2017) and Acceptable Biological Catch Framework (2018).

The NEFSC is continuously improving and trying different stock assessment models, and different options have been tried in the last 2003 and 2006 SAW-SARC reports (NEFSC 2003, 2006). The stock assessment lead scientisit is currently engaged in the development of a stock assessment forecasting model that incorporates environmental variables and recently a Generalized Depletion Model has also been tried without success (Lisa Hendrickson, personal communication).

Recently, a new squid amendment was launched by the MAFMC in September 2018 that considers measures to reduce latent (unused or minimally used) Northern shortfin squid permits. A draft scoping document has been released and the MAFMC is now seeking public input for the development of an “Illex Permit and MSB Goals and Objectives Amendment” to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council is proposing to develop an amendment because “there is considerable latent effort in the Illex squid fishery” (MAFMC 2018b).

Nevertheless, a very relevant key aspect of the Harvest Strategy has not been improved as necessary, although it has been reviewed and changes has been recommended for some time now. Most relevant is the lack of a recent stock assessment. The last stock assessment for this species was in 2006. The SSC notes that this 12-year interval since the last assessment is the longest for any species under the MAFMC management (MAFMC-SCC 2018). The SAW- SARC reports from 2003 and 2006 urged for investigating alternative approaches to managing the fishery, including real-time management and constant escapement (a % of maximum spawning potential-based reference point that would ensure adequate spawning stock escapement should be evaluated for management use). Adequate escapement of spawners is considered to be needed to ensure sufficient recruitment in the subsequent year. Moreover, a better understanding of trends in ‘in-season’ LPUE are important as an indicator of abundance.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 103

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Cooperative research project with the fishing industry and exploring the possibilities of in season management (also called real-time management) have been long-term recommendations from the SSC and SARC (NEFSC 2003, 2006, MAFMC-SCC 2011, 2014, 2017). Nevertheless these recommendations have not been addressed yet. The 2016-20 Council’s 5-year Research Plan considers for the Northern shortfin squid fishery “investigating feasibility of real-time management, including undertaking cooperative research with the fishing industry” a research need, although it is not neither a “first priority” nor a “first and second runners-up” (MAFMC 2015).

Therefore the Northern shortfin squid fishery does not meet the SG100 requirements that the harvest strategy is improved as necessary. In order to improve the Harvest Strategy the MAFMC has recently proposed for the 2019 Implementation Plan creating a working group for real time Illex management (MAFMC 2018c). The final potential topic of this “Illex Optimal Catch Workgroup” would be to identify possible short-term metrics, data, and/or analyses that could be used by the SSC and Council for possible ABC adjustments. e Shark finning

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific NA. ation f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biannual review ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of the target stock. of the target stock and they unwanted catch of the are implemented as target stock, and they are

appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The NMFS NEFSC, NEFMC and MAFMC all regularly review the potential effectiveness and ation practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate. The MSC CR SA3.5.3 notes that regular review is at least every 5 years, and describes "alternative measures" as alternative

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 104

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place fishing gears and or practices that have been shown to minimize the incidental mortality of the species to the lowest levels.

As part of the annual monitoring program of northeast region fisheries as conducted by the NEFSC, there is the evaluation and analysis of the discards in all fisheries based on the Observer Program (SBRM - Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology). Annual Discard Reports are published by species and fleet, based on data from July on one year through June of next year. SBRM report on discards gives information on the proportion of the northern shortfin squid that is discarded in the otter trawl small-mesh fishery in the Mid-Atlantic and in New England, as well as for the rest of the gear types. Since 2011 an average of 8.0% in Mid-Atlantic and 5.3% in New England of the northerns shortfin squids were discarded in the directed small mesh botton trawl fishery. The average total discard percentage compiling all fishing gears was 7.0% (based on calculation from the SBRM Annual Discard Reports from 2011 to 2017). The reason for 88.3% of theses discards was “no market”. This discard information is used in subsequent stock assessments as losses to the stock, and the degree of discarding is evaluated in terms of trawl codend mesh size regulations.

Evidence of the management agency's intent to minimize both discarding and unobserved mortality of the target species that interact with the trawl net is the use of seasonally differences in the minimum mesh size allowed in the squid fishery (shortfin and longfin). There is no minimum mesh size in the directed Northern shortfin squid fishery in order to minimize damage to the squid that can occur with larger meshes, and therefore unwanted catch. In order to minimize regulatory discarding of incidentally caught shortfin squid, where discard mortality is assumed to be very high, vessels holding an incidental permit can harvest up to 10,000 lb of shortfin per trip, and this limit applies to moratorium vessels once the quota is reached. Although the Northern shortfin squid fishery has no minimum codend mesh size requirement, fishing is prohibited shoreward of 91 m (depth) during June through September to reduce the bycatch of longfin inshore squid (Hendrickson 2018; 50 CFR 648.23(a)(5).).

Amendment 10 to the MSB FMP in 2010 was the primary amendment that targeted minimization of bycatch of all species encountered in the MSB fisheries. A review of the Annual Fishery Performance Reports on the Council website (http://www.mafmc.org/msb/) demonstrates that fishery trends and issues, including unwanted mortality and gear configurations, are regularly discussed. The purpose of these reports is to provide catch history context for the SSC and record information that may affect catches and that may be useful for setting future specifications.

Evidence exists to show that the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology and Amendment 10 requirements are achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. In the SBRM there is also the requirement to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and establishes the ability of FMPs to regulate other fisheries with mortality caps, closed areas, etc. See Si2.1.2e for a more detailed discussion of these national requirements. Therefore the Northern shortfin squid fishery at least meets the SG80 requirements that there is regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 105

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock, and that there is evidence of measures are implemented, as deemed appropriate.

While there is an annual review of fishery-specific management measures, there is not evidence that at least every two years there is an evaluation of alternative measures to reduce unwanted mortality. Thus, the fishery does not meet the SG100 level as it is not clear that all aspects of the requirements are addressed at least biannually.

Gedamke & Hoenig 2018 MAFMC 2015, 2018b References MAFMC-SCC 2011, 2014, 2017 NEFSC 2003, 2006 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1 Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 106

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating at are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Met? Y N N

Justific The Northern shortfin squid fishery does not have a Harvest Control Rule sensu stricto as ation defined in the FCR 2.0 Vocabulary section; “a set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points”. The fishery has no reference points considered reliable and actions are not pre-agreed, but the ABC is annually reviewed by the SSC based on Council´s ABC control rule and the risk policy. A detailed description of the ABC control rule is given on section 3.3.4 Harvest Strategy.

The MAFMC manages the northern shortfin squid fishery with an ABC control rule. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determines an ABC to prevent overfishing. This ABC represents an upper limit for the Council when setting final catch and landings limits (IOY and DAH). The ABC and DAH has to be finally approved by the NMFS-GARFO.

The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for the northern shortfin squid, but it is reviewed annually by the SSC and the Council. Since the fishery has no reference points reliable, OFL cannot be determined, and therefore, the control rule applied to the northern shortfin squid is “ABC control rule for when an OFL (Over-Fishing Level) cannot be specified” (e-CFR 2018). An ABC for stocks with an OFL that cannot be specified will be determined based on biomass and catch history and application of the MAFMC's risk policy. The risk policy for the northern shortfin squid is a 40% maximum probability of overfishing as informed by the OFL distribution. Neverthelesss, because an OFL cannot be specified given the current state of knowledge it is not possible to specify the probability of overfishing. The ABC for the northern shortfin squid fishery in the U.S. has been set at 24,000 t by 2000 (NEFSC 2003) and it has not changed since then. This level was set based on the highest landings of the time series (see Figure 2). The SSC has endorsed this ABC of 24,000 t since its first recommendation in 2010 until the last one in 2017 based on: The 24,000 mt for Illex is not an assessment-based ABC. Even though trawl survey CPUE and landings have varied,

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 107

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place there do not appear to be any long-term trends; changes in landings could be the result of changes in abundance, availability, and/or market conditions. Additionally, there is no available evidence that landings of 24,000-26,000 MT have caused harm to the Illex stock. The method used by the SSC for setting the ABC assumes that the stock has been lightly exploited because of the relatively small portion of its range within which the commercial fishery operates (MAFMC-SSC 2010, 2017, 2018).

After the SSC recommends an ABC, the Council approves a final ABC taking into account that the recommended one is the upper limit. In the next step the MAFMC calculates a IOY by deducting an estimated discard rate (4.52% in 2018, so IOY=22,915 t) from the ABC. A DAH will be afterwards set after deduction for RSA, but since no quota for northern shortfin squid is set-aside for research the DAH=IOY=22,915 t, which is the final 2018 and projected 2019– 2020 specifications (FR 2018). The SSC considers that given this categorization of a relatively light fishing history, the 24,000 t ABC is probably a very conservative ABC that will probably meet the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006 of not overfishing, and also the Council´s risk policy of not exceeding a 40% likelihood of overfishing (John Boreman & Thomas Miller personal comments). Moreover, the SSC believes that an ABC between 24-26,000 t in 2019, and perhaps 2020 as well, will likely not result in a greater than a 40% chance of causing overfishing (MAFMC-SSC 2018). The SSC considers that setting an ABC (24,000 t) near the maximum historical catch is reasonable based on Wiedenmann et al. (2013) (MAFMC-SSC 2018), but these authors only evaluated HCRs for species between 7-30 years of maximum age and I. illecebrosus is a semelparous species that lives less than one year (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004).

Moreover, the 24,000 t ABC set is slighly above the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) approach from NOAA-NMFS (Berkson et al 2011). This approach recommends to set an OFL (which it is expected to correspond to MSY) of two times the historic average catch for lightly exploited stocks, and then multiply the OFL by 0.75-0.90 to get an ABC. The average catch 1987-2017 of the northern shortfin squid is 12,257 t which it would correspond to an OFL of 24,513 t and an ABC of 18,385-22,062 t following the ORCS approach. This ABC range from ORCS is below the ABC of 24,000 t set for the fishery. We note that the ORCS approach does not deal with with short-lived species like Illex. It instructs to take into account the productivity f the stock, environmental variabilities and the possible role as forage species, but it does not provide a rule to do so. This method has not been used by the SSC. Going even further, other authors think that “a policy of constant catch, in the absence of information other than catches, is non-responsive to stock abundance and is responsive in the wrong direction to exploitation rate. That is, if stock goes down, the allowable catch does not change so the strategy is not responding to changes in abundance; however, as stock goes down, a constant catch implies an increase in exploitation rate which is the opposite of what is needed” (Gedamke & Hoenig 2018). To ensure annual landings do not exceed the ABC, and although northern shortfin squid fishery is exempt from the ACL/AM requirements (because they have a life cycle of less than one year -FR 2018), the fishery has management controls to prevent ABC from being

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 108

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place exceeded and to correct or mitigate overages of the ABC if they occur. The directed fishery for I. illecebrosus is closed by GARFO when 95% of the DAH is reached based on weekly Dealer Electronic Reporting and will not be open until next year. When the fishery is closed permit holders are prohibited from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing more than 10,000 lb of northern shortfin squid per trip (no more than 10,000 lb may be landed per calendar day). Thanks to this measure, in the last 20 years DAH has only been slighly overaged two times; 109% in 2004 and 105% in 2018 (For data reported through 2018-10-24; https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/ monitoring/Illexsquid.html).

A conservative approach when setting the ABC is that the MAFMC does not take into account the amount of quota un-harvested in the northern component of I. illecebrosus from its 34,000 t annual TAC (set at this level since 2000). The ABC in the sourthern component has not increased despite the fact that in the 2000-2017 period only 2% of the TAC has been harvested in NAFO Subareas 3 and 4.

Another conservative feature of the fishery is that Northern shortfin squid is a self-regulated fishery where the effort is based on squid availability on the USA shelf. The number of vessels attending the fishery greatly fluctuates between years based on squid availability and market issues (Figure 25). This characteristic has probably led to variable LPUEs in the fishery across years with even a slighly increasing trend in recent years (Figure 26) since vessels leave the fishery when no squid is available, reducing the effort. The best evidence that the existing HCRs has been working is that the stock reaches the SG80 level for PI 1.1.1 based on the RBF, keeping the fishery away of the point of recruitment impairment (PRI).

Therefore, based on the above, there is a well defined and conservative HCRs in place that that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the PRI is approached; SG 60 is meet.

Nevertheless, the lack of reference points in the fishery and the issues commented on the 24,000 t ABC compared to ORCS and other authors approaches are relevant concerns. The assessment team considers that SG 80 is not met, since the fishery does not fulfill that HCRs in place are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. A condition will be therefore raised. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

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

Met? N N

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 109

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Justific The northern shortfin squid HCR is considered not to be robust to the main uncertainties. ation Based on the last stock assessment (NEFSC 2006) and SSC reports (MAFMC-SSC 2017), the most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC are: - Recruitment dynamics: reliable predictions of annual recruitment levels are not currently possible. - Growth rates and mortality: reliable seasonal growth rates variability and estimations of natural mortality for each seasonal cohort are still lacking. - Relative abundance and biomass proxies: these indexes are affected by the issues related to the NEFSC surveys; timing not adequate, use of a bottom trawl gear for a semi-pelagic species like squids, not all stock range covered,… - Stock status: stock status cannot be determined because adequate data are not available to estimate fishing mortality rates and absolute stock size. Stock assessment model estimations are not reliable.

- Environmental factors impact: still unknown, but likely high, impact of environmental factors on recruitment and growth.

- No stock assessment has been done since 2006.

ABC recommendations for the northern shortfin squid fishery, are subject to adjustment by SSC annual evaluation according to MSRA. Nevertheless the SSC does not have reliable information to move from the 24,000 conservative ABC set in 2000 and still in place. The ABC may be considered precautionary, but it cannot be concluded that the approach is robust to main uncertainties because the HCR is not able to react to changes in the stock status due to the assessment uncertainties listed above.

Based on the above, the northern shortfin squid HCR is considered not to be robust to the main uncertainties and therefore, SG 80 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the controlling exploitation. levels required under the HCRs. HCRs.

Met? Y Y N

Justific There is available evidence (stock abundance and biomass indices, LPUE index, body mass ation indexes and catch and effort indexes) that demonstrate that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. See PI 1.1.1 table, PI 1.2.1b table and the Consequence Analysis table for a review on indexes and proxies showing the good

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 110

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place state of the stock. It seems this good stock status is mainly due to the conservative ABC set and the fact that almost no fishing is ocurring in the northern component of the species, in line of course with favourable environmental conditions. Moreover, northern shortfin squid has been historically and are currently lightly exploited (MAFMC-SCC 2018). Based on this SG 60 and 80 are meet.

Nevertheless, the last stock assessment done in 2006 was not able to estimate fishing mortality rate, stock biomass, or to determine stock status based on reference points (old reference points were considered innappropiate but new ones could not be estimated) (NEFSC 2006). The SARC indicated that the available data were not adequate to estimate these quantities. Moreover, some indicators like the relative abundance and relative biomass proxies have relevant uncertainties due to survey design and adequacy to this resource (see SI b). These issues prevent the availability of proxies indicating that it is highly likely that overfishing is not occurring and will not occur in the future, and therefore there is no evidence that clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs; SG 100 is therefore not meet.

Berkson et al 2011 Federal Register 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 41) Hendrickson, 2017 Hendrickson & Holmes 2004 References MAFMC 2018c MAFMC-SSC 2010, 2017, 2018 NEFSC 2003 Wiedenmann et al. 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2 Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 111

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock support the harvest strategy. data is available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such

as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y N

Justific There is sufficient relevant information available on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet ation composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information to support the harvest strategy.

The Northeast regional fisheries management and research system regularly collects a large amount of information. The NMFS NEFSC has had a program of research studies over the last 50 years directed to understanding the life history characteristics, the population biology, habitat requirements, and ecosystem interactions, as well as providing stock productivity and abundance assessments based on fishery dependent and independent information. The scientific studies and surveys also include the collection of extensive data on environmental conditions and its impacts on northeast fisheries.

The I. illecebrosus population is considered to constitute a single stock. Its structure is not completely known but based on genetic studies there is no significant genetic heterogeneity between populations located off Newfoundland and Cape Cod (Martínez et al 2005a,b). Several other factors lend support to this unit stock concept: 1) a single spawning area in the Northwest Atlantic, 2) biomass indices are positively correlated throughout the species range, a synchrony regulated by oceanographic processes, and 3) on-shelf migration pattern in March-April along the USA and southern Scotian Shelf (for detailed information see first two parts of section 3.3.2 Biology). The stock is nevertheless managed through two separate management units, the northern stock component (Canada, NAFO Subareas 3+4) and the southern stock component (USA, NAFO Subareas 5+6) for practicality. The stock productivity is generally monitored and understood. Several studies and reviews have been done on the maturity, growth, natural mortality and fecundity of I. illecebrosus (see section 3.3.2 Biology for details). In the spring and fall NEFSC surveys total weight and number of individuals in the catch is registered in each station, as well as body size (mantle

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 112

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy length) and body weight of a subsample. More detailed studies are done regularly using this surveys were sex, maturity stage and age in days are determined (see Hendrickson 2004). Population productivity in I. illecebrosus fluctuates periodically between high (1976- 1981) and low productivity periods (1970-1975 and 1982-2012; Hendrickson & Showell 2013) and a relationship has been found between body size and relative abundance-biomass indices with bottom temperature anomalies on the US Shelf (reviewed in O´Dor & Dawe 2013). Furthermore, northern shortfin squid share habitat and a common niche with longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii) in the USA shelf through opposing responses at the population level to environmental variation, such that their populations and productivity vary inversely (Dawe et al 2007).

Fishery information includes the number and types of vessels in the fishery fleet. The temporal and spatial patterns of the fishery by gear type are well documented. There is also information on the size and type of fleet (refrigerated seawater system trawlers –RSW- and freezer trawlers –FT-) attending the fishery every year; effort (number of vessels and fishing days) and landings are given for each fleet type. The performance of the different fleets (FT vs RSW) has also been studied. Differences in terms of fishing operations, CPUE and body size were found between fleets (Powell et al 2003a, 2003b and 2005).

Vessels involved in this fishery have an operational Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) on board, mandatory since 2017 (Amendment 16). The VMS unit transmits positional information to the communication service provider that then makes the information available to the NMFS. The NEFSC observer program provides about 10% coverage by sea days of the small mesh bottom trawl fishery in the New England and mid-Atlantic areas. Dockside monitoring includes information on landings (Northeast Dealer Report Landings database) and biological sampling. This data is afterwards crosschecked the with vessel trip reports (VTRs); VTRs are required in order to provide information on catch (retained and discarded), effort and fishing location data.

Environmental information is also constantly collected and has been key for explaining the population dynamic of I. illecebrosus. For more details on the range of information collected in this fishery, see section 3.3.4 Harvest Stategy: Information and Monitoring.

The information collected is large, nevertheless, it cannot be considered a comprehensive range of information since there are still several gaps of understanding on the biology (winter spawning area and mortality rates), stock structure (migrations between the northern and southern stock components, fraction of the stock that resides offshore and a detailed genetic structure along the whole stock range) and blooms in productivity (inshore waves of I. illecebrosus like in 2017-18). While these uncertainties are quite relevant, the assessment team considers that they do not undermine the harvest strategy, as based on a conservative quota and fishery regulated by the availability of the stock. The assessment team considers that the information available on stock structure, productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance and UoA removals is sufficient to support the harvest strategy, at a quality and quantity necessary to demonstrate achievement of the SG80 outcome in PI 1.1.1 (SA2.6.2, FCR v2.0). However, there is not a comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 113

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, available, so the SG 100 level is not met. b Monitoring

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

Met? Y N N

Justific Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored and several indicators are ation available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

As described in PI 1.2.1 evaluation table the National Marine Fisheries Service management regime for this fishery, uses estimates of stock abundance based on surveys to monitor stock status in USA (southern component: Subareas 5 and 6). The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and NAFO also run similar surveys and abundance indexes are also available for the northern component (Subareas 3 and 4). The coverage of the abundance surveys covers therefore all the stock range.

The NEFSC does two surveys annually since the 60s, one in spring (before the fishing season started) and a second one in fall (when fishing is finished). The DFO and NAFO has July surveys on the Scotian Shelf (Div. 4VWX) since 70s and in Flemish Cup (Div. 3M) since 80s respectively, and DFO also does two annual surveys (spring and fall) since 1995 off Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO). Based on all these surveys several relative abundance (number per tow), relative biomass (kg per tow) and body weight indices are available (Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16). This information is complemented with the NEAMAP abundance index for I. illecebrosus (from VIMS coastal waters survey) and from CPUE and body weight indexes from the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), also used to monitor stock status. Nevertheless, the NEFSC surveys, the most relevant for the UoA, have several issues (timing not adequate, fishing gear not good for catching squids, not all stock range covered,…) and are therefore not considered to have a sufficient level of accuracy to support a robust HCR.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 114

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) monitors the landings of MSB FMP relative to the quotas via Dealer Electronic Reporting to the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). Weekly landings reports and quota consumption status are available at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/monitoring/Illexsquid.html. This data is used for closing the directed fishery for I. illecebrosus when 95% of the DAH is reached. The Northeast Dealer Report Landings database (sometimes referred to as the Weighout database) is considered the most accurate landings information available, but other collection programs are also in place and are crosscheck is done. The bottom trawl fleet is required by NOAA-GARFO to submit a vessel trip report (VTR) for every fishing trip; information on catch (retained and discarded), effort and fishing location is available on the VTR. Additionally, real-time information on commercial fishery landings are collected through the SAFIS electronic data collection system managed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), which is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. (http://www.accsp.org/safis).

Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored and several indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule, and therefore SG 60 is met. Data is monitored at a level of coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, but not at a level of accuracy, due to the issues related to the NEFSC abundance surveys, therefore SG 80 and 100 is not met. A condition will be therefore raised. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guidep There is good information on ost all other fishery removals from the stock.

Met? Y

Justific All fishery landings are recorded at the dockside point of offloading via VTRs and dealer ation reporting. Monitors verify the weight and the species of fish offloaded. A variety of information must also be reported to the NMFS in fishery monitoring documents completed by the captain for each trip (VTRs). The catch inputs include landings and discards from both the commercial and recreational fleets (although there is not recreation fishery for northern shortfin squid in the USA) in federal and state waters. Most other gear types that may also incidentally remove the UoC species are required to have some level of observer coverage, so the levels of discarding are also well documented in these fisheries (see Wigley & Tholke 2017). All this information is used for determining the final Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH) from the ABC. Catches in the Canadian part of the stock are also regularly monitored although this data is not taken into account in the harvest strategy of the southern component of the stock in

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 115

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy USA, since the northern component of the stock in Canada and NAFO waters has its own assessment and TAC. Regular statistics can be consulted online (see section 3.3.4 Harvest Stategy: Information and Monitoring).

Therefore the northern shortfin squid fishery meets the SG 80 requirements.

Dawe et al 2007 Hendrickson 2004 Hendrickson & Showell 2013 References Martínez et al 2005a,b O´Dor & Dawe 2013 Powell et al 2003a,b and 2005 Wigley & Tholke 2017 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3 Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 116

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock and account the major features for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific According to table PF1 (Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework – Normative) of the FCR v2.0, if RBF ation is used to score PI 1.1.1, a default score of 80 shall be awarded to PI 1.2.4.

b Assessment approach

Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation c Uncertainty in the assessment

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

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation d Evaluation of assessment

Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 117

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation e Peer review of assessment

Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justific See SI a justification. ation

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 118

SCS Global Services Report

Principle 2 Only PI 2.2.1-2.2.3 and PIs 2.5.1-2.5.3 are included on the basis of the findings of the gap analysis finding that assessment of the same fleet means that ecosystem interactions and impacts should be equivalent to those evaluated in the full assessment. Secondary species PIs are re-scored on the basis of removing Northern shortfin squid as a scoring element, and PI 2.5.X is reconsidered in light of the role of Northern shortfin squid in the ecosystem.

Because these are considered revisions and not complete re-scoring of the fishery under Principle 2, changes are reflected in struck-through text and bolded additions.

Full Assessment note on scoring of Primary and Secondary Species: Minor species elements have been scored together based on the ‘all or none approach’ described in the MSC interpretation titled “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100.” (http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/minor-species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-sg100/) Only minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch are considered explicitly in the background and scoring. For a full list of species encountered in the fishery see Appendices 6 & 7 (please refer to the full assessment of the longfin squid PCR for these appendices).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 119

SCS Global Services Report

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

a Main secondary species stock status

Guidep Main Secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be within highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? NA NA NA

Justific See Appendix 1.2 for a detailed summary of the PSA evaluation conducted for the only Main ation Secondary species: Northern Shortfin Squid.

There were are no Main Secondary species with Northern shortfin squid now assessed as a target species. Therefore, this SI is rescored as NA.

b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep For minor species that are

ost below biologically based limits’, there is evidence

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 120

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not PI 2.2.1 hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? N

Justific Minor species comprising >0.5% of the catch include: horseshoe crab, northern sea robin, ation spotted hake, Atlantic mackerel, smooth dogfish, striped sea robin, and fourspot flounder. See Table 7.

All minor secondary species are caught in low volumes, at <2% of total UoA catch by weight. The assessment team has elected not to conduct the RBF on minor Secondary species, as permitted under PF4.1.4. Accordingly, the final PI score is scored down to meet SG80 only (PF5.3.2.1).

References Section 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5; Appendix 1.2

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 121

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which to be within biologically are highly likely to be within based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to that the UoA does not hinder ensure that the UoA does their recovery. not hinder their recovery.

Met? NA NA N

Justific The only Main Secondary species is northern shortfin squid, which is managed under ation Federal FMP.

There are no Main Secondary species in this fishery. Therefore SG60 and 80 are not applicable. There are a number of measures in place to contribute to the management of all Secondary species in the UoA, in alignment with the national strategy for bycatch management in U.S. fisheries. The Mackerel Squid and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) contemplates bycatch effects of existing and planned conservation and management measures, meeting the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP to include considerations to reduce bycatch. Northern shortfin squid is also managed directly under the MSB FMP according to the same National Standard Guidelines, via the MAFMC. The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program directs trips to collect information onboard vessels, based on a number of days per fleet determined in evaluation according to the standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) Amendment. Onboard observers are required to document catch composition and present annual discard reports to the Fishery Management Councils. Bycatch reports allow Councils to review the effectiveness of the SBRM and also serve to inform management issues or actions via the various FMPs in place for longfin inshore squid and for the other bycatch species designated as primary for this UoA. The several FMPs, the use of selective gear and bycatch reporting are considered measures working cohesively within the Greater Atlantic Region Council system to ensure FMPs meet the U.S. National Standard Guidelines for sustainable and responsible management of the designated primary species.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 122

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Bottom trawl gear catches a variety of species, and it is acknowledged that the directed longfin inshore squid fishery has a high discard rate. Where federally managed species have fallen below biological reference points, there are demonstrated actions on the part of management to implement measures to minimize impacts on those species. Examples include the MSB Amendment 10 measures to minimize bycatch and rebuild butterfish upon its determination as overfished and the Gear Restricted Areas to reduce scup bycatch. Both of these use codend minimum mesh size requirements to minimize bycatch, in conjunction with area-based restrictions and mortality caps. MSB fisheries are also subject to other gear, area, and catch limit restrictions as applied via other FMPs.

Per MSC definition, it can be said there is a strategy in place: there is a cohesive and strategic arrangement comprising monitoring (SBRM, NEFOP, and other fishery dependent sources) and resulting management measures (FMP Amendments and fishery specifications) that are designed to manage the federally managed species in accordance with the explicit goals laid out in the U.S. National Standard Guidelines requirements for FMP.

However, the assessment team notes that the national bycatch management strategy is centered on federally managed species. In the case of this UoA, all main species are federally managed. However, the minor Secondary species (horseshoe crab; northern and striped sea robins, spotted hake, Atlantic mackerel, smooth dogfish, and fourspot flounder), are not commercially managed, with the exception of Atlantic mackerel (MAFMC), horseshoe crab (ASFMC), and smooth dogfish (NMFS Highly Migratory Species).

Because the federal strategy is largely based on the SBRM and NEFOP programs, which target federally managed species only, it cannot be said there is a ‘strategy’ available for all Secondary species. SG80, only, is met. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

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

Met? NA NA Y

Justific In accordance with MSC interpretations, the framing of SIa ‘if necessary’ applies to SIs b ation and c, meaning this SI scores at least 80. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for federally managed species is working primarily on the basis of the stock status of the main species, and the strategy can

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 123

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. also be said to have been tested (e.g. Amendment 10 for butterfish rebuilding and scup GRAs descried in SIa). For non-federally managed species, there is monitoring in place that should provide sufficient information to support additional management action where needed, and the lack of prevalence of non-federally-managed species in significant volume in the fishery provides confidence that the strategy as focused on federally managed species is appropriate and will work. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific In accordance with MSC interpretations, the framing of SIa ‘if necessary’ applies to Sis b ation and c, meaning this SI scores at least 80. There is at least some evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully for federally managed species.

There are examples of the squid fishery management system reacting to non-target species impact concerns identified through monitoring and evaluation (see SIb for PI 2.1.2 above), and nearly all federally managed species discards can be estimated with <.300 CV based on the achieved observer coverage, including northern shortfin squid (Wigley & Tholke 2017). Mackerel, as the only other federally managed species, discards in the UoA were estimated with 0.336 precision in 2017 (Wigley & Tholke 2017).

The majority of secondary species are not federally managed, and several components of the management strategy (e.g. SBRM, EFH) only apply to federally managed species. NEFOP data demonstrates that non-federally managed species comprise a relatively small proportion of the catch: northern shortfin squid is the only secondary species that comprises >2% of the catch by weight. The lack of prevalence of non-managed species (i.e. Secondary) in significant volume in the fishery supports that the strategy with its implementation focus on federally managed species is appropriate. National Standard 9 of minimizing bycatch pertains to all non-target species. In the UoA, however, the bycatch and discard rates remain high. In addition, as described in previous scoring issues there is a relative lack of monitoring and evaluation targeted at non-federally managed species. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, in particular for federally managed species. However, it cannot be said that

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 124

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. there is clear evidence of the strategy achieving its objective due to ongoing high bycatch rates. SG80, only, is met. d Shark finning

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

Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant

Justific Sharks other than spiny dogfish comprise <1% of total catch. Smooth dogfish is the only ation minor secondary shark species >0.5% of the catch. Because of the relatively low catch volumes of sharks as secondary species, shark finning is evaluated under PI 2.1.2d and is considered Not Relevant here. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

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

Met? NA NA N

Guidep ost There are no Main Secondary species in this fishery. Therefore SG60 and 80 are not applicable. See rationale for SI 2.1.2e for a complete discussion of national, regional, and UoA specific discussion of ongoing reviews of potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch. All Main Primary species are federally managed, as is the only Main Secondary species: Northern shortfin squid. Shortfin squid (Illex) are targeted by a subset of the UoA (small mesh bottom trawl fleet), and operationally longfin inshore squid is more so considered bycatch in temporally and geographically focused directed fishery for Illex, where significant co-encountering of shortfin and longfin inshore squid occurs only in some years and typically when the longfin population is particularly large. A smaller mesh size is used for targeting Illex than in the directed longfin fishery, and the fishery for Illex is geographically and temporally focused.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 125

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. In order to minimize regulatory discarding of incidentally caught shortfin squid, where discard mortality is assumed to be very high, vessels holding an incidental permit can harvest up to 10,000 lb of shortfin per trip, and this limit applies to moratorium vessels once the quota is reached. Management has continued to exempt targeted Illex trips from minimum mesh size requirements, where smaller mesh is typically used in the Illex fishery because the body shape of the species causes it to incur damage, or ‘gill up’, in larger meshes (See comments in Appendix 1.2 on gear selectivity and post-capture mortality).

In totaling the most recent 2 years of SBRM reports (Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017), 5.24% of shortfin squid caught by small mesh bottom trawl in the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic were discarded, though with significant year-over variation of 14.8% in the 2017 report and only 1.8% in the 2016 report. (Looking further back the variatibility continues with 1.8% in the 2014-2015 season and 14.8% in the 2015-2016 season). Discards were estimated with 0.264 and 0.247 CV for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast fleets, respectively in the most recent SBRM report (Wigley & Tholke 2017). Discards included, the total catch of Illex is well below its quota in recent years (comparing SBRM estimated totals relative to the quota). Nearly all discards are reported as due to a lack of market. Management attributes years of higher discard rates as typically occurring in years where there is greater spatial overlap with the longfin inshore squid directed fishery. The unpredictability in availability is cited in Fishery Performance Reports as an environmental challenge by industry (http://www.mafmc.org/msb/). The bycatch minimization strategy promulgated through the National Standard 9 and National Bycatch Reduction Strategy, along with the ongoing in-season monitoring and SBRM reporting as described in SI2.1.2e provide ongoing information and a basis for evaluation of alternatives to minimize unwanted mortality, should this become a concern for Northern shortfin squid. Although discard rates fluctuate significantly on an inter-annual basis, total catches, including discards, in recent years have been well below the established quota, and there are management measures in place to minimize discards to the extent deemed practicable (or appropriate) in light of the broader implications for ecosystem impacts and economic consequences (in line with GSA3.5.3.3). SG80 is met. As noted in SI2.1.2e, the U.S. management strategy does not provide as thorough consideration of non-federally managed species in bycatch management. Therefore, the SG100 is not met.

References Wigley et al 2016, Wigley & Tholke 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 126

SCS Global Services Report

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

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

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

Met? NA NA NA

Justific ation There are no Main Secondary species in this fishery. Therefore SG60, 80 and 100 are not applicable. Northern shortfin squid is the only main secondary species, and is federally managed. Significant quantitative information is available to conduct the PSA on northern shortfin squid, the only main secondary species. The assessment team gathered information to support the PSA in accordance with Annex PF requirements. Key sources of productivity information included a past stock assessment, a NAFO assessment, EFH studies, in addition to other peer reviewed literature. These sources are summarized and referenced in the PSA, found in Appendix 1.2. In addition to the above, fishery dependent information was available to support the susceptibility evaluation, including VTR and VMS data that support maps of the fishery; NEFOP observer data, and SBRM reports. The SG80 is clearly met. However, the SG100 cannot be met due to the lack of information on stock status.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative

ost information is adequate to

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 127

SCS Global Services Report

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? N

Justific Most minor secondary species are not managed by state or federal agencies, and there are ation no available stock assessments or status information for most of these species. For some species, there is enough information to estimate the impact, but for several minor species for which there is no abundance information this cannot be said. SG100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? NA NA N

Justific ation There are no Main Secondary species in this fishery. Therefore SG60 and 80 are not applicable. As noted in SIa, northern shortfin squid is the only main secondary species. The stock is data limited and there are no available reference points, but the species is still subject to federal management under a directed fishery management plan, has identified EFH, is monitored under the SBRM, and also undergoes some level of cooperative management under NAFO. The information, albeit limited due to the challenging life history traits and wide distribution of the stock, is adequate to support the management strategy. As noted previously, the non-target species management is not as cohesive as it pertains to non-federally managed species. Particularly relevant to this information PI is that the SBRM does not account for non-federally managed species in its discard estimation and precision analysis.

It cannot be concluded that information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species with a high degree of certainty of achieving objectives. SG80, only, is met. SG100 is not met.

References Background Section 3.4.5; Appendix 1.2

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 128

SCS Global Services Report

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 129

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem point where there would be point where there would be structure and function to a a serious or irreversible a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. harm. a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The UoA resides within what NOAA identifies as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large ation Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), which spans the area from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine and is considered a highly productive and dynamic ecosystem. LMEs are defined by four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically linked populations. These criteria are considered the key ecosystem elements, where productivity and trophically linked populations are the elements vulnerable to fishery impacts. There are numerous ecosystem research and management initiatives that directly evaluate trends in ecosystem components and associated stressors, including the ecological communities and trophic structures in the NES LME. These are primarily summarized in the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report- available online at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystem-status-report/, and key findings have been summarized in the Background on Ecosystem Impacts of this report. While there have been significant shifts in phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure, evidence does not indicate that base food web productivity is driven by top down forces such as fishing pressure (Steele 2010, Sherman 2002). Thus, the UoA is considered highly unlikely to disrupt productivity to the point of serious and irreversible harm. Historical trend data on fish community structure provides evidence that fisheries can have a significant effect on the ecological community, and the ecosystem is also undergoing significant changes due to the changing ocean climate. This evidence also indicates that management has had success in rebuilding some stocks, suggesting that such overfishing impacts where they have occurred can be considered ‘reversible’. Importantly, none of the main species caught in this fishery are considered overfished (See PIs 2.1.1-2.2.3). Squid are considered a forage species, and play a key role both as a predator and a prey species for fish species including summer flounder as well as larger pelagic species such as marine mammals (Houde et al 2014; Bowman et al 2000). Neither Longfin inshore nor

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 130

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. Northern shortfin squid do not qualify for consideration as ‘key’ low trophic under the MSC criteria (See background section 3.3). Due to their importance in the foodweb, maintenance of longfin inshore squid biomass at levels that continue to provide for its important ecosystem role is highly relevant to this scoring issue. The most recent stock assessment has found that longfin inshore squid are well above Bmsy, and it is understood that natural mortality (including predation and cannibalism) far exceed fishing mortality. RBF findings conclude the stock status is likely robust to fishery impacts, and recent years have seen a marked increase in Illex presence, catches and size (See Appendix 1.2). This supports a conclusion that it is highly likely that the UoA is not disrupting key elements of the ecosystem structure and function to the point of irreversible harm. SG80 is met. Longfin inshore squid Both squid species are semelparous and have highly variable population dynamics. and

For longfin, the stock assessment for squid is retrospective, such that in any given year the annual TAC may be overly conservative or allow for fishing in excess of the population within a given year. Historic trends and the most recent stock assessment do not indicate that fishing levels are unsustainable, but there is significant uncertainty within any given year as to the population status relative to fishing effort on a given cohort. The Northern shortfin squid stock is data limited such that a stock assessment hasn’t been possible and reference points are undefined. Information available indicates that environmental drivers have a stronger impact that current and recent fishing levels, which are low and geographically constrained relative to the distribution of the stock. However, there is not sufficient information to consider evidence conclusive. In addition, while the evaluations of Primary and Secondary species indicate that impacts on main species are within biologically based limits, there is no evidence of consideration of trawling impacts on community structure relative to ecosystem structure and function in areas of high concentrations of fishing, and there is a lack of information on non-federally managed species impacts. SG80, but not SG100, is met.

References Background Section 3.4.6

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 131

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that ost if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to impacts of the fishery on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific As described in the background, there are several policies, ongoing research activities, and ation management practices that work to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem and that address all main impacts of the UoA. There is not an ecosystem strategy in place, but this is not necessary per SA3.17.3.2 where there are individual strategies addressing other components under P1 and P2. There is a broad management framework available that looks after ecosystem impacts of fishing as a whole, when the 10 National Standards are taken together as management objectives. Impacts of the fishery on identified ‘valued ecosystem components’ are considered for all Council actions. The MAFMC adopted an objective for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in 2011, and has published several white papers outlining potential operational approaches and unique management for forage species. The Council has adopted ecosystem approaches as an objective in their strategic plan, and there is evidence of consideration of plans to operationalize this objective; however to date no operational plan is in place. In addition to monitoring and evaluation systems to manage ecosystem components (e.g. stock assessments, SBRM reports, and EFH designations), NEFSC publishes an ecosystem status report encompassing the entire LME, and considering differences at a sub-regional level. Many, though not all, of the above measures are designed with ecosystem-based management as an objective. Although the Ecosystem Approach is under development by the Council, there are existing strategies targeted at the ecosystem components reflected in Principles 1 and 2 that together work to maintain ecosystem structure and function. These strategies, described in the background and under PIs 2.X.2, in conjunction with the efforts at the Council to integrate towards an Ecosystem Approach, is sufficient to meet the SG100.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 132

SCS Global Services Report

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. b Management strategy evaluation

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

Met? Y Y N

Justific The small mesh bottom trawl fishery impacts various components of the ecosystem via ation resource removal and habitat disturbance, and longfin inshore squid as a target species plays an important role in the ecosystem as forage species. Under the 10 National Standards, federal fisheries are managed to minimize impacts on components of the ecosystem, though the focus of this management is on federally managed commercial species, versus ecological communities.

In this UoA, federally managed species comprise the majority of the catch, and all main species have a healthy stock status. Reporting on catch composition across all fleets is published annually. Habitat impacts have been modeled for consideration of impacts on designated EFH for all federally managed species. ETP species are also monitored with regulatory mechanisms to spur management response when impacts exceed biological limits.

This ongoing monitoring linked with management mechanisms provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. However, as noted above much of this management focuses on particular components of the ecosystem rather than the overarching ecosystem structure and function. There is not yet a cohesive ecosystem-based management plan that has been operationalized or accordingly that has been tested. SG80, only, is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. PIs 2.1.2, ation 2.2.2, 2.3.2, and 2.4.2 provide examples of implementation of management measures to meet objectives for each of these ecosystem components. There is also evidence via the

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 133

SCS Global Services Report

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem Status Report that fishery interventions can affect ecosystem-level indicators (e.g. the recovery of groundfish populations). However, without explicit and operationalized objectives and metrics for ecosystem based management within the fishery, it cannot be said that there is clear evidence that objectives for ecosystem-based management are being achieved.SG80, only, is met.

References Section 3.4.8

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 134

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements of broadly understand the key the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justific There is substantial information available on the key elements of the ecosystem, primarily ation available from the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report website. This report summarizes the key ecosystem elements, both abiotic and biotic, which are monitored regularly. Supporting and additional information is available from the monitoring efforts associated with the management of the ecosystem components as described in Pis2.1.3, 2.2.3, and 2.4.3. SG80 is met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guidep Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between ost these key ecosystem these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be from existing information, from existing information, inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Main impacts of the UoA can be inferred, and some have been investigated in detail. The ation management system considers fishery impacts on ‘valued ecosystem components’ with each management action, and particular impacts by the fishery may be investigated in detail when considering alternative management actions (such as closures or gear modifications). There are also available studies that investigate the trophic web of the NES LME (e.g. Bowman et al 2000). However, it cannot be said that all main interactions have been investigated in detail, in particular noting the significant uncertainties regarding the population dynamics of longfin inshore squid, and the relative importance of the nearshore spawning grounds where Trimester 2 fishing effort has focused historically. SG80, only, is met.

c Understanding of component functions

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 135

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y N

Justific All main species evaluated under Primary and Secondary species considerations are federally ation managed, and are thus subject to their own FMPs, regular stock assessment, and EFH designations. ETP species also undergo stock assessments and fishery impacts are categorized annually via the LOF. Key habitats are identified for all federally managed species as EFH. Biological and physical habitat impacts have been modeled for main gear types and federally managed fleets (See Section 3.4.7). This is sufficient to meet the SG80.

The SG100 is not completely met because of the gaps in understanding of the main functions of components in the ecosystem. There are also gaps in the ability to identify impacts of the fishery on some components, including the target species, given the highly variable population dynamics and incomplete understanding of spawning distribution. In addition, there are gaps in identifying impacts on other components, such as gaps in understanding of localized habitat impacts from fishing effort by the targeted longfin bottom trawl fleet. SG100 is not met. d Information relevance

Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred.

Met? Y Y

Justific As noted above, the main functions of the ecosystem components as defined by the MSC are ation known, and there is adequate information for the impact of the UoA on these components to be inferred. SG100 requires that information be adequate for all elements of all components, including minor elements. Secondary minor elements include several species that are not subject to federal or state management, and for which there are no stock assessments available. Still, information from all fleets subject to observer coverage means that there is information available on impacts of the UoA and main consequences to the ecosystem can be inferred

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 136

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. based on more ecosystem status monitoring and inferences from more in-depth considerations undertaken for federally managed species. SG100 is met. e Monitoring

Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? Y Y

Justific There is sufficient information available and collected to detect any increase in risk level. ation More information on the target species population dynamics, spawning distribution, and impacts of the fishery would benefit a strategy to directly manage for ecosystem impacts, but there is sufficient information to support the development of a strategy. SG100 is met.

References Background Section 3.4.9

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 137

SCS Global Services Report

Principle 3 There is no material difference between the existing certified UoA and the UoA subject to evaluation for scope expansion. The fleet is equivalent, as are relevant management institutions affecting the fleet. Northern shortfin squid is different in its stock distribution which extends Northward. The UoA fishery is considered part of the Southern stock component. Shortfin squid north of the United States is managed as a distinct, Northern, stock component by NAFO; however, there has been no active fishery since 1999 in these waters (See Appendix 1.2: PSA & Section 3.5). On the basis of the independent management of the Southern stock component unit and the UoA fleet by the management systems already evaluated, and lack of active fishery in the Northern component, additional P3 considerations are not considered merited. Should a significant fishery re-develop in the Northern component, Principles 1 & 3 may require re-scoring.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 138

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 1.2 Risk-Based Framework Stakeholder Consultation: Applying a Consequence Analysis (CA) and a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to Northern Shortfin Squid (I. illecebrosus) for scoring PI 1.1.1.

Northern shortfin squid was originally assessed as a Main Secondary species in the full assessment of longfin inshore squid. As a Main Secondary species, shortfin squid qualified for use of the RBF. In the course of the full assessment, the team gathered information in alignment with the requirements of Annex PF 2.2. The assessment team conducted stakeholder outreach compliant with the relevant Annex PF requirements, as described in the Full Assessment report.

Assessed under Principle 1 as a target species, shortfin squid likewise qualifies for use of the RBF. Under PI 2.2.1, use of the RBF includes a PSA alone. Under PI 1.1.1 application of both the PSA and CA is required. To minimize redundancy in time and costs, the assessment team considered it most appropriate to adopt the findings of the PSA from the full assessment process, subject to a review of the findings by the assessment team and stakeholders, rather than re-do the analysis. A variation request was accordingly sought, and granted, by the MSC.8 In accordance with the Variation Request response, the assessment team reviewed the PSA findings in consultation with stakeholders, in particular with regards to the requirements of PF 4.4.3, which indicate that when assessing a PSA under PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the target stock (rather than only the MSC UoAs impacting the stock), must be evaluated separately.

The information gathered in the course of the full assessment was applied to the RBF exercises undertaken in the Expedited Assessment. Additional information was gathered where updated information was available and also specific to the Consequence Analysis and Annex PF 4.4.3 requirements for the PSA. Stakeholder input from the full assessment was applied, and additional input was gathered from a similar, and slightly expanded group of RBF participants.

Expedited Assessment Stakeholder Consultations

RBF consultations were conducted prior to, during, and after the onsite, via in-person and remote meetings with a diverse array of stakeholders.

Stakeholders consulted in the course of the RBF included (in order of consultation):

. GARFO Meeting

o Doug Christel, GARFO (remote) o Moira Kelly, GARFO (remote) . NEFSC 1 Meeting

8 https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=G06iXXesQnrLx3ecUVvgaQNtUlsO vdYg9eJmz5umEkU69lUjQ3FVpjmiEnzXebEw

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 139

SCS Global Services Report

o Lisa Hendrickson, NEFSC o Glenn Chamberlain, NEFSC . MAFMC Meeting

o Jason Didden, MAFMC . Lund’s Fisheries Meeting

o Jeff Kaelin, Lund’s Fisheries Inc., Director, Sustainability and Government Relations o Wayne Reichle, Lund’s Fisheries Inc., President o Bill Bright, F/V Retriever Owner/Operator o Hank Lackner, F/V Jason & Danielle Owner/Operator o Rory Mullen, F/V Enterprise Skipper o Leif Axelsson, F/V Dyrsten, Owner/Operator . NEFSC 2

o John Manderson, NEFSC Cooperative Research Division (remote) . DFO

o Krista Baker, DFO Newfoundland & Labrador (remote) o Penny Doherty, DFO Maritimes Region (email, PSA data only) o Christina Savoie, DFO Gulf Region (email, PSA data only) The assessment team also engaged the SSC with MAFMC staff (John Boreman -SSC chair; Thomas Miller - SSC Illex lead; Brandon Muffley- MAFMC; Jason Didden- MAFMC) to discuss the harvest strategy and control rule specifically. The group was not engaged in direct RBF exercises, but it is worth noting that input and references from this remote meeting provided information material to evaluation outcomes. Stakeholder consultations for RBF exercises were conducted in individual stakeholder meetings (see Section 4 for a summary of meetings), rather than in a single RBF meeting. It is not practicable to gather a representative group of stakeholders in a single geographic location, so the team elected to conduct exercises along with the information gathering and feedback sessions with stakeholders. In preparation for the full assessment RBF exercises, information was gathered in accordance with Annex PF 2.2 and shared via DropBox. This information remained applicable to the RBF outreach for this expedited assessment, though different sources of information were relied upon for the CA versus the PSA. As a result of the stakeholder consultations, significant additional information was gathered and reviewed to support CA outcomes. This new information was generally made available from unique data request to industry, the observer program and DFO. As in the full assessment RBF exercises, PowerPoint was used during discussions to facilitate effective discussions and review of key information.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 140

SCS Global Services Report

6.6.2 Consequence Analysis Table 17. CA Scoring Table

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 141

SCS Global Services Report

Table 18. CA Scoring for Northern shortfin squid (I. illecebrosus) for PI 1.1.1 (from Table PF2 of FCR v2.0)

PRINCIPLE ONE: Scoring element Consequence subcomponents Consequence Score Stock status outcome

Population size 100

Reproductive capacity Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus fishery Age/size/sex structure

Geographic range

Amongst all stakeholders interviewed (described at the beginning of the Appendix 1.2), population size was considered the most vulnerable subcomponent based in the impact of exploitation patterns on biomass.

Nevertheless, all stakeholders consulted considered it was very difficult to choose one subcomponent and reproductive capacity was also mentioned as potentially impacted by the fishery. The main difficulties cited in choosing a subcomponent included: 1- Northern shortfin squid has been historically and are now lightly exploited (supported by MAFMC-SCC 2018 report) in the Southern component, with no recent fishery in the Northern component. Rationale for most vulnerable 2- I. illecebrosus population dynamics (i.e. abundance, size, recruitment, growth, migrations,…) is very environmentally driven subcomponent (see section 3.3.2 Biology: Environmental impact). 3. There is no evidence that fishing is causing any variability. Annex PF3.3.1 states “Scoring shall be undertaken only for the subcomponent (population size, reproductive capacity, age/size/sex structure or geographic range) on which the team decides that the fishing activity is having the most impact.” However, due to the three points highlighted above, the subcomponent was mostly chosen based on potential future impact than on past or current impact.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 142

SCS Global Services Report

Stakeholder input summary: During stakeholder meetings, the CA was explained, and primary information available from the fishery shared. At the stage of the stakeholder meetings, the primary relevant data available was catch records, survey data from NAFO and the US (relative biomass (weight per tow), relative abundance (number per tow) and mean body size), and general literature on the life history and environmental drivers of shortfin squid. It should be noted that material information was identified via these consultations, and thereafter requested and produced. In some cases, this was information not previously published. Thus there are not stakeholder discussion on all materials presented in support of final scores; however, this new information reflects the qualitative determinations of stakeholders (e.g. regarding the availability of Illex on the shelf and market driven nature of the fishery and low impact of fishery exploitation relative to environmental drivers).

Key Points of Discussion: . Survey Data: timing, location and gear configuration of surveys challenge the value of the fishery independent surveys in reflecting trends in stock size and status (supported by GARFO, MAFMC, NEFSC, Lund’s, SSC)

o The timing of surveys may vary, and the timing relative to cohort status will have a large impact on the size of Rationale for ilex in the survey data that year. US surveys are conducted before (spring) or after (fall) Illex appear on the consequence score shelf.

o Survey locations do not cover the total range of the stock.

o The bottom trawl gear is not conFigured to catch Illex effectively. o Mean body weight trend data from the US Fall survey (until 2017) does not align with fisher perspective- they do not consider that a decreasing trend in mean body size has been occurring. Client´s data (Lund´s Fisheries Inc) and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) surveys data do not show this downtrend in BW (Figure 27). . The fishery is largely driven by market and availability of Illex on the shelf; the availability of Illex on the shelf in any given year cannot be predicted (GARFO, NEFSC, Lund’s); catch is not always a good indicator of stock health, noting there are years where there were a lot of Illex but catches are low due to low market prices- 2011, 2005 (Lund’s). . Environmental drivers are predominant and have been documented in literature; however, there are no studies that provide for prediction of stock status based on these drivers to date (GARFO, NEFSC, DFO). The stock assessment lead scientist is currently engaged in the development of a stock assessment forecasting model that incorporates environmental variables (Lisa Hendrickson, personal communication).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 143

SCS Global Services Report

. Stakeholders believe that environmental factors influence the stock far more than fishing, and that impacts of fishing cannot be differentiated from environmental drivers. Fishing exploitation is considered relatively low, but this cannot be proven due to the lack of data on stock status; however, there is no indication that fishing has affected the stock in the Southern component (GARFO, MAFMC, Lund’s, DFO, NEFSC (1&2), SSC). . The 2017 and 2018 “waves of Illex” in coastal waters shows the good health of the stock. . The categories of the CA do not fit the fishery context well (GARFO, NEFSC (1&2), MAFMC, DFO).

o SG80 says ‘possible change in size/growth’, which could be accurate, but PF3.3.3.2 states that “‘Possible detectable change‘ shall mean that changes are detected and can be reasonably attributable to the fishing activity.” Any changes can’t be said to be ‘reasonably attributed’ to the fishery (L. Hendrickson, pers. comm).

o SG100 uses the term insignificant change to population size/growth rate, but Illex is a highly variable semelparous species so there are significant fluctuations in these indexes. However, the impact of the fishing activity certainly cannot be differentiated from the natural variability for this population (MAFMC)

Evaluation of Information Based on Stakeholder Input and All Information Made Available (prior to and based on stakeholder interviews):

The following evaluation is based on the best data available aligning with the indicators recommended in Table GPF3: Catch, effort and CPUE time-series. All available quantitative information on the fishery was gathered and discussed with stakeholders, and is reflected in the above summary and Figures below. This section evaluates the best available information aligning with recommended indicators to evaluate fishery impacts on population size obtained before, during and after consultations. Historic landings in the fishery (Figure 2, Section 3.2.1) have shown great variability with four peaks of around 25,000 t in 1976- 77, 1998, 2004 and 2017-8. In 2017 the fishery was closed on September 15 (95% of the DAH was reached) and in 2018 the closure was one month earlier on August 15. In both years the fishery was closed earlier than usual which it is considered as a reflection of the healthy status of the resource. Effort has also suffered strong fluctuations as the vessels attendant to the fishery is subject to the availability of I. illecebrosus on USA shelf and on economic-market reasons (mainly ex-vessels price) (MAFMC 2018). Figure 25 shows the vessels attendant in the last 35 years along with landings; both curves have the same fluctuation pattern with coinciding peaks. The number of vessels in 2018 is the highest since 1998. A LPUE annual index (Figure 26; generated from data produced after RBF consultations based on input) based on the number of vessels attending the fishery and the total landings shows as well an up and down pattern with an upward trend in the 1982-

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 144

SCS Global Services Report

2018 time series. LPUE in 2017 is the second highest in the time series and 2018 is between the peak years. LPUE is positively related with the total volume of landings but there is no relationship between LPUE and the number of vessels attending the fishery. A combination of higher LPUE and more vessels fishing produced the largest yearly landings in the fishery. Higher fishing effort does not lead to lower LPUE (Figure 26, left graph).

The indexes and relationships mentioned above align with the stakeholders point of view on the fishery that regularly arose during meetings; the Northern shortfin squid fishery is a self-regulated fishery where the effort is based on squid availability on the USA shelf.

Several indexes of relative abundance and biomass are also available from different surveys in USA and Canada-NAFO waters. These surveys have different issues (timing not adequate because Illex’ appearance on the shelf is very variable, configuration of a gear not designed to capture Illex, limited stock range coverage,…) and none of them is therefore considered by itself reliable as a population size proxy. Nevertheless, all combined are very informative and are used for assessing stock status and management discussions. The NEFSC spring bottom trawl survey in U.S. (Figure 14), the NEAMAP coastal survey in USA (Figure 18), the Div. 4VWX July survey in the Scotian shelf (Figure 15) and the fall survey off Newfoundland (Div. 3LNO) (Figure 16) show maximums of relative abundance and biomass in 2017-18 since the beginning of the time series in 1965 (spring survey) and 2008 (NEAMAP), and since the 70s (Div.4VWX) and 1997 (Div. 3LNO). The NEFSC fall bottom trawl survey (Figure 14) show average and low relative abundance and biomass index respectively in the last years, although no data is available for 2017 (vessel mechanical problems) and 2018 (not ready yet).

The short lifespan, ecological opportunism and sensitivity to environmentally driven variability of squids make it hard to distinguish between natural and fisheries driven reduction in stock size (Arkhipkin et al 2015). Stakeholders even commented that it is not clear that massive catches in Canada (NAFO Div.3+4) during 1977-80 (peak in 1979 with 162,000 t) caused the fishery collapse in the northern component of the stock. Anthropogenic effects on climate variability may have resulted in de- coupling of some of the interacting ocean climate processes that regulate I. illecebrosus abundance, although high fishing mortality cannot be dismissed (O’Dor & Dawe 2013). Arkhipkin et al (2015) showed that major inter-annual changes in biomass for several squids (T. pacificus, I. argentinus, and D. gigas) have been accompanied by high fishing pressure which does not seem to have prevented recovery after periods of low biomass. O´Dor & Dawe (2013) have recently compiled the impact of the environmental variability on the life cycle of I. illecebrosus, showing its close relationship. Population productivity is strongly related to variations in oceanographic conditions and features including the position of the shelf slope front (SSF) that are forced by climate variations such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (Dawe et al 2007). Northern shortfin squid are abundant and relatively large in body size during periods when the shelf slope front is displaced southward due to atmospheric forcing associated with the low NAO anomaly; in contrast, the

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 145

SCS Global Services Report

northward displacement of the shelf slope front with a high North Atlantic Oscillation anomaly results in fewer, smaller squid in survey based population biomass estimates (Dawe et al. 2000, Chaudhuri et al 2014). Summary: Information on LPUE shows a slightly upward trend over the last 35 years in the USA bottom trawl fishery. Fishing effort is currently low and catches are recently peaking due to the availability of the species in the shelf driven by environmental factors; most of the USA and Canada abundance/biomass indexes are peaking in 2017-18. It can be reasonably concluded that changes in the population due to fishing are of such low magnitude that they cannot be detected against the natural variability of the population. Therefore, a consequence score of 100 is attained.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 146

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 25. Number of federal vessels, by volume of catches, attending the fishery (left) and comparison between number of vessels and USA landings (right) for the Northern shortfin squid fishery during 1983-2018 (Note: only vessels with more than 10,000 pounds/year are shown) (Source: own elaboration based on Table 1 data from MAFMC 2018).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 147

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 26. LPUE (top left: tonnes/vessel) (top right: tonnes/days fished) along years and LPUE relationship with USA landings and number of vessels attending the fishery for the Northern shortfin squid fishery during 1983-2018 (Note: only vessels with more than 10,000 pounds/year were computed) (Source: own elaboration based on NEFSC 2003, 2006 and Table 1 data from, MAFMC 2018).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 148

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 27. Figures on body weight (left to right: NAFO & NEFSC surveys, client data, Observers surveys from NEFOP).

Note: The left-most Figure was available for RBF stakeholder discussions, spurring provision of additional data from industry and the NEFSC observer program. Mean body weight is not a key index for evaluating fishery impacts on population size per the MSC guidance and thus has not served as a primary scoring consideration. Because it was information gathered and discussed with stakeholders, it is included here for completeness. Regarding the significance of body weight data and trends, the team has concluded the following: landings from the entire stock were low during most years between 1999 and 2017 and mean body weights of squid caught in the NEFSC fall surveys have gradually declined, probably as a result of environmental factors (Dawe et al. 2007). This is supported by the significant negative correlation between the Shelf-Slope Front (SSF) and short-finned squid BW. This indicates that southward displacement of the SSF, which is strongly related to high abundance of short-finned squid, is also related to large mean BW (Dawe et al 2007).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 149

SCS Global Services Report

6.6.3 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis For the review of the PSA, the team focused primarily on gathering information regarding other fisheries targeting the stock (per PF 4.4.3.1). This information was gathered through publicly available information, stakeholder interviews, and data requests to DFO. Fisheries targeting the Illex stock include:

. Bottom trawl fishery USA EEZ shelf (NAFO Subareas 5+6) (the UoA) . Artisanal jig fishery inshore Newfoundland (NAFO Subarea 3) . Bottom trawl fishery Scotian Shelf (NAFO Subarea 4) There have been no meaningful fisheries for shortfin squid in NAFO waters since 1999. During the period 2008-2017 average catch in the USA (Subareas 5-6) was 12,698 t while in Canada-NAFO (Subareas 3+4) was 215 t. This means that 98.3% of 2008-2017 landings are from USA waters.

Figure 28. Catches from Subarea 3&4 (Canada/NAFO) and 5&6 (US/UoA) from 1998-on. (Source: own elaboration based on Table 1 data from Hendrickson & Showell 2016).

With such a low contribution, the team noted that the impact these other fleets could potentially have on the overall outcome of the RBF exercises was immaterial. For the PSA, the Productivity features of the species would of course remain unchanged. The Susceptibility characteristics may differ, likely in the direction of ‘less susceptible’ due to the very low level of fishing effort from these additional fleets. When considering the relative proportions of catch in the RBF worksheet, the maximum score change was 1 point overall, and this most likely would be in the upward direction. Due to these factors, the team was satisfied that the PSA need not be redone in consideration of the negligible level of non-UoA fishing activity. Should fishing activity increase in the Northern component, PI 1.1.1 will require rescoring with use of both the PSA and CA. This will be monitored at annual surveillance audits.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 150

SCS Global Services Report

The following section provides a summary of key information supporting preliminary findings discussed via the webinar consultation during the full assessment, followed by a summary of the discussion during the RBF webinar for each PSA consideration. Final scores in the far right column include consideration of literature review and stakeholder consultations.

Table 19. PSA Productivity attributes and scores from Table PF4 of FCR V2.0

Table 20. Productivity findings for Northern shortfin squid based on literature review and on the consultation webinar. 2018 update included below.

A. Productivity Attribute Discussion Score Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: <1 year (Hendrickson 2004; NEFSC 2006; Kashef 2016)

From Hendrickson 2004: Minimum age-at-maturity was 88 d for males and 92 d for females. Females attained Average age at 50% maturity at a younger age (A 50 = 144 d) than males (A 50 = 154 d), but this 1 maturity. difference was not significant (Table 2 from Hendrickson 2004).

Consultation discussion: No discussion

2018 update:

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 151

SCS Global Services Report

None

Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: <1 year (Hendrickson 2004; NEFSC 2006; Kashef 2016)

From Hendrickson 2004: The new information about the age range of mated females (115–215 d) can be used as a proxy for lifespan because a sperm storage receptacle is lacking and spawning Average and death occur within several days of mating. 1 maximum age

Consultation discussion: No discussion

2018 update: None Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: >20,000 eggs on basis of estimates between 10-100,000 eggs. (Hendrickson and Holmes 2004)

From Hendrickson and Holmes 2004: I. illecebrosus egg masses have never been collected in the wild but have been described from laboratory spawning events. The gelatinous egg balloons are 0.5 to Fecundity 1.0 m in diameter and contain between 10,000 and 100,000 eggs. 1

Consultation discussion: No discussion.

2018 update: None Average Not applicable to invertebrate species NA maximum size Average size at Not applicable to invertebrate species NA maturity Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex are not demersal spawners precisely, because their egg masses are neutrally buoyant. However, the demersal egg laying category is a more closer description than broadcast spawner or live bearer (Hendrickson 2004; Hendrickson and Holmes 2004)

From Hendrickson 2004: Reproductive - The neutrally buoyant, gelatinous egg balloons have never been found in nature. 2 strategy - Spawning has only been documented in captive females and both demersal and midwater spawning have been observed.

Consultation discussion: Some discussion where Jason Didden notes they are not demersal spawners. Lisa Hendrickson agrees that of these categories, category two is the best fit even though none are correct. Doug Christel asks if it is possible to provide partial scores (e.g.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 152

SCS Global Services Report

1.7)—the MSC requirements for the PSA do not allow this- we must choose whole number categories.

2018 update: None Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: MAFMC (2016) documentation considers squid as >3.25 in trophic level.

Figure 2 of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document for the MAFMC (MAFMC 2016) visualizes results of the food web model for the Mid- Atlantic region, where “small pelagics-squid” are situated between trophic levels 3.5- 4 (See Figure 29 below).

Consultation discussion: Significant discussion regarding the appropriateness of this classification. - Questions on the source for the model and perhaps touch base with them in regards to Illex specifically. Perhaps they can provide a statement regarding Illex and its likely trophic level. - Also need to consider whether the numbers used in the trophic levels vary at all between the MSC criteria and the approach used in the Figure. o Further investigation into the scaling system for trophic levels indicates that a 9 Trophic level range of 3-4.5 is typical for marine carnivores. 3 - Illex’ primary food depends on size, but considered to range from crustaceans to finfish; copepods when very small. Seems like it should be in the medium category rather than high. - Seems wrong to place anything regarding Illex’s productivity in a high risk category. - Lisa Hendrickson provided a study in follow up, from which Figure 30 suggests that the initial categorization of >3.25 is still appropriate for reflecting adult Illex on the U.S. Shelf (Dawe & Brodziak 1998; Figure 30).

2018 update: Sealifebase estimates for I. illecebrosus a trophic level of 3.98 (± 0.65) (estimated from a number of food items using a randomized resampling routine) and states that this species feeds mainly on animals with a trophic level of 2.8 and up (https://www.sealifebase.ca/summary/Illex-illecebrosus.html). No change in score indicated.

Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: No depensatory or compensatory dynamics demonstrated or likely (Kashef 2016).

Density 2 dependence Consultation discussion: Significant discussion regarding the definitions behind this classification and available information.

9 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/oceans_seas_coasts/marine_trophic_in dex.pdf

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 153

SCS Global Services Report

- Definitions- provided from general fisheries ecology literature in the webinar because the MSC requirements do not provide a definition. Compensatory dynamics typically pertain to co-occurring competitors. This seems odd in that it doesn’t match the overall category of density dependence very well. - Jenn H has since reviewed further MSC guidance material which suggests that MSC intends reviewers to focus on whether there are compensatory dynamics at low densities that stabilize populations, versus depensatory dynamics that may further slow the rate of population growth. (GPF4.3.2: Guidance to Table PF4). This guidance provides a more clear definition for depensatory effects: “Depensatory effects (Allee effects) can arise from the reduced probability of fertilization, and they should therefore be taken into consideration when scoring species productivity.” - A definition for compensatory dynamics in light of this inferred definition from the MSC guidance was found from NOAA10: o Compensatory Survival: A decrease in the rate of natural deaths that some fishes may show when their populations fall below a certain level; possibly caused by decreased competition between individuals for food or space.10 (see Natural Mortality) - Therefore, the question is- when population density is low, are there dynamics that work to stabilize and increase populations (compensatory), dynamics that work to further slow growth rates (depensatory), or neither. - Lisa Hendrickson provided an addition source on density dependence that cites the role of cannibalism as density-dependent and a tool that regulates population biomass, where there is evidence of high rates of cannibalism in years of high density for I. illecebrosus. (Vidal 2014) o It is important to note that compensatory dynamics are considered to reflect high productivity and low risk when they occur at low densities. The role of cannibalism to regulate population density appears at high densities, and is thus not considered relevant here. - The assessment team remains unaware of any evidence indicating compensatory or depensatory dynamics, but the highly variable population does undergo boom and bust dynamics that could be considered to indicate compensatory dynamics. However, these dynamics may also be attributable to environmental variables, to which especially ommastrephid squid species are known to be particularly sensitive. - Further personal communications with L. Hendrickson supports the conclusion that boom-bust stock size characteristic is more likely attributable to environmental conditions rather than compensatory dynamics, such that no evidence of either dynamic is the category of best fit.

2018 update: None

10 https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/documents/FishGlossary.pdf

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 154

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 29. Food web model for the Mid-Atlantic region. Top panel: key links to commercial forage fish; bottom panel, key links to fisheries. Small pelagics-Squid category circled in green with dashes to the axis. (MAFMC 2017)

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 155

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 30. Diagrammatic representation of the ontogenetic progression of I. illecebrosus, as a consumer, through the trophic pyramid; rectangles enclosed by solid lines represent primary trophic functioning for any size range and area; those enclosed by broken lines represent secondary trophic functioning. From: Dawe & Brodziak 1998.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 156

SCS Global Services Report

Table 21. PSA Susceptibility attributes and scores from Table PF4 of FCR V2.0

Table 22. Susceptibility findings based on literature review (black text) on the consultation webinar (red text)

A. Susceptibility Fishery only where the scoring See text at beginning of PSA evaluation for justification for consideration of element is scored cumulatively only the UoA. Attribute Rationale Score Areal Overlap— Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented:

The areal overlap of the fishery is low, and the species is only PF4.4.6.1 The team shall available part of the year; however, we must also consider the generate areal overlap scores relative concentration of the species and its overlap with the 1 after consideration of the fishing gear when it is available to the fishery. overlap of the fishing effort

with the distribution of the Supporting Information: stock.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 157

SCS Global Services Report

The northern shortfin squid stock distribution is broad, where it is known to be found is found in the northwest Atlantic Ocean between the Sea of Labrador and the Florida Straits (66ºN to 29º30'N). The southernmost limit of the range of I. illecebrosus is difficult to identify because of its co-occurrence with I. coindetii and I. oxygonius, where intraspecific variability in morphological characters make distinguishing between the species difficult. (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004)

The UoA comprises small mesh bottom trawl vessels with licenses to land longfin inshore squid under state or federal permit. On the USA shelf, the bottom trawl fishery that lands shortfin squid generally occurs during June through October. The directed shortfin squid fishery is comprised of a small number of small mesh bottom trawl vessels, and only in some years do the fisheries targeting longfin and shortfin squids overlap significantly (most typically when there is a boom longfin year). (NEFSC 2006; L. Hendrickson, pers. comm)

There are no stockwide research surveys and it is unknown whether NEFSC research bottom trawl surveys track Illex abundance or its availability on the shelf because these surveys cover only a portion of the Illex habitat and they occur during migration periods. (SARC 2006; L. Hendrickson pers. comm).

See Figure 32. (updated with new Figures after consultation.)

Consultation Discussion:

- The distribution of Illex is broad. Its distribution east of the Western Atlantic is questionable. Some question over the data behind the FAO map (source isn’t clear from website). Agreed takeaway is that the distribution is broad. - The overlap with the fishery changes seasonally- mainly trimester 3, but may be in Trimester 2 as well in some years. - Issues with the VMS data representing the fishery—1st year of mandated declarations so 1st year data isn’t great, only for 80% of the fleet, and only part of the year. o Jason provided more complete Figures for distribution of the longfin fishery based on landings data (See Figure 31). - Reminder that the scope is all small mesh bottom trawl, not only longfin. Illex fishing effort helpful for identifying overlap, but it isn’t the ‘fishery’ we are looking at.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 158

SCS Global Services Report

- Another important consideration is the gear configuration—fishers targeting Illex are fishing at 180 fathoms. Longfin fishery is not at that depth. - Illex does start shallow some years and the fall fishery for longfin is inshore. - Concentration of Illex? o Not a lot of distribution in U.S. and at the same time in U.S. they are found continuously along the whole shelf and outside. o We don’t know that we have significant concentration, even if we did it would be offset in terms of fleet overlap due to the temporal availability. - General consensus that the areal overlap is <10%

2018 update: None

Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex only occur at depths and locations available to the UoA part of the year (NEFSC 2006; L. Hendrickson pers. comm). However, the small mesh bottom trawl is the gear type used in the directed fishery, and when Illex is available to the fishery can thus be considered effective in encountering the stock.

Supporting Information: Depth and migration characteristics from Hendrickson & Homes 2004 • Illex are found most commonly between 100-300m in Encounterability depth, with the greatest abundance between 100-

(PF4.4.7.1- The team shall 150m. generate encounterability • Winter: low abundance along edge of U.S. shelf; scores after consideration of presumably in warmer waters offshore and south of 3 the likelihood that a species Cape Hatteras. will encounter fishing gear • Spring: begin migration onto U.S. shelf (Georges Bank to that is deployed within the south of Cape Hatteras) and Scotian Shelf. geographic range of that species.) • Summer: occur throughout U.S. shelf (Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras), Scotian Shelf and inshore Newfoundland waters. • Fall: migrate off continental shelf of U.S. and Canada • Increase in squid size with depth in autumn. Juveniles tend to be spatially segregated from adults (Hendrickson 2004) and adult Illex are diurnal and thus become unavailable to the bottom trawl gear at night (NEFSC 2006, L. Hendrickson pers. comm).

Illex and longfin only occur in same location and depth in some years, and in the fall most typically. Illex may receive some

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 159

SCS Global Services Report

habitat protection on rocky or coral substrate where bottom trawl cannot operate (due to risk of damage to gear). (L. Hendrickson, J. Kaelin, pers. comm)

Consultation Discussion: - Our scope is the entire small mesh bottom trawl fleet, but not all small mesh bottom trawl operates in the area, depth, or with mesh size to catch Illex. - Other fisheries include scup, fluke for offshore fleets, but their mesh size is larger. Illex also swim too fast for operation of many other directed fisheries - What about habitat? o 80% of the shelf edge is fishable- not coral/rocky. It is not a refuge for squid/not offering significant habitat protection. - Illex are highly encounterable to the directed fleet, but this is a small subset of the UoA.

2018 update: None Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Data available on the growth, maturity, and age structure of squid (from Hendrickson 2004 primarily), gear selectivity (Hendrickson 2011 and Hendrickson & Holmes 2004), and gear characteristics employed in the fishery suggest that individuals < size and maturity and < half size at maturity are retained by gear.

Supporting Information: Hendrickson 2004 provides a characterization of growth, maturity, and age structure based on a bottom trawl survey conducted in May 2000. Results include estimates of length at 50% maturity for males of 16.2cm and for females of 18.2cm. Female maturity is characterized into 5 stages, with stages 4 and 5 considered mature. For males, there are 4 stages and stages 3 and 4 are considered mature. Figure 33 demonstrates the length Selectivity of gear type frequency distributions of I. illecebrosus males and females by 3 maturity stage during May 2000. An additional important finding of this study is that there is variance by latitude and temperature in the growth and maturity rates of Illex that result in faster growth and maturity rates, and possibly shorter life spans, for Mid-Atlantic Bight shortfin squid.

According to its Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) document (Hendrickson & Holmes 2004), shortfin squid become available to the fishery at 10.0cm. Hendrickson (2011) estimates a selection factor of 2.2, which means a 2in mesh size has a 50% probability of selecting an 11.2cm ML squid, and a 1 1/8 in mesh size will select a 6.5cm ML squid.

The directed Illex fishery uses a significantly smaller mesh size (1 ¼- 1 ½ in- corrected in consultation) than the longfin squid

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 160

SCS Global Services Report

targeted small mesh bottom trawl (~1 7/8-2 1/8in) (J. Kaelin, pers. comm). MAFMC 2009 found that even at 2 1/3in mesh size losses of Illex in October are nearly zero (noting however that Illex tend to be larger at this time of year.)

Juveniles tended to be spatially segregated from adults and were associated with large catches of euphausiids and myctophids. They were predominantly caught in deep water (140–260 m) at the two northernmost stations, on the southeast edge of Georges Bank, where adult abundance was low and surface (10.6°C) and bottom temperatures (9.9°C) were lowest. Juveniles comprised the entire catch at one station. (Hendrickson 2004)

Consultation Discussion: - L50 Maturity estimates range from ~16-18cm—what is this in inches? 6.29-7.08inches. - From the fishery perspective: there isn’t a mix of sizes when fishing for Illex. They grow at the same rates. - The directed Illex mesh size is larger than originally thought (more like 1 ¼-1 ½ in) - Longfin fishermen do not want squid <4in, but this is

2018 update: None Preliminary conclusion and evidence presented: Illex is a retained species, although there are significant discards. There is no information on discard mortality.

Supporting Information: Post capture mortality Observer data for 1995-2004 indicate that discarding of Illex 3 occurs primarily in the Illex and offshore Longfin inshore squid fisheries and is higher in the latter. MAFMC documentation (MAFMC 2017) estimates discard rates of Illex to be >70% from 2013-2015 based on trips landing >40% longfin squid. NEFOP data for all small mesh bottom trawl from 2012-2016 calculate

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 161

SCS Global Services Report

discards at ~25% of shortfin squid catch, and the 2017 SBRM report calculate small mesh otter trawl catch of shortfin squid to be comprised of 15% discards.

Discard mortality is considered to be 100%.

Consultation Discussion: No significant discussion.

2018 update: None Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored NA NA cumulatively

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 162

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 31. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with Doryteuthis pealeii landings > 1.134 mt (2,500 lbs), by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2011- 2014. The Southern Gear Restricted Area (GRA) is in effect from January 1 to March 15 (Trimester 1) and the Northern GRA is in effect from November 1 to December 31. Squid fishing does not occur in these GRAs when they are in effect because bottom trawls with a codend mesh size < 127 mm diamond mesh (5.0 in., inside stretched mesh) are prohibited. East of 72º 30’ N, squid fishing is only permitted in small-mesh exemption areas. (Source: Hendrickson 2016). NOTE: Orange dashed circle added around Trimesters 2 & 3, determined to have highest likelihood of temporal overlap with lllex presence, where Trimester 3 overlap considered highest.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 163

SCS Global Services Report

Stock-wide

Fishing Effort

Figure 32. I. illecebrosus Stock Distribution from FAO Aquatic Species Distribution Map Viewer, accessed 9/18/2017 (left); and targeted squid small mesh bottom trawl fishery overlap in U.S. waters from Hendrickson 2016 (Showing Trimester 3 only for years 2011-2014).

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 164

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 33. Length frequency distributions of I. illecebrosus males and females by maturity stage during May 2000. (Source: Hendrickson 2004)

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 165

SCS Global Services Report

6.6.4 Final combined CA - PSA Score for Northern Shortfin Squid Using the MSC RBF Worksheet

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 166

SCS Global Services Report

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 167

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 1.3 Conditions Table 23. Condition 1. PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy. There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. Performance SIa SG 80 - The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the Indicator elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Score 75 See rationale for SI 1.2.1a: Evaluation table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy. Resume: it cannot be concluded that the harvest strategy has been responsive to the Rationale state of the stock, as the ABC has not changed since 2000 despite the relevant

fluctuations in the relative abundance and biomass indexes and the low catches in some years, much below the DAH approved quota. By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification, evidence must be Condition presented that shows the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of a harvest strategy responsive to the state of the stock. No anticipated change in score. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set Milestones forth in year 1. New elements of the harvest strategy have been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders. Change in score possible, but not required to be considered on target. Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that new elements of the harvest strategy are in place and those elements work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Change in score expected such that SIa meets SG 80. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of a harvest strategy responsive to the state of the stock. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -The CG will advocate within, participate, and follow the development and progress of the Illex Optimal Catch Workgroup (IOCWG) and participate in this process as much as is possible. -The primary aim of this IOCWGis to investigate both the feasibility and practicability of modifying the current approaches for Illex, exploring real time management approaches. Client action plan - The IOCWG would work in close contact with the industry to improve stock assessment capabilities for short-lived species and to identify pre-season, in-season and/or post-season indicators that might support setting a harvest strategy and ABC adjustments, responsive to the state of the stock. Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) of the creation of the deliverables: IOCWG; its roles and timeframe of this recently created WG will be also provided. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set forth in year 1. New elements of the harvest strategy have been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties:

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 168

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: -The CG will continue to advocate, follow and collaborate with the IOCWG as much as possible, including offering participation by CG´s vessels for developing IOCWG´s objectives. - The IOCWG would continue in close contact with the industry as it explores potential and practical improvements to the stock assessment and/or management process for Illex , which should result in discussion of new elements of a harvest strategy responsive to the state of the stock. - The NEFSC’s new 3-year cycle for species specific reviews will provide the CG with updated information more often than in the past, especially for squid species. An update for Illex is planned for 2021. Expected - Year 2 (2021): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the deliverables: IOCWG is working towards developing a harvest strategy that is responsive to the state of the stock and a harvest strategy that achieves the stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 - Year 3 (2022): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the IOCWG has outlined and discussed with the industry a new possible harvest strategy. Provide evidence on the updated Illex review done by the NEFSC. Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that new elements of the harvest strategy are in place and those elements work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -Same activities as in years 2 & 3. - The CG will collaborate and advocate with the MAFMC and GARFO for setting in place new elements of the harvest strategy. Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that new elements of a deliverables: harvest strategy are in place and those elements work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI

1.1.1 SG80. Consultation on Letters of support were provided upon request from the GARFO Regional condition Administrator and the MAFMC Executive Director.

Table 24. Condition 2. PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools. There are well defined and effective HCRs in place. SI a SG 80 - Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is Performance reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a Indicator target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. SI b SG 80 - The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Score 65 See rationale for SI 1.2.2ab: Evaluation table for PI 1.2.2 – HCRs and tools. Resume: the fishery has no reference point and the 24,000 t ABC set is slightly above Rationale the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) approach from NOAA-NMFS. The HCR is not able to react to changes in the stock status due to the assessment uncertainties. Therefore, it is not ensured that HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 169

SCS Global Services Report

By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification, an HCR is in place that Condition ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is robust to the main uncertainties. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and robust to the main uncertainties. No anticipated change in score. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set Milestones forth in year 1. HCRs have been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders and

a policy document developed. Change in score possible, but not required to be considered on target. Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that new HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY are in place; and are robust to the main uncertainties. Change in score expected such that SIa meets SG 80. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and robust to the main uncertainties. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -The CG will advocate within, participate, and follow the development and progress of the Illex Optimal Catch Workgroup (IOCW) and participate in this process as much as is possible. - The primary aim of this IOCWG is to investigate both the feasibility and practicability of modifying the current approaches for Illex, exploring real time management approaches. - The IOCWG would continue in close contact with the industry to improve stock assessment capabilities for short-lived species and to identify pre-season, in-season and post-season indicators that would support a HCR expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and robust to the main uncertainties (e.g. stock size uncertainties). Client action plan Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) of the creation of the

deliverables: IOCWG; its roles and timeframe of this recently created WG will be also provided. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set forth in year 1. HCRs have been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -The CG will continue to advocate, follow and collaborate with the IOCWG as much as possible, including participation by CG´s vessels for developing IOCWG´s objectives. - The IOCWG would continue in close contact with the industry as it explores potential and practical improvements to the stock assessment and/or management process for Illex, which should result in discussion of new elements of a HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and robust to the main uncertainties (e.g. stock size uncertainties). - The NEFSC’s new 3-year cycle for species specific reviews will provide the CG with updated information more often than in the

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 170

SCS Global Services Report

past, especially for squid species. An update for Illex is planned for 2021. Expected - Year 2 (2021): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the deliverables: IOCWG is working towards developing a HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY and robust to the main uncertainties. - Year 3 (2022): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the IOCWG has outlined and discussed with the industry a new possible HCR. Provide evidence on the updated Illex review done by the NEFSC. Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that new HCRs expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY are in place; and are robust to the main uncertainties. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -Same activities as in years 2 & 3. - The CG will collaborate and advocate with the MAFMC and GARFO for setting in place new elements of the HCR. Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that new HCRs expected deliverables: to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY are in place; and are robust to the main

uncertainties (e.g. stock size uncertainties). Note pending submission from GARFO. The agency members have been very engaged Consultation on in the process and discussion of the CAP to date, so we do not foresee this to be an condition issue. The government shutdown has caused delays.

Table 25. Condition 3. PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring. Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. Performance SI b SG 80 - Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of Indicator accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Score 75 See rationale for SI 1.2.3b: Evaluation table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring. Rationale Resume: the stock abundance is not monitored at a level of accuracy consistent with

the harvest control rule due to the issues related to the NEFSC abundance surveys. By the fourth surveillance from scope expansion certification, evidence must be presented that shows that stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored Condition at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or

more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. No anticipated change in Milestones score. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set forth in year 1. A new method to monitor stock abundance has been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders. Change in score possible, but not required to be considered on target.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 171

SCS Global Services Report

Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR is in place. Change in score expected such that SIa meets SG 80. Year 1 (2020): provide evidence of a coordinated plan, in line with the appropriate management bodies, to work on the establishment of a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -The CG will advocate within, participate, and follow the development and progress of the Illex Optimal Catch Workgroup (IOCW) and participate in this process as much as is possible. - The primary aim of this IOCWG is to investigate both the feasibility and practicability of modifying the current approaches for Illex, exploring real time management approaches. - The IOCWG would continue in close contact with the industry to improve stock assessment capabilities for short-lived species and to identify pre-season, in-season and post-season indicators that might establish a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. This program should be developed alongside the HCR program. Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) of the creation of the deliverables: IOCWG; its roles and timeframe of this recently created WG will be also provided. Year 2 & 3 (2021 & 2022): provide evidence of actions taken according to the plan set forth in year 1. A new method to monitor stock abundance has been outlined and discussed between the stakeholders. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support Client action plan parties: Activities: -The CG will continue to advocate, follow and collaborate with the IOCWG as much as possible, including offering participation by CG´s vessels for developing IOCWG´s objectives. - The IOCWG would continue in close contact with the industry to improve stock assessment and/or management process for Illex, which should consider methods to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. - The NEFSC’s new 3-year cycle for species specific reviews will provide the CG with updated information more often than in the past, especially for squid species. An update for Illex is planned for 2021. Expected - Year 2 (2021): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the deliverables: IOCWG is working towards developing a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. - Year 3 (2022): provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that the IOCWG has outlined and discussed with the industry a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. Provide evidence on the updated Illex review done by the NEFSC. Year 4 (2023): provide evidence that a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR is in place. Responsible Client Group (CG) with MAFMC, GARFO and NEFSC support parties: Activities: -Same activities as in years 2 & 3.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 172

SCS Global Services Report

- The CG will advocate within, participate, and follow the MAFMC and GARFO for setting in place a new method to monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. Expected - Provide evidence (i.e. written reports) that a new method to deliverables: monitor stock abundance at a level of accuracy consistent with

the HCR is in place. Note pending submission from GARFO. The agency members have been very engaged Consultation on in the process and discussion of the CAP to date, so we do not foresee this to be an condition issue. The government shutdown has caused delays.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 173

SCS Global Services Report

Client Action Plan Letter from Client Group

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 174

SCS Global Services Report

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 175

SCS Global Services Report

Letters of Support

MAFMC

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 176

SCS Global Services Report

GARFO

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 177

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 2 Peer Review Report Table 26. General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers CAB Response to Peer should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising Reviewer's comments (as the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Is the scoring of the Yes Evidence provided in the RBF tables and in the PI evaluation tables is quite No response necessary. fishery consistent with the comprehensive and clearly supports scores provided for all PIs. However, refer to general MSC standard, and clearly comment below regarding scoring rule. based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Are the condition(s) raised Yes Conditions and milestones clearly describe what is required to meet SG80 requirements No response necessary. appropriately written to over the 4-year period. achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan Yes The client is well aware of the challenges associated with developing appropriate No response necessary. clear and sufficient to reference points for a short-lived species like Illex along with well defined and responsive close the conditions HCRs. But, the client is clearly committed to the process and engaged with a special raised? working group set up for the purpose that involves industry partners and the three [Reference FCR v2.0, federal agencies responsible for stock assessment and fishery management. The CAP 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub- recognises that the three conditions are interelated, clearly indicates they will be clauses] addressed together, and provides a clear path to closing them. Enhanced fisheries only: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 178

SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General N/A Overall, the report is very well written and provides a comprehensive review of relevant English was checked for Comments on the Peer information. However, it would benefit from a little minor editing to fix a few typos and a clarity and typos and Review Draft Report number of places where the English sentence structure/grammer is poor or awkward, but mistakes corrected. Thanks (including comments on not such that meaning is unclear. Just a few points needing particular attention are and sorry. the adequacy of the detailed below. Regarding the scoring of PIs background information if - Included at the top of p. 8 and in 4.3 on p. 72 is reference to purse seine gear that with conditions relative to necessary) presumably is a carry over from the longfin squid PCR. This causes some confusion and the SG100, the team has clarification is needed. made a note to review this - In the * note to Table 3 (p. 15) the first line refers to longfin rather than shortfin squid. at the 1st annual - In 3.2.3 (p. 23), 3.4 (p. 53) and on p. 118, reference is made to PIs 2.2.X and 2.5.X - the X surveillance. is a bit confusing initially and should be explained. - The 2nd sentence under Productivity should refer to shortfin squid. - On p. 58, in the paragraph starting with Houde near the bottom, the "....US shelf for fished,..." wording is unclear. - In 3.5.1 (p. 64) it should be made clear that "existing unit" is pertaining to longfin squid. - In 3.4.2 (p. 54) and on p. 118, it should be made clear that Appendices 6 and 7 are in the longfin squid PCR. - The Authors should consult CR 27.10.5 - no 100 SGs should be scored unless all 80 SGs for a given PI are met first. It has been explained to this reviewer that such 100 SGs should be marked as "Not scored" in the evaluation table. This obviously means that if one SI does not meet SG80, the fact that another could meet SG100 does not factor into the overall PI score. This rule does not affect scoring for the three PIs with conditions in this assessment, but it should be checked for the two PIs with carry-over condions from the longfin squid assessment. - Only P2 PIs 2.2.1 to 2.2.3 and 2.5.1 to 2.5.3 are considered in the PI comments portion of this template. Other P2 and all P3 PIs are considered in the longfin squid PCR.

Table 27. PI Comments (only included for PIs that were rescored. The peer reviewer did not indicate that additional PIs merited scoring)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Res- Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) (as included in the Public Comment Draft ponse Report - PCDR) Code

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 179

SCS Global Services Report

Perfor- Has all Does the Will the PRs should provide support for their CABs should summarise their response to the See codes mance available information condition(s) answers in the left three columns by Peer Reviewer comments in the CAB page for Indica- relevant and/or raised referring to specific scoring issues Response Code column and provide response tor (PI) information rationale improve the and/or scoring elements, and any justification for their response in this column. options been used to used to fishery’s relevant documentation as appropriate. score this PI? score this PI performance Additional rows should be inserted for Where multiple comments are raised by Peer support the to the SG80 any PIs where two or more discrete Reviewers with more than one row for a given level? comments are raised e.g. for different single PI, the CAB response should relate to score? scoring issues, allowing CABs to give a each of the specific issues raised in each row. different answer in each case. Paragraph breaks may also be made CAB responses should include details of within cells using the Alt-return key where different changes have been made in combination. the report (which section #, table etc).

Detailed justifications are only required where answers given are one of the ‘No’ options. In other (Yes) cases, either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ or identify any places where weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores). 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA RBF used to score PI 1.1.1 - scoring The word "element" was removed and/or Accepted agreed. See RBF comments. changed by "PI". Appendix typo corrected. (no score In Appendix 1, the word "element" is Thanks and sorry for the errors. change) used twice in reference to this PI and the second reference to the RBF appendix is 2.1 instead of 1.2 in the justification portion of the evaluation table. 1.1.2 NA - RBF used to score PI 1.1.1. No response necessary.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 180

SCS Global Services Report

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. See general comment Raised condition has been indicated in the Accepted re scoring. rationale and condition number have been (no score A seemingly intractable situation, inserted. Thanks and sorry for the errors. change) nevertheless, the milestones and CAP suggest that a sufficiently responsive harvest strategy to meet SIa SG80 requirements will be developed for the species. Note that it is not stated in the SIa justification that a condition is raised nor is a condition number included at end of the table. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Milestones and the CAP Raised condition has been indicated in the Accepted indicate that well defined HCRs robust rationale and condition number have been (no score to the main uncertainties will be inserted. Thanks and sorry for the errors. change) developed to meet SG80 requirements for SIs a and b. Note that it is not stated in either the SIa or the SIb justifications that a condition is raised nor is a condition number included at end of the table. 1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Milestones and the CAP Raised condition has been indicated in the Accepted indicate that monitoring of abundance rationale and condition number have been (no score will be improved and indicators inserted. Thanks and sorry for the errors. change) developed to meet SG80 requirements for SIb. Note that it is not stated in the SIb justification that a condition is raised nor is a condition number included at end of the table. 1.2.4 NA - RBF used to score PI 1.1.1. No response necessary.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. In SIa justification, use Sentence has been clarified as suggested. Accepted of "Other than…" in reference to (no score shortfin squid is incorrect because it is change) the target species. Clearer to simply

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 181

SCS Global Services Report

state there are no main secondary species in the shortfin squid fishery.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No response necessary. Accepted (no score change)

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response necessary. Accepted (no score change)

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response necessary.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response necessary.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response necessary.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 182

SCS Global Services Report

Table 28. RBF Comments

PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Res- Scoring Information Peer Review stage) (as included in the Public Comment Draft ponse Report - PCDR) Code Perfor- Does the report Are the RBF risk PRs should provide support for their answers in CABs should summarise their response to the See codes mance clearly explain scores well- the left three columns by referring to specific Peer Reviewer comments in the CAB page for Indica- how the referenced? scoring issues and/or scoring elements, and any Response Code column and provide response tor (PI) process(es) relevant documentation as appropriate. Insert justification for their response in this column. options applied to additional rows for any PIs where discrete determine risk comments are raised e.g. for different scoring Where multiple comments are raised by Peer using the RBF issues (allowing CABs to give a different answer in Reviewers with more than one row for a has led to the each case). Paragraph breaks may also be made single PI, the CAB response should relate to stated within cells using the Alt-return key combination. the specific issues raised in each row. outcome? Note: Detailed justifications are only required CAB responses should include details of where answers given are one of the ‘No’ options'. where different changes have been made in In other cases, please either confirm ‘scoring the report (which section #, table etc). agreed’ or identify any places where weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores). 1.1.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response necessary. Accepted (RBF) (no score change)

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 183

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

During the stakeholder comment period of the ACDR, only the MSC Technical Oversight (Fisheries Standards Team and Supply Chain Standards Team) submitted comments. Below are the MSC comments as well as the assessment teams responses.

Table 27. MSC Technical Oversight for US Northeast Longfin Inshore Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery - Public Comment Draft Report

Page Requirement SubID Grade Oversight Description CAB comment Reference Version

Clarification on dealers (pg 85, footnote containing link): A list of licensed dealers that can receive the p. 85 FCR - Please provide the list of landing points where product is maintained at the GARFO Dealer Permit 29249 Section Guidance 7.19.4.2c the change of ownership of the shortfin squid website. Since the licensed dealer list is not static, the 5.3 v2.0 takes place. GARFO website is the most accurate resource to consult. The link and further information is provided as a footnote, within the body of the text.

Clarification on mixing between longfin and shortfin (pg 84, Table 12, section 4): ‘Other certified species Please confirm if there is any risk of mixing (i.e. longfin squid) is targeted by the same fleet, between certified shortfin squid and other however, the temporal and spatial differences in the species? If longfin squids are harvested on the p.84 Rows schooling of longfin and shortfin mean minimal FCR_7.12.1.1 UoC vessels, what is the measure in place to 29250 4 & 5, Guidance bycatch of either occurs. All sorting and processing v2.0 segregate between unique (certified) species? Table 12 occur on shore at the client’s facilities, and if catch is Further, please confirm processing only takes mixed, then the species will be separated/sorted by place after the change of ownership by the the onshore facilities. No sorting occurs on the vessel. client group and not on board the vessel? Because of the differences in tube shape and color as well as tentacles, it is easy to distinguish between species upon arrival at the client’s onshore

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 184

SCS Global Services Report

processing facilities in possession of a valid MSC CoC Certificate. ’

Clarification on processing (pg 84, Table 12, section 5): ‘In terms of at sea activity, the majority of the vessels use Refrigerated Sea Water (RSW) to ensure product quality till arrival at the processing plant. Some vessels do conduct sea frozen production, however, this does not impact visual identification of the species. No processing besides freezing occurs on the vessels and no on-deck sorting occurs. All further processing occurs at client’s processing facilities in possession of a valid MSC CoC Certificate.’

Section 5.1 paragraph 1 suggests the adequacy Clarification of beginning of ownership was added (pg of traceability system in place by the fishery 81, section 5.1 paragraph 1): "CoC begins at the client is to be assessed by a qualified CoC change of ownership (i.e. CoC is not required on auditor, but in section 5.3 SCS recommends vessels operating in the UoC)." CoC begins at the change of ownership. Please p.85 FCR- clarify it is not SCS’s intent for CoC to begin on Clarification of landed product (pg 82, section 5.2, 29251 section Minor 7.12.1.5c vessels? Separately, while product will mostly Product Unloading, Sale, and First Change of 5.3 v2.0 be landed directly at the client group members Ownership, paragraph 1): "Only product received by (who are the licensed dealers), what about the client group members, as listed on the fishery remaining landing? It is unclear if they will also certificate or from dealers that purchase and then be eligible to enter further chain of custody, sell directly to the client group, is eligible for and if they will always go to a licensed dealer certification." who will also require CoC certification.

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 185

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 4 Objections Process

NA at this stage

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 186

SCS Global Services Report

Version 3-0 (July 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC V2.0 Page 187